Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="njsimonson" data-source="post: 258458" data-attributes="member: 1507">I don't think an initiated measure gets it done.  We (sportsmen) already have a disastrous history there and there are a LOT of state code factors at play in this whole discussion relating to posting requirements, criminal code, fish & game code, liability code that would make such a measure bulky and confusing.  It's at least those four things, probably six or seven that need concurrent changes.  You look at how the legislature took it upon itself to change the marijuana initiated measure behind closed doors in their infinite wisdom (and then give the work to out-of-state vendors, smh).  You'd get the same here. I've got some updates coming next week on the status of the study.  There's a lot of pressure from the Ag Commissioner behind the scenes to change the interim committee to pursue a "land starts as all posted" electronic database, and that keeps coming back and coming back and coming back in all of their meetings, when the spirit (and even Erbele) has said "all land should start as non-posted until landowners change it online." The Ag Commissioner - along with many others - need to be voted out in 2020 and 2022.  What people need to start realizing is that you have to stop voting the alphabet and start voting the issues that are important to you.  Otherwise, the same anti-hunter, special-interest serving individuals will remain in power, and this type of legislation will have a better chance of passing as more dark money flows further into the pockets of this state's established legislators.  The thing most people don't realize in North Dakota is there isn't a dime of difference between Republicans and Democrats, it really comes down to the person running.  We need to start paying attention to how officials vote and issuing our votes accordingly in November, and digging a bit deeper on the matters that are important and stop screaming "Liberal" or "Right Winger" because we think we're one party or the other. I am concerned that the interim committee is sidelining the important portions of the study - trespass, access, public land creation, the power of special interest groups in that approval process and the like - and have just been gung ho solely about adding to our government bloat with a state-run database that will likely be unused by 99% of landowners and ineffective for sportsmen's purposes.  The core of this issue for the vocal minority of landowners has been "we don't want to post" - it's never been about trespass, or criminals, or hunters, or anything else they've thrown out there - those have always been smoke screens for this issue, and those arguments should be dismissed. There are good ways still to lessen that burden, while providing strong notice to hunters, and further help the relationship between them and take responsibility.  A good sportsman's compromise in next session's bill will be:1) Lessening the posting requirements (ie: one sign per corner of contiguous parcel of land) for legal posting;2) Jointly-created education by landowners and sportsmen and the G&F about ND's unique system as part of our Hunter's Education program;3) Increased penalties for trespass including a) heightened criminal charges/fines for initial trespass offenses, b) forfeiture of firearms/vehicles in hunting trespass, c) automatic loss of hunting licensure for 1/3/5 years, based on offense; and4) Removal of special interest groups from the public land-creation committee The battle will be every two years until it's not, one way or the other. So buckle up.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA