Sb 2315 - final house vote delayed!!

[eliminator]

db according to the role call above Boe did vote yes for the part that failed if I read it right

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

db according to the role call above Boe did vote yes for the part that failed if I read it right

Looks like you are correct. The pic posted on page 3 or 4 of the section B vote tally has Boe voting “Yes”

 

[CrankB8]

Headland admitted that he dug up section lines to keep hunters out. Oops guess he said to smooth out the section lines so his grain trucks could get in and out of the fields. He got pinched for too many fish last summer. What a self serving sack of shit. Hunt my ass. His guns were taken away for 1 year.

You are correct. Haven’t heard about the too many fish deal but he did lose guns for 1 year. I work with a close relative of his and he was texting his view points right before session. He now knows he lost at the very least 8 votes next election. He also hasn’t hunted for anything in years

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't he also get a plead down wreckless driving last fall? right before the election ?

He did. Lost license for 6 months, gun rights for 1 year (although he’s still in possession of them), and fines. Hitches rides to Bismarck every Sunday during session.

 

[db-2]

Elimator and Jimbo:
I'm going to canada shed hunting for a week at 4 tomorrow morning.
Guess i need to straight this out in my own mind when i get back.
was there two items to vote on and for me item b was the important one so maybe he vote no on A but yes on B.
In any event i hope he has not misled me. DB

 

[Retired-Guy]

Emails sent!

 

[BBQBluesMan]

Still waiting for a first hand account from yesterday’s floor vote from Tveit’s right hand man. A member on here who claimed to be against this bill. I think we knew his intentions all along.

 

[feather_duster]

Emailed Headland and expressed my disappointment for pushing his own agenda basically and hope his district see’s that and he got back this morning with “a lot of property owners live there”. Think he’s still drunk from last dui arrest. Well dui if it was one of us in that same situation

 

[1bigfokker]

http://publicsearch.ndcourts.gov/
Southeast district
Criminal/traffic
Enter the name
Hit search at lower left

 

[Obi-Wan]

F you beat me to it. What did he do to loose his gun rights the search doesn't show any felonies?

 

[CrankB8]

F you beat me to it. What did he do to loose his gun rights the search doesn't show any felonies?

Just part of his plea deal to get the dui off his record.

 

[1bigfokker]

Read it all

 

[Dirty]

This is the first time I've paid so much attention to a legislative topic. I saw two types of representatives throughout the hearings and sessions that I watched. I'm specifically talking about the representatives, not the attendees at the hearings (such as illegitimate hunters).
I am a landowner. I am in a family of landowners. I am a hunter (sometimes legitimate and sometimes illegitimate). These were my observations:

One type (and most of them were non-hunting ag folks overwhelmingly in support of this bill) were pushing their own agenda for their own direct benefit. In no way, shape, or form did they appear to be the acting as a voice of the people in their district. They were against wildlife programs, against hunting, against anyone but themselves pretty much. Lots of chips on their shoulders. They were largely unwilling to listen to compromise or any other perspective. They often times were red-faced and pissed off that there could possibly be another perspective other than their own. They clearly were not considering viewpoints of their voters if not dovetailing their own. Right up to the end they used threats if things didn't go their way. Their behavior was often pretty disgusting.

The other type (and most seemed to be non-hunting (or at least not actively hunting on a regular basis) representatives that were against this bill) truly seemed to be analyzing the information they had before them and processing the concerns that had been brought forth to them so they could make the best decision that represented their voters. They weren't claiming to have all the answers, but just didn't believe this bill was the answer. They made really good examples of what a representative should be and should do at these sessions. No special interests, no self-serving agenda, no shenanigans, no settling for an ill-advised plan. They were calm and collected when explaining themselves. Overall, the way they handled themselves on such a heated topic was impressive. They restored some faith in humanity for me, EVEN if they were for this bill.

 

[Bed Wetter]

Maybe this has been pointed out, but you can thank Little Minneapolis for this victory. I checked on the 20 reps that cover the 10 major districts here and there were 20 “Nay” votes. (...unless I missed someone)

You’re welcome, NDA!!

ETA: Just sent a polite email to my reps that voted No.

 

[guywhofishes]

one more reason to wear my Dickinson State shirts/jackets when I interact with ranchers/farmers out west

 

[roosterfish]

Great analogy Dirty!! This were my thoughts as well. Now" IF" this doesn't change, going forward how can we be proactive and look into getting state land open to hunting during the season (No Grazing)?? Adding public lands?? making ditches open to hunting? Because you know THEY will be coming after this again!! This has "Broken" the relationship between Farmer and Sportsmen As I see it not helped in any way!!!!

 

[eyexer]

Why would they include trappers in Division A?

 

[yellowlab]

Because you already need permission to trap or snare on private land. As far as trapping/snaring it changes nothing.

