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

[scrotcaster]

I contacted my rep. Jeff Magrum, he said "I don’t know how I will vote yet". I appreciated he took the time to write me back.

 

[yellowlab]

Just an update since there is a lot of old information being talked about, and people are looking at old versions. This is understandable because they are not keeping the legislative website current with the status of this bill. Here is a summary of the CURRENT status of SB2315. The house ag committee amended the bill late on friday to create a 13 member board that shall report back to the legislature with a recommendation by August 1, 2020. If this committee fails to agree on a recommendation, the bill will revert back to it's original form and all land will be considered posted. It will most likely be heard on the house floor tomorrow (Wednesday).

 

[TFX 186]

The Senate version was hoghoused and completely rewritten. This should be what came out of the House Ag Committee. The poison pill is the No Trespass default for the sunset clauses.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nL...GD1GQQdreWjWCHbnLF6iTpkAhgAP9nb9DlFHP-cx1uWWM

Page 7, lines 14-24

Can anyone give us the exact version the house will be voting on?? If I am reading this bill right, it states in section 5, page 7, lines 14-24 that it is a straight up no trespass bill. No hunting or pursuing game or trapping on private land without permission. I've heard so many different variations and would like to sound educated when I email my reps again. Shit, I wonder if the house even has the version they will be voting on? Thanks.
Fish On!

- - - Updated - - -

Just an update since there is a lot of old information being talked about, and people are looking at old versions. This is understandable because they are not keeping the legislative website current with the status of this bill. Here is a summary of the CURRENT status of SB2315. The house ag committee amended the bill late on friday to create a 13 member board that shall report back to the legislature with a recommendation by August 1, 2020. If this committee fails to agree on a recommendation, the bill will revert back to it's original form and all land will be considered posted. It will most likely be heard on the house floor tomorrow (Wednesday).

Do we know the makeup of this 13 member board? Will it be loaded up with one sided opinion? As Eye mentioned before, what's the insentive to find a resolution if it reverts back to the form let out of ag committee? Why would it not revert back to the way the law is now if there is no resolution? If it's going to revert back to the ag committee markup, then they will or should be voting on that version before it goes to the 13 member committee. If it doesn't pass the house vote it wouldn't be studied before the 13 member committee. Hope this isn't confusing, I'm just trying to understand the thinking here with this new committee to study this shit bill and kick it down the road for another year only for concerned citizens to forget about it and then all of a sudden we have a decision out of nowhere.
Fish On!!

 

[Chas'n Tail]

I've emailed my district 6 reps 3 times now, Vedaa, Anderson, and Johnson. Haven't heard boo from any one of them. Kinda disappointed, but also kinda not surprised.

 

[fireone]

Can anyone give us the exact version the house will be voting on?? If I am reading this bill right, it states in section 5, page 7, lines 14-24 that it is a straight up no trespass bill. No hunting or pursuing game or trapping on private land without permission. I've heard so many different variations and would like to sound educated when I email my reps again. Shit, I wonder if the house even has the version they will be voting on? Thanks.
Fish On!

- - - Updated - - -



Do we know the makeup of this 13 member board? Will it be loaded up with one sided opinion? As Eye mentioned before, what's the incentive to find a resolution if it reverts back to the form let out of ag committee? Why would it not revert back to the way the law is now if there is no resolution? If it's going to revert back to the ag committee markup, then they will or should be voting on that version before it goes to the 13 member committee. If it doesn't pass the house vote it wouldn't be studied before the 13 member committee. Hope this isn't confusing, I'm just trying to understand the thinking here with this new committee to study this shit bill and kick it down the road for another year only for concerned citizens to forget about it and then all of a sudden we have a decision out of nowhere.
Fish On!!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nL...GD1GQQdreWjWCHbnLF6iTpkAhgAP9nb9DlFHP-cx1uWWM
is the version that will be voted. ALL private land will be No Trespass. The bill was written on purpose to default to No Trespass state wide. Sportsmen have only until tomorrow morning to contact House members.

 

[eyexer]

If the committee cannot come up with an agreeable solution, stalemate if you will, the whole works gets locked down to full no trespass like it originally was. I told Richter that is a nonstarter with sportsmen. Because that is exactly what the landowner reps will do you can take that to the bank. And I told him it appears to me that is what legislators want because then they can blame the committees and not take blame themselves. Typical cover your ass legislator move.

