SB 2315 -Everything's Posted Bill

Meelosh

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Posts
1,302
Likes
12
Points
171
I’m having a hard time reconciling this personally with my views on private property rights vs my desire to hunt unencumbered. I’m not sure it will be the doom and gloom some predict but I do know it will impact waterfowl hunters the most.

Question for you waterfowlers, when you go out looking for a field/slough, do you go with the assumption that you’re going to have to get permission?
 


SLE

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
1,160
Likes
299
Points
263
I think it has much more potential to impact upland and coyotes hunters. At least with waterfowl, there’s a scouting component that go with chasing the birds. With coyotes and upland, you often times are at the discretion of the day, weather and where the animals have moved within a several mile area. I’ve put over 30k steps on my Fitbit on a given day chasing roosters. That’s more than walking a quarter or two! Add that to the fact a guy doesn’t want to beat the same spots over and over several weeks in a row and it adds to the growing list of concerns. For those of us that put more miles on our boots than shells through the gun following the nose of your favorite hunting buddy, this will have a significant negative impact.
 

Meelosh

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Posts
1,302
Likes
12
Points
171
I guess how I see it SLE, is I can look at a piece of ground and know that piece likely will hold a rooster or two based off the habitat. So that makes it relatively easy to have some go-to spots, at least for me. And biologically speaking, the birds are more evenly distributed across a landscape. Whereas waterfowl, the birds will be concentrated into say, 1,2,3 spots in an entire township and that spot/spots can change day to day. So, to have a go-to spot, I need pre-season permission from a lot of landowners for waterfowl and maybe only one or two for pheasants. Now obviously this is all dependent on how a guy goes about getting on some birds.
 
Last edited:

deleted member

Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,352
Likes
1,175
Points
488
Location
Devils Lake
good gravy pheasant hunting will be a shit show for those that live a long ways from where they hunt. frankly, short of one hunt a year where we know that particular landowner real good, i am not sure i will make another long trip to pheasant hunt again. regardless of which direction i go, its a 200+ mile trip that is gonna require a day or two of scouting for permission before actually hunting. this is depressing.

and don't get me started on waterfowl hunting.
 


Walleye_Chaser

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Posts
2,142
Likes
169
Points
303
Location
Fargo
Yeah this is depressing. So what is the push behind this bill? Who or what wants this done and why?
 

guywhofishes

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
29,404
Likes
6,320
Points
1,108
Location
Faaargo, ND
Yeah this is depressing. So what is the push behind this bill? Who or what wants this done and why?

that's what I keep asking myself - why - as a landowner it's not going to do me any good

- - - Updated - - -

the economics for small town hotels/motels is not good either
 


BBQBluesMan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Posts
1,578
Likes
34
Points
231
Location
Da Upper
From what I have heard from groups supporting the bill such as the Stockmens association, it is purely a private property rights issue. They feel the onus should not be on private landowners to have to tell people to not be on their land. Which I get, I do. My family owns land and nothing pisses us off more than having to deal with trespass and other BS. But... it will not stop ass hats from criminal trespass and/or poaching, defacing signs, etc. And if you think for a minute snowmobilers will stay in the ditch if this passes, boy will you be disappointed. This just really hurts the sportsmen and women who actually follow the laws, which by far is the majority.


I don’t know if there are other reasons for support of this bill, perhaps there are, but the one that is talked about the most is purely property rights and of course issues with the eco-terrorism antics of the DAPL debacle and lack of prosecution for trespass.


On a side note, the database they are talking about may sound good up front, but I also have serious concerns with it, primarily participation. Are people seriously willing to publicly broadcast to all hunters both residents and non residents, hey come hunt here! I don’t think so.

- - - Updated - - -

so as it is now snowmobilers can go where ever they want?

No, but they do anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

is there a similar house bill?

Nope, just Senate. If Senate passes, House votes. If House passes, Gov Burgum would need to sign into law. That’s how I understand it anyways. Aren’t you a lawyer, jeez. Haha jk! :D
 
Last edited:

SLE

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Posts
1,160
Likes
299
Points
263
Meelosh, dually noted as a person that hasn't hunted ducks and geese with any real passion for many years. I think for most of us that are very avid hunters and spend as much time in the field as we can, we're going to find this to be very disruptive and damaging in how we are able to pursue our passion and the right to the wild-life that is owned by all people of the state. I'm on the train that why fix something that many do not perceive to be broken. I probably only missed two to three weekends of pheasant season where I didn't chase birds. On any given weekend you might find me anywhere from McGregor to the Montana border, from Max to Parshall, down by turtle lake or Washburn, around Velva or Drake, possibly up near Glenburn, or somewhere along the lake. We make it a point NOT to hit the same place over and over and over again. We spread out our hunting activities and try to be good stewards of the wildlife. IF we find a really good spot with lots of birds, we might hit it 2-3 times the entire season but try not to go there more than once a month. It give the wildlife a break and allows that spot/location to be good for not only us, but for others that may also hunt it.