Why would they include trappers in Division A?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

From the beginning I said it would be nice if the onus wasn't on landowners to have to post against trespass. At the very same time language should be written saying hunting is not trespass. SB 2315 was divided into Division A and Division B at the very last minute. That kind of blew up the carriers preparation. What passed yesterday:

19.0896.02009
Sixty-sixth
Legislative Assembly
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Senators Erbele, Patten, Unruh
Representatives Boe, Schmidt, Westlind

A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 20.1-18 of the North Dakota Century Code,
relating to a database identifying whether private land is open to hunters; to amend and reenact
sections 12.1-22-03, 20.1-01-17, 20.1-01-18, 20.1-01-19, 20.1-01-20, and 20.1-03-42 of the
North Dakota Century Code, relating to criminal trespass and hunting on private land; to provide
a statement of legislative intent; to provide for a legislative management study of access to
land; and to provide a penalty to repeal sections 20.1-01-17 and 20.1-01-20; to provide for a
report to the legislative management and interim legislative committees; to provide a penalty; to
provide a contingent effective date; to provide a contingent expiration date; and to declare an
emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 12.1-22-03 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:
12.1-22-03. Criminal trespass - Noncriminal offense on posted property.
1. An individual is guilty of a class C felony if, knowing that that individual is not licensed
or privileged to do so, the individual enters or remains in a dwelling or in highly
secured premises.
2. An individual is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, knowing that that the individual is
not licensed or privileged to do so, the individual:
a. Enters or remains in or on any building, occupied structure, or storage
structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or
b. Enters or remains in any place so enclosed as manifestly to exclude intruders of a
building or structure, or any other place the individual is not licensed or privileged
to be, except as provided in subsection 3 and sections 20.1 - 01 - 18, 20.1 - 01 - 19 ,
and 20.1 - 03 - 42 , and 20.1 - 18 - 03 .
Page No. 1 19.0896.02009

3. a. An individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, knowing that that individual is
not licensed or privileged to do so, the individual enters or remains in any place
as to which notice against trespass is given by actual communication to the actor
by the individual in charge of the premises or other authorized individual or by
posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders. The
name of the person posting the premises must appear on each sign in legible
characters.
b. Even if the conduct of the owner, tenant, or individual authorized by the owner
varies from the provisions of subdivision a, an individual may be found guilty of
violating subdivision a if the owner, tenant, or individual authorized by the owner
substantially complied with subdivision a and notice against trespass is clear
from the circumstances.
c. An individual who violates subdivision a is guilty of a class A misdemeanor for the
second or subsequent offense within a two-year period.

4. a. An individual, knowing the individual is not licensed or privileged to do so, may
not enter or remain in a place as to which notice against trespass is given by
posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruder on
property that is privately owned and open to the public after being requested to
leave the property by a duly authorized individual. A violation of this subdivision is
a noncriminal offense.
b. A peace officer shall cite an individual who violates subdivision a or commits a
noncriminal offense under section 20.1-01-18 with a fine of two hundred fifty
dollars for each violation.
c. The peace officer citing the individual shall:
(1) Take the name and address of the individual; and
(2) Notify the individual of the right to request a hearing if posting bond by mail.
d. The peace officer may not take the individual into custody or require the
individual to proceed with the peace officer to any other location for the purpose
of posting bond. The officer shall provide the individual with an envelope for use
in mailing the bond.
e. An individual cited may appear before the designated official and pay the
statutory fine for the violation at or before the time scheduled for hearing.
f. If the individual has posted bond, the individual may forfeit bond by not appearing
at the designated time.
g. If the individual posts bond by mail, the bond must be submitted within fourteen
days of the date of the citation and the individual cited shall indicate on the
envelope or citation whether a hearing is requested. If the individual does not
request a hearing within fourteen days of the date of the citation, the bond is
deemed forfeited and the individual is deemed to have admitted to the violation
and to have waived the right to a hearing on the issue of commission of the
violation. If the individual requests a hearing, the court for the county in which the
citation is issued shall issue a summons to the individual requesting the hearing
notifying the individual of the date of the hearing before the designated official.
h. Upon appearing at the hearing scheduled in the citation or otherwise scheduled
at the individual's request, the individual may make a statement in explanation of
the individual's action. The official may at that time waive or suspend the statutory
fine or bond.
i. A citing peace officer may not receive the statutory fine or bond.
j. The bond required to secure appearance before the judge must be identical to
the statutory fine established in subdivision b.
5. An individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if that individual remains upon the
property of another after being requested to leave the property by a duly authorized
individual. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a class A
misdemeanor for the second or subsequent offense within a two-year period.
6.4. This section does not apply to a:
a. A peace officer in the course of discharging the peace officer's official duties; or
b. An individual who enters land to access buried and aboveground infrastructure
for operations, inspection, repair, or maintenance purposes, if the individual has a
right to operate, inspect, repair, or maintain the infrastructure.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-18 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:
20.1-01-18. Hunting on posted land and trapping on private land without permission
unlawful - Penalty.
No individual may hunt or pursue game, or enter for those purposes, upon legally
posted land belonging to another without first obtaining the permission of the person legally
entitled to grant the same permission, unless the land is legally posted or the individual is
requested to leave by a duly authorized person. No person A person may not enter upon
privately owned land for the purpose of trapping protected fur-bearing animals without first
gaining the written permission of the owner or operator of that land. A person who violates this
section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor noncriminal offense subject to the fines and
procedures under subsection 3 of section 12.1-22-03 for the first offense and a class A
misdemeanor for a subsequent offense within a two-year period unless the land is designated
as closed to hunters or open to hunters with permission under section 20.1 - 18 - 02 or the land is legally posted in accordance with section 20.1 - 01 - 17 .

