SB 2315 - In Cmte 3/14 - ACTION REQUIRED!

[njsimonson]

Yesterday SB 2315 was set for a dual hearing in both the House Ag and House Energy & Natural Resources Committee. The date of these hearings is Mar. 14 at 8:30 a.m.

As amended...

1) This bill does NOTHING to prevent trespassing (a very minor problem), is more lenient on criminals, and will catch up a lot of innocent people in the process of its confusing implementation, which is not mandatory county-to-county;
2) This bill's proposed database is putting the cart before the horse, and says nothing about the cost to sportsmen/taxpayers; though one or both will bear the cost as the sponsors and their special interests get off with paying nothing for this poorly-worded "solution" to a problem they've manufactured;
3) This bill has become solely geared to hunting, it is not private property rights bill anymore;
4) This bill creates a level of complexity that will deter people from hunting, a $2.1B economic impact in ND;
5) Ultimately, a study or interim proposal should be issued to examine the impacts and costs of this bill, before 90 years of good law and >1M acres of public access are thrown out for the sake of the wealthy special interest groups at the expense of hunters!

If you can make it, PLEASE SHOW UP to provide testimony and request that these committees issue a DO NOT PASS recommendation. If you cannot make it please email the committees your testimony AND FLOOD THEIR INBOXES WITH SPORTSMAN OPPOSITION TO THIS ANTI-HUNTING BILL!

House Ag: djohnson@nd.gov; wtrottier@nd.gov; gdobervich@nd.gov; jblum@nd.gov; rbuffalo@nd.gov; jayfisher@nd.gov; cheadland@nd.gov; dhkiefert@nd.gov; amcwilliams@nd.gov; dwrichter@nd.gov; blsatrom@nd.gov; cschreiberbeck@nd.gov; kskroch@nd.gov; btveit@nd.gov


House Natural Resources: tkporter@nd.gov; cdamschen@nd.gov; meidson@nd.gov; dickanderson@nd.gov; gdbosch@nd.gov; bdevlin@nd.gov; pdheinert@nd.gov; gkeiser@nd.gov; mlefor@nd.gov; amarschall@nd.gov; amitskog@nd.gov; sroersjones@nd.gov; tbjones@nd.gov; mruby@nd.gov; dzubke@nd.gov

Additionally, please email your representatives in total and request that they VOTE NO on what has become the worst possible solution to an overhyped and relatively minor problem, oversold to landowners who have been exploited by the Special Interests behind the bill.

mkadams@nd.gov;bertanderson@nd.gov; dickanderson@nd.gov; pkanderson@nd.gov; tbeadle@nd.gov; rcbecker@nd.gov; lbellew@nd.gov; jblum@nd.gov; tboe@nd.gov;gdbosch@nd.gov; jboschee@nd.gov; mbrandenburg@nd.gov; rbuffalo@nd.gov; cdamschen@nd.gov; jdelzer@nd.gov; bdevlin@nd.gov; gdobervich@nd.gov; jddockter@nd.gov; meidson@nd.gov; sertelt@nd.gov; cfegley@nd.gov; jayfisher@nd.gov; jgrueneich@nd.gov; rguggisberg@nd.gov; lbhager@nd.gov; krhanson@nd.gov; phatlestad@nd.gov; cheadland@nd.gov; pdheinert@nd.gov; rholman@nd.gov;jahoverson@nd.gov; mchowe@nd.gov; craigjohnson@nd.gov; djohnson@nd.gov; marycjohnson@nd.gov; dljohnston@nd.gov; tbjones@nd.gov; tkading@nd.gov; kkarls@nd.gov; jkasper@nd.gov;gkeiser@nd.gov; kkempenich@nd.gov; dhkiefert@nd.gov; lklemin@nd.gov; bkoppelman@nd.gov; kkoppelman@nd.gov; gkreidt@nd.gov; vrlaning@nd.gov; mlefor@nd.gov; dlongmuir@nd.gov;sclouser@nd.gov; jmagrum@nd.gov; amarschall@nd.gov; bmartinson@nd.gov; amcwilliams@nd.gov; lmeier@nd.gov; amitskog@nd.gov;crmock@nd.gov; dmonson@nd.gov; mrnathe@nd.gov; jonelson@nd.gov; menelson@nd.gov; eobrien@nd.gov; mowens@nd.gov; bpaulson@nd.gov;gpaur@nd.gov; cpollert@nd.gov; tkporter@nd.gov; bpyle@nd.gov; dwrichter@nd.gov;sroersjones@nd.gov; kmrohr@nd.gov; druby@nd.gov;mruby@nd.gov; masanford@nd.gov; blsatrom@nd.gov; mischatz@nd.gov; aschauer@nd.gov; jeschmidt@nd.gov; mschneider@nd.gov; rschobinger@nd.gov; cschreiberbeck@nd.gov; lsimons@nd.gov; kskroch@nd.gov; vsteiner@nd.gov; mstrinden@nd.gov; nptoman@nd.gov; wtrottier@nd.gov; btveit@nd.gov; smvetter@nd.gov;dwvigesaa@nd.gov; rweisz@nd.gov; gwestlind@nd.gov;dzubke@nd.gov