- - - Updated - - -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nL...GD1GQQdreWjWCHbnLF6iTpkAhgAP9nb9DlFHP-cx1uWWM
is the version that will be voted. ALL private land will be No Trespass. The bill was written on purpose to default to No Trespass state wide. Sportsmen have only until tomorrow morning to contact House members.

how do you know this is the exact bill. there is no dates on it or anything to indicate that it is. Not doubting you just trying to understand how you know that.

 

[njsimonson]

I received the linked version from multiple sources, multiple times over the weekend, including the NDWF director, a representative and a forwarded email from the House Ag Committee Clerk. That is what came out of committee on Friday.

You'll note once again that the final version is being slow-played and withheld from the public eye (not updated on the legislature site) as the vote approaches (most likely tomorrow). It's a shame we have to back-channel this information to get it out to the people to understand. I don't see that happening with many other bills.

 

[TFX 186]

Emails sent again.
Thanks to all for keeping us informed on SB 2315. I hope all sportsmen contact their reps. Spread the word. Please don't think someone else will do it and let it slide. Take a few moments and contact them. It's imparitive that they hear from all the sportsmen of ND. Please participate as this is very important. If not for yourself, think about your kids and grandkids!!

Fish On!!

 

[MuleyMadness]

I also sent out emails today. one was voting yes no matter what and it was the lady from Wahpeton. I asked how they could possibly vote yes on something we have no idea how it will work and that the senate passed but was then changed to make it worse and she said hunting would go on as normal. I responded with you are clearly not a hunter and the bills were apples and oranges and she didnt reply back. Shocking.

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

North Dakota Bowhunters Association recently sent out this email:

"Fellow NDBA Members,

Another update on SB 2315, the No Trespass Bill. The House Ag committee has released their version of Bill with a do pass vote. This really is not that much of a surprise, it was expected to come out this way.

Now, they have also come out with the third, and possibly the worst version of this issue. The App idea is gone. No more red, green or yellow. I will try my best to highlight what they have done now. However, I have met with a dozen other Sportsman group people for over 2 hours and, collectively, we could not come to a good conclusion of what is going on with these new amendments.

The new version lays out some very confusing rules for criminal trespass. It also says all land will be posted for hunting in August of 2020 unless this new “Land Access” committee says otherwise. The problem is, this committee will most likely be organized so that no agreement could be reached making all private lands posted.

This new language is not only bad for the Sportsman, but also does very little for property owners as well. It is very confusing and the laws would be very hard to enforce.

The bill is expected to be on the House floor tomorrow afternoon for a vote. If it fails, it is done.

What you can do is contact your local Legislators TODAY and remind them how poorly this piece of legislation is being handled. Let them know the bill is not going to be a benefit to those concerned with private property rights or the Sportsman. Urge them to oppose the bill until something better can be worked out.

Use this link to find your local Legislator Enter your home address number and your zip code to find yours.

Use this link for tips on how to write your Legislator "

 

[fireone]

And from United Sportsmen:

SB 2315 has, as we suspected it would, turned into a no trespass bill.
Some version of this bill has been voted down many times in the past. The only difference we can see from past attempts is that this version was introduced at the last minute to the agricultural committee, not the energy and resource committee, and every change and amendment seems to be a last minute addition making it rather difficult to respond in a timely manner.

We will spare you the usual talking points for now on why we feel this bill should not pass.

South Dakota is often brought up as to why we should go the “No Trespass “ route.
Bill Antonides, of South Dakota, sent a email to various people to pass around detailing the negative impact the no trespass law has had on hunters and people who fish in South Dakota, and the trickle down effect it has had . If any of you would like to see this email please let me know and I will forward it to you.

It is often mentioned that this is a private property rights issue. If this is true then shouldn’t a individual have the right to sell their land to whoever they want?

Recently the North Dakota Game and Fish Department was approached by a private landowner. The individual desired to sell approximately a 1/4 section of land to the Game and Fish. The private parcel butted up to land the Game and Fish already own in Morton County. They were denied the opportunity to purchase this parcel of land. Land that would have benefited the people who utilize our public lands.