SECTION 7. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-20 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:
20.1-01-20. Entering posted private land with a hunting license and a gun or firearm
prima facie evidence of intent to hunt game. Proof that a person having an individua l had a firearm, or other weapon declared legal by governor's proclamation, in the person's possession and a valid license to hunt game in the
relevant area when the individua l or a group including the individua l entered upon the legally posted private premises of another without permission of the owner or tenant is prima facie evidence the person individua l or the group including the individua l entered to hunt or pursue game.

SECTION 8. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-03-42 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:
20.1-03-42. Guiding on prohibited lands.
1. A person may not act as a hunting guide or hunting outfitter on land the person knows
is owned by the state unless the appropriate state agency permits or authorizes the
guiding or outfitting, on private land enrolled by the department for purposes of
hunting, on land in which the department pays in lieu of taxes, or on federal lands
without being authorized or permitted as required by the appropriate federal agency,
or.
2. A person may not act as a hunting guide or outfitter on private lands that are posted
against hunting or trespassing under section 20.1 - 01 - 17 or private lands that are
designated as closed to hunters or open to hunters with permission under section
20.1 - 18 - 02 , without first informing and obtaining permission from the landowner to
conduct guiding or outfitting on the land. If the landowner did not grant the permission
in writing, there is a presumption that the permission did not exist.

SECTION 11. EDUCATION AND MARKETING. The game and fish department and the
tourism division of the department of commerce shall provide public education and marketing
regarding the changes to land access in this Act.

Division B was voted down. What was in it was a committee formed to bring real sportsmen to the table to visit about green yellow red apps and other talks to resolve this impasse. Two years from now the committee would give its recommendations to the legislature. The hammer was...… if sportsmen don't come to the table, then the law becomes all land is considered posted.

For my part every lawmaker gets an F. Talking about if we don't get this then we'll post everything up tight. That's bad. Talking about how USFWS easements are bad and then attacking sportsmen for going to DC lobbying against farmers. Wrong, real sportsmen don't do fly ins to DC, that is certain non-profits. Watch each proponent Representative complain that there is no working with these certain individuals who claim to represent sportsmen. The whole shit got turned into a rural verses city debacle.

There were no real sportsmen there yesterday. Carmen Miller from Ducks Unlimited, Keith Trego from ND Dakota Natural Resources Trust and John Bradley from the ND wildlife federation.

What would I like to see? Throw everything and change Section 7 too read:

SECTION 7. AMENDMENT.
Entering unposted private land with a hunting license and a gun or firearm
prima facie evidence of intent to hunt game is not trespass. Proof that a person having an individual had a firearm, or other weapon declared legal by governor's proclamation, in the person's possession and a valid license to hunt game in the
relevant area when the individual or a group including the individual entered upon the unposted private premises of another without permission of the owner or tenant is prima facie evidence the person individual or the group including the individual entered to hunt or pursue game is not trespass.​

Probably not possible.

 

[TFX 186]

Fritz, You and GST can suck it!!!


Fish On!

 

[bravo]

The whole “sportsmen need to come to the table” is what gets me. Like I said before, when I communicated my thoughts, many times I was told that all hunters do is litter and shoot the place up, and somehow there was nothing a landowner could do so we need to pass this. The app idea had potential, but when I asked that they come up with an idea of who will fund/operate/maintain it before passing this bill, I was told it should pass and then they could figure it out. I thought the “2 years or everything is automatically passed” ultimatum was a bad idea since someone could purposely gridlock in order to get their way. I suggested a voluntary $5 license fee to go towards metal signs, I suggested perhaps legacy money expanding PLOTS, and paying for “deputy” game wardens to help enforce all these trespassing and property damage incidents. Increasing the minimum fines. All suggestions I made, yet I’m not “coming to the table” because I won’t cede that this is somehow the best bill written, and needs no compromise. Also, everyone who’s argument back is they they should be able to picnic in my yard whenever they want, come on over. Hope you like miller lite otherwise byob. Just support me when I want my dwelling taxed like my land. Why don’t we all come to the table and be honest. Some don’t want people to even look at their land, they’ll never be happy. Some don’t mind hunters but have been messed with, let’s talk about what could be done. Some just want to know who’s out there. This bill wouldn’t have made anyone happy since it wouldn’t stop crime, and would have pushed more acres out of access. I’m happy with the bills division as a compromise. Rant over.


Stay thirsty my illegitimate friends.