 

[eyexer]

Done

 

[PrairieGhost]

Done

 

[KDM]

Sent this and titled it "Vote NO on SB 2315" so they don't even have to read it to get my message:

Greetings, I'm writing this letter to express my opposition and displeasure to the needless waste of legislative resources known as SB 2315. The significant detrimental aspects of this bill in terms of monetary losses to ND, unnecessary increases in the complexities of law, cost increases for useless data bases, losses of long held traditions in ND, and the negative impacts to interpersonal relationships between the citizens of ND across this great state have been well illustrated using facts, figures, and evidence. Comparatively, proponents of this bill have failed to show how this bill will be of any benefit the people of ND or how this bill will prevent or reduce any illegal activity whatsoever and only have opinions and conjecture to support their claims. SB 2315 is NOT in the best interests of ND and I strongly urge each and every one of you to vote NO on SB 2315.

Thank You,

(My name), ND landowner and sportsman

 

[fireone]

I emailed too and thanks for the update on the hearing. I also requested a reply from my 2 House members. They aren't going to slide if they vote for this, I want them on the record.

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

Emails sent! Thanks again, Nick!

 

[Wirehair]

I spoke with a representative today and he has received a significant amount of correspondence relating to SB2315. He suggested that he is hearing from a lot of constituents that are in favor of the bill. Time is short. If you have not contacted all or at lease your representatives, now is the time. Five minutes and done.

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

I received one response thus far:

"7 states surrounding ND have all lands as closed to hunt without permission, this bill opens all lands unless the landowner should chose to do differently on individual partials.

The basics behind SB 2315 have been around for many years and been contentious between landowners and sportsmen.

I do believe that SB 2315, in it’s current amended form, is something that meets all parties concerns in a positive mannerand most I have communicated with seem to concur. This, as any new law, is not perfect, but I believe it is a good start and together we can build a great product.

First off, the current bill has been amended, (see page 3, Section 2, lines 23 thru 31) to list all lands as “open” to hunt, requiring the land owner to do something different if he/she choses to require the hunter to ask permission or totally close a land partial to hunting all together. The original bill listed everything as “closed” to hunting and this was of concerns from both landowners and hunters.

The balance of the bill, 4, 5 and 6, describe various aspects and provide for a Legislative Management study over the 2019-20 interim. Subsection 6 provides for a Hunters access advisory group.

​The hunters access advisory group consists of:
a.The agriculture commissioner or the commissioner's designee;
b.The director or the director's designee;
c.The chief information officer or the officer's designee;
d.A representative of the North Dakota association of counties;
e.Two members of an agriculture committee; and,
f. Two members of a sportsmen committee

In passing SB 2315, as written and coupled with the legislative study, I believe we can and will enhance landowner/hunter relations as well as provide for a positive, proactive future to our ND Outdoors for generations to come. Please join me in helping to pass SB 2315 and improving it through the study.