If we're to rely on public land that is currently available and or places that will allow access, I can assure you it will be overran within the first week or so of any given hunting season. I used to hunt around Audubon pretty often but with a continuous rise in pressure on the state land and refuge in that area, the bird numbers have plummeted. I have avoided it this year (2018), last year (2017) with two guys and three good dogs, we managed one lousy bird in 3 hours of continuous walking on opening day starting at daylight. This will be how much of the open land will end up.

If it's the time and or cost to post that is the concern, or the ability to prosecute those that do trespass on posted property, then I am all for finding ways for the state to ease the burden on the landowners. But lets not just jump to the nuclear launch button that's being pushed! Some argument has been made that landowners can post "Open to Hunting" if they want to avoid phone calls and or interruption if they intend to allow hunting. Every person should be able to acknowledge that there are vast expanses of private land where the land owner does not care and in the end they are not going to go through any extra burden to post that it is open to hunting. On top of that phone call will often times be avoided when the person doesn't recognize the number. In turn, that will be opportunity lost. I would about bet this will be the case with 50% or more of the current land that is not posted.

I've been actively following this thread and these are just some of the many thoughts that have been floating around my head.
 

deleted member

Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,352
Likes
1,175
Points
488
Location
Devils Lake
some days. lol. but, the way i understand it, its not uncommon for the house and senate to be having discussions on similar bills at the same time. so, there would be nothing preventing the house from having this in committee too and/or voting on it before the senate and passing it on to them first. twas why i asked. if there was one in the mill in the house, i wanted to reference it in my email.

thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

my email is sent. thanks to this thread and a few of the suggestions and emails included in it to help get me motivated and started.
 

deleted member

Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,352
Likes
1,175
Points
488
Location
Devils Lake
mine went to the 3 in my district, the 2 districts next to us in the "lake region" and the AG committee thanks to njsimonson. don't really expect a response. but, hope they read it anyway.
 
Last edited:


zoops

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
1,855
Likes
230
Points
288
No doubt the bird hunting/coyote hunting would be impacted the most. I've cut back a lot on waterfowl hunting due to several factors, but one certainly being the problem of finding landowners if you do happen to find birds while out scouting. Making it so every spot you find would fall into that category would definitely be unfortunate. I can see us turning more like MN where you stick to the small areas where you have standing permission or know you can get it and you don't stray from that much. I probably never would have gotten much into hunting if this law had been enacted 20 years ago. My family had no connections to land (city folk) and I was interested in hunting so my dad and I would go sneak ducks on the weekends; with limited funds and 4 younger siblings at home I doubt we would have stuck with it.
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,653
Likes
1,604
Points
573
Location
Valley City
Keep in mind folks, that the ND legislature is looking at not only making everything posted based on the complaints of a VERY small fraction of the folks that live here, but are also looking at selling a good portion of what few plots of land that are still public withing ND (the school lands). Keep in mind that they have all stated that they are their for you and doing what they can to make your life better. Anyone else see a problem here??
 

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,192
Likes
778
Points
483
Keep in mind folks, that the ND legislature is looking at not only making everything posted based on the complaints of a VERY small fraction of the folks that live here, but are also looking at selling a good portion of what few plots of land that are still public withing ND (the school lands). Keep in mind that they have all stated that they are their for you and doing what they can to make your life better. Anyone else see a problem here??

https://nodakangler.com/forums/show...ools-Trust-Fund-for-property-tax-relief/page2

view the very first post or #21
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,739
Likes
718
Points
438
Location
williston
good gravy pheasant hunting will be a shit show for those that live a long ways from where they hunt. frankly, short of one hunt a year where we know that particular landowner real good, i am not sure i will make another long trip to pheasant hunt again. regardless of which direction i go, its a 200+ mile trip that is gonna require a day or two of scouting for permission before actually hunting. this is depressing.

and don't get me started on waterfowl hunting.
when it boils down to making one or possibly two long distance runs to hunt it'll become extremely easy to say screw it and not go. The piece of shit legislators have no idea how bad this would get. This is what happens when a certain segment owns certain legislators.
 

labhunter66

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Posts
559
Likes
44
Points
178
This goes a little beyond simply being a property rights issue. I understand some of the pains landowners have with trespassers. I rarely hunt unposted land except for coyotes and I have strong relationships with a few landowners that get me onto posted property. I've seen some of the issues they have had to deal with, however, my point on going beyond property rights solely is the fact that the resource that is being denied access to is a public resource. It belongs to the people not the landowner. I don't think it's too much to ask of a landowner, that if they want to deny the publics right to the publics resource, to post their land. All property they own within 1/4 mile of their occupied buildings is already automatically posted, which I'm totally fine with, but idiots still violate that law. This will do nothing to ease landowner trespass issues. It's simply a landowner feel good measure and nothing more.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 423
  • This month: 398
  • This month: 133
  • This month: 122
  • This month: 119
  • This month: 112
  • This month: 96
  • This month: 89
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 75
Top Bottom