Code 20.1-02-05.1 was passed to hinder the purchase of land by the Game and Fish for the benefit of the North Dakota’s sporting public. Since the passage of this, the Game and Fish, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, etc., would need permission, three times, to purchase land for the public’s benefit and 20.1-02-05.1 can also deprive a individual their right to sell their land to whom he or she wants to, just like the example given above.

If SB 2315 does pass, and is truly about private property rights , could we depend on any of you, two years from now, to introduce legislation to overturn 20.1-02-05.1 under the banner of private property rights?

The United Sportsmen of North Dakota request a no vote on SB 2315.

Sincerely,
Sheldon Cieslak
State Chairman
United Sportsmen of North Dakota

​

 

[NDSportsman]

Screw it I'm done fighting this thing. It's gonna happen sooner or later. Time for us to start fighting for what we really need in this state. More public land and stop raping the public land we already have, ie over grazing state school lands, etc. Time to take on the ag interests head on and get rid of the no net gain law or corporate farming law. Get rid of gratis tags and every other landowner perk known to man kind! Level the playing field once and for all. Open up section lines and public right of ways to hunting.

 

[Marbleyes]

I'd suggest emailing governor Burgum as well and press him to veto this bill if passed. He's up for re-election in 2020. Can't hurt.

- - - Updated - - -

Mr. Vollmer, is there some way you could add a thread that sticks and doesn't just fade away, so we could keep a list of the politicians who voted for this bill and against it? I think these politicians bank on citizens having short memories so I think it would be helpful to be able to keep tabs on the way these people voted, that way we could vote accordingly next time they want our votes. Just a thought.

 

[NM 24]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nL...GD1GQQdreWjWCHbnLF6iTpkAhgAP9nb9DlFHP-cx1uWWM
is the version that will be voted. ALL private land will be No Trespass. The bill was written on purpose to default to No Trespass state wide. Sportsmen have only until tomorrow morning to contact House members.

Does anyone know the significance of the shading of certain sections of the bill document at the link above? Section 4 and section 5 (shaded) both seem to be about amending and reenacting 20.1-01-18, which section is the current version that is to be voted on?

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone know the significance of the shading of certain sections of the bill document at the link above? Section 4 and section 5 (shaded) both seem to be about amending and reenacting 20.1-01-18, which section is the current version that is to be voted on?

OK, with a little further reading especially of sections 12-14, I think I understand now, both sections 4 and 5 will be voted on, still not too sure on any significance of the shading...

 

[Kurtr]

start a group that lists all the politicians that voted against it in the groups section would be best way to keep tabs

 

[MuleyMadness]

Screw it I'm done fighting this thing. It's gonna happen sooner or later. Time for us to start fighting for what we really need in this state. More public land and stop raping the public land we already have, ie over grazing state school lands, etc. Time to take on the ag interests head on and get rid of the no net gain law or corporate farming law. Get rid of gratis tags and every other landowner perk known to man kind! Level the playing field once and for all. Open up section lines and public right of ways to hunting.

I agree with you 100 times over. I truly do think if this bill passes they should have to give up their gratis tags and no more grazing on public lands. What little public land that there is left should be exactly that PUBLIC. If I want to hunt a mule deer on public land in the badlands I should not have to compete with Joe Schmoes cattle running all over hell because he gets to graze our public lands. I think this is a losing battle either way with how much pull farmers and ranchers have in this state but if this passes I wish someone would raise some hell and make it miserable for them moving forward.

 

[Crankn]

As a farmer and a sportsman I have once again emailed my Reps. and senator. To vote no!

 

[pointer]

So pardon my ignorance here but a person rents land when does the lease expire when the crop is off or the whole year, then who would I have to contact to hunt said land.

 

[fireone]

Words that are stricken through are existing law that would be removed. Words that are underlined are new words added. An example is around line 18, page 7, "legally posted" is stricken, "private land" is underlined. I'm guessing but I don't think shading has any significance, just the way it was copied by the clerk. ???

 

[Kurtr]

So pardon my ignorance here but a person rents land when does the lease expire when the crop is off or the whole year, then who would I have to contact to hunt said land.

depends on if the hunting rights were leased with the land. I always start with the land owner and then they will tell me if the renter has the hunting rights