To read and research SB 2315, go to nd.gov, then “ND Legislative Branch” website, find the “Send me to bill number (______)”, type in 2315. It is an easy read, only 6 pages with about 1 ½ pages lined out. Form your opinion and contact me btveit@nd.gov before Thursday, 14 March.


Bill Tveit, District 33ND House of Representatives
701-870-4014 "

 

[Duckslayer100]

^^^absolute crock of shit

 

[PrairieGhost]

​The hunters access advisory group consists of:
a.The agriculture commissioner or the commissioner's designee;
b.The director or the director's designee;
c.The chief information officer or the officer's designee;
d.A representative of the North Dakota association of counties;
e.Two members of an agriculture committee; and,
f. Two members of a sportsmen committee

The real makeup of that committee would be interesting to know.

 

[fireone]

Received 3 replies, 1 was just thanks, 1 was the canned response above, and 1 was against 2315. You'd think 140,000 hunters would give a damn but apparently it's too much work to take 5 minutes to protect hunting.

 

[ndlongshot]

When they say that they are hearing support, I call BS. They are just telling us that because they have already made up their minds. I guarantee most input is negative but they dont want to hear it so they claim otherwise. Its all a big front. Remember how these folks vote and then vote them out of office.

 

[Coyote Hunter]

I sent personal emails to each of my Representatives. I also emailed both committees and every other representative as well.

People, get off your butts and send in emails. It can and does make a difference...

Just copy and paste KDM's email. If you have any questions on how to do it, just ask. Get to sending people. Thanks

 

[PrairieGhost]

When they say that they are hearing support, I call BS.

Same here. I don't believe anything else that person ever says. They twist words too. They may get ten against and one for and say they are hearing support. They want you to jump to the conclusion that most support. If not an outright lie it certainly is deception.

I often hear the media talk about Washington gridlock as if it's a bad thing. This bill reminds me of that situation. I think often we are better off when politicians don't get anything done.

 

[Skoalongcut]

Another e-mail sent.

 

[BBQBluesMan]

This “Hunters Access Database” is confusing, is destined for failure and actually benefits the lazy slob “hunters”. If a landowner does not enter their land in the database and designate all or portions of it in one of the three categories, it will automatically be green on the database – open to hunters. So instead of people getting off their ass and putting on the miles finding these hidden gems, they can fire up an app which will show them exactly where to go hunt. How convenient!!

Soon after landowners experience problems with too many people coming to their land because it was on a database that EVERYONE can see and come hunt on, they will put their land in red. No hunting and don’t ask! The red category does not require contact information.

How many landowners are going to be willing to put their contact information for the “yellow” category – posted – but can hunt with permission? The answer is not that many because why on earth would a landowner want to broadcast their contact info for the world to see? Eventually this hunters “access” database will be a sea of red.

Not only is this database destined for failure, but the older generation will be left in the dust. My dad for example, bless his heart, cannot run a smartphone. He can make calls and kind of text, but that is it. There are many retired folks who are in the same boat. Should you have to use a smartphone and an app to go hunting? NO! Not only that, but cell service is so damn spotty in Nodak.

I agree with Coyote Hunter, if you enjoy freelance hunting in North Dakota, contact the House and let them know your thoughts. IMPORTANT- be courteous and respectful in your comments. I have seen some truly disturbing comments from both sides of this bill online from internet keyboard warriors. Think before you speak (type)!!

 

[guywhofishes]

When they say that they are hearing support, I call BS. They are just telling us that because they have already made up their minds. I guarantee most input is negative but they dont want to hear it so they claim otherwise. Its all a big front. Remember how these folks vote and then vote them out of office.

yep - like I said months ago on this topic... money talks
what they're trying to say is "hearing support (from people who matter)"

our society's problem is not removing people like this from office

it must be some natural self-loathing thing that every really successful culture eventually suffer from - internal rot of some sort

 

[BBQBluesMan]

When they say that they are hearing support, I call BS. They are just telling us that because they have already made up their minds. I guarantee most input is negative but they dont want to hear it so they claim otherwise. Its all a big front. Remember how these folks vote and then vote them out of office.

They absolutely are hearing support on this bill from landowners. The special interest groups are pushing their members hard on this bill to contact Reps and have it passed.

Hunters in general, rarely get involved in legislative actions and that needs to change. If you have not emailed the House on this bill, get to it!

I am all for private property rights, always have been and always will be. My family owns land that someday my siblings and I will inherit. The big issue is this bill does absolutely nothing to deter trespassing/poaching!!

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

I visited with one rancher I know well. He said his family most likely won't participate in the database but will instead continue to use metal and paper POSTED signs the way they always have. He didn't understand the big push for this legislation but heard it was due to DAPL. I had a good conversation with him but I doubt he cares enough one way or the other to talk to his legislator about the issue.

How will landowner/sportsmen relations be once thousands of people see a prime parcel of deer hunting land marked as "open" on the database only to find it's marked "posted" with physical signs in the legally required locations? I predict trespassing violations will increase with the implementation of the database and ultimately the database will be scrapped. This bill has disaster written all over it!

For all the outcry from sportsmen when this bill was introduced to the Senate it sure is quiet now. I sure hope sportsmen are still engaged in the issue and voicing their opinion to the legislators.

 

[BBQBluesMan]

I visited with one rancher I know well. He said his family most likely won't participate in the database but will instead continue to use metal and paper POSTED signs the way they always have. He didn't understand the big push for this legislation but heard it was due to DAPL. I had a good conversation with him but I doubt he cares enough one way or the other to talk to his legislator about the issue.

How will landowner/sportsmen relations be once thousands of people see a prime parcel of deer hunting land marked as "open" on the database only to find it's marked "posted" with physical signs in the legally required locations? I predict trespassing violations will increase with the implementation of the database and ultimately the database will be scrapped. This bill has disaster written all over it!

For all the outcry from sportsmen when this bill was introduced to the Senate it sure is quiet now. I sure hope sportsmen are still engaged in the issue and voicing their opinion to the legislators.

This database is so damn confusing.. The way I understand it is if the County your friend lives in enters this database and he does not designate his land in one of the three categories, it will be labeled as open on the database..

A landowner or lawful occupant may designate which of the three categories in subsection 1 applies to the landowner's or occupant's land. Land for which a landowner or lawful occupant does not designate a category must be indicated in thedatabase as open to hunters if the county in which the land is located is included in the database.

If the county your friend lives in doesnt enter the database, things will be normal (no posted signs - can hunt / posted -must have permission).

But then SB 2315 goes on to say that:

After a county is included in the database:

a. A hunter may not enter land in the county which is designated in the database as closed to hunters or open to hunters with permission unless the hunter has permission to enter the land or otherwise is entitled to enter the land. A hunter is guilty of an infraction for a first knowing violation and a class B misdemeanor for a second and subsequent knowing violation of this subdivision; and

b. A hunter without permission may enter land in the county which is not designated in the database as closed to hunters or open to hunters with permission , unless the land is posted in accordance with section 20.1 - 01 - 17.

Confusing to say the least. So if a landowner that lives in a county that has entered the database does not designate his or her land in one of the three categories, it will be shown as "open" on the database. But if they post it, it will be off limits. That ought to not confuse anyone, lol.

Can anyone answer these questions?

Are all counties required to enter the database?

If not, whom decides in the counties of North Dakota to enter their respective county in the database??

What if a landowner doesnt care if people hunt waterfowl or upland but want their land posted for deer season?

The cost and logistics of this "access" database are going to be a disaster. Talk about a huge waste of money and time.