Trespass Bill

[gst]

Okay a simple question to those bitching about this bill. Has anyone contacted the 6 representative signed on as sponsors and asked why they brought this forth?

If they have enough constituents asking for this are they not doing their job?

Besides from other threads and other sites, I thought between the guided leased acres, HFH operations and "greedy" landowner there is no where left un posted to hunt?

 

[Wildyote]

I don't like the bill but was bound to come back again. My perspective if someone wants to keep someone off their land they put up signs. I own land and put signs up. The primary issue is that many people do not respect posted /private property. The two biggest areas of concern are deer gun season and pheasants. I have seen some of the stupidest acts with deer and pheasants. I have seen people shoot pheasants right in front of peoples houses and act like it was their right to do it. The law enforcement needs to follow through with trespass complaints and fine individuals that are knowingly violating.

 

[NDSportsman]

Okay a simple question to those bitching about this bill. Has anyone contacted the 6 representative signed on as sponsors and asked why they brought this forth?

If they have enough constituents asking for this are they not doing their job?

Besides from other threads and other sites, I thought between the guided leased acres, HFH operations and "greedy" landowner there is no where left un posted to hunt?

Yes.

Really they only need 1 constituent asking for it. So yes they are doing their job.

You know better then that gabe. I suppose because you bitch about something that makes it true every where too right?

Bottom line is whether you are for or against something someone else is always going to be on the other side. Why wouldn't the vast majority of people on a sportsmans website be against anything limiting access to said sportsman? Are there a lot of people going to some farm or ranch website and questioning why those folks are so upset about a proposed law limiting their usual practices? Maybe so I don't frequent those sites.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

they won't quit till we throw them out of office

Eye,

some days I just don't know about you. OK, let's put ALL new politicians in office and when the people who are tired of the shit show in Morton County draft a no trespassing Bill and demand that their elected Representative carry it, then what?

The people in southern Morton County believe their Bill has merit. If they show up in droves to support it, the Bill may pass.

Brad Dokken is a writer for the Grand Forks Herald. Why does writer Brad Dokken keep going back to the same well?

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/ne...ess-outdoors-bills-legislative-sessions-begin

North DakotaTerry Steinwand, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department in Bismarck, said a trespass bill hasn’t been pre-filed, but reliable sources have confirmed a bill is coming.
Steinwand said he doesn’t know how the legislation will be worded.
“I can only speculate,” he said. The Dakota Access Pipeline protests apparently prompted calls for new legislation, Steinwand said.
Currently in North Dakota, private land that isn’t posted is open for hunters and others to access without permission. Hunters must gain landowner permission to enter posted land except in rare circumstances.
In neighboring Minnesota, hunters and other outdoor recreationists cannot enter legally posted land or agricultural land without permission.
“We haven’t seen a trespass bill in the Legislature for a number of years,” said Mike McEnroe of Bismarck, president of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. (Brad Dokken writes Mike McEnroe said) “That could be a big issue, one North Dakota sportsmen have been concerned about for a number of years.”

Among the outdoors bills to be pre-filed is SB 2056, which would allow archery hunters older than 65 to hunt with a crossbow throughout the archery season. Current law requires archery hunters to obtain a doctor’s certification confirming a disability before they can hunt with a crossbow during archery season.
Sen. Ronald Sorvaag, R-Fargo, and Rep. Mary Johnson, R-Fargo, are listed as the bill’s authors.
Steinwand said the department’s budget isn’t in line for 10 percent cuts like other state agencies because it is entirely funded by users, including hunters, anglers and federal allocations from the sales taxes on hunting and fishing gear.

McEnroe said (Brad Dokken writes Mike McEnroe said) the Wildlife Federation will lobby on behalf of maintaining the department’s budget proposal.

“The money is solid, so we’ll try to hold that,” he said.(Mike McEnroe said)

Also pre-filed was HB 1025, a bill covering licenses that given to nonprofit groups as special allocations or fundraisers. The bill grandfathers in groups such as the Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Midwest chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation, North American wildlife enforcement museum, and Hunter Education Association, Steinwand said.
“This bill if passed as written would mandate we develop administrative rules as to how we give out those” licenses to other groups, he said. The number of licenses could not exceed 2 percent of the general lottery allocation, and eligible nonprofit groups would have 501c3 tax-exempt status, Steinwand said.
Gone are the days when nonresident hunting issues dominated the outdoors agenda at the Legislature, McEnroe said. (Mike McEnroe said) During the last session in 2015, lawmakers introduced about 40 bills related to hunting and fishing, McEnroe said, (Mike McEnroe said) down from about 55 outdoors-related bills during a typical session.

“All kinds of one-constituent bills get introduced to help a particular district or corner of the state,” McEnroe said. (Mike McEnroe said)“I’m sure there’ll be any number of those.

“There’ll be surprises. There always are.”
The North Dakota Game and Fish Department again this session will provide daily updates on outdoors legislation. The updates will be available on the Game and Fish website at gf.nd.gov/legislation.

Mike McEnroe is a retired federal biologist from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, lobbyist for the wildlife society and president of the ND wildlife federation. Brad Dokken quoted him more than Steinwand and never interviewed other opinions. Hardly journalism.

From the article,

“We haven’t seen a trespass bill in the Legislature for a number of years,” said Mike McEnroe of Bismarck, president of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. “That could be a big issue, one North Dakota sportsmen have been concerned about for a number of years.”

Eyexer said, "they won't quit until we throw them out." Eye, when are you going to throw Mike McEnroe out? Our elected Representatives don't like him. If he testifies on the trespass Bill saying he represents sportsmen, he will be a millstone.

 

[Duckslayer100]

SB 2225 is now active and "Would require an individual to receive permission from the landowner to hunt, trap or pursue game on private land. Currently permission must be received if the land is posted."

https://gf.nd.gov/legislation

 

[eyexer]

SB 2225 is now active and "Would require an individual to receive permission from the landowner to hunt, trap or pursue game on private land. Currently permission must be received if the land is posted."

https://gf.nd.gov/legislation

so since it's worded as such it wouldn't have changed a thing down at the protest site. they weren't trespassing to hunt, trap or pursue big game. so obviously this isn't about that situation. I think the sportsman are getting the message loud and clear about how farmers and ranchers feel about them. that's probably not going to go over real big. the results may not be very pleasant to said farmers and ranchers.

 

[NodakBuckeye]

so since it's worded as such it wouldn't have changed a thing down at the protest site. they weren't trespassing to hunt, trap or pursue big game. so obviously this isn't about that situation. I think the sportsman are getting the message loud and clear about how farmers and ranchers feel about them. that's probably not going to go over real big. the results may not be very pleasant to said farmers and ranchers.

What are they gonna do? Leave them alone? Sorry not following your argument.

Nevermind.... I reread and sounded out the words this time.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

This Bill makes a few changes to existing law. Underlined is new law, over struck is canceled language.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0902-01000.pdf

I called it from the beginning of this thread. Do not go to the subcommittee hearing lecturing the Senators how this is against sportsmen. This Bill was never brought forward because of hunting.

Eye said,

I think the sportsman are getting the message loud and clear about how farmers and ranchers feel about them. that's probably not going to go over real big. the results may not be very pleasant to said farmers and ranchers.

I doubt the protesters will be there to testify against the Bill. The supporters want something done about the protesters. In the end we all lose.

 

[zoops]

This Bill makes a few changes to existing law. Underlined is new law, over struck is canceled language.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0902-01000.pdf

I called it from the beginning of this thread. Do not go to the subcommittee hearing lecturing the Senators how this is against sportsmen. This Bill was never brought forward because of hunting.

Eye said,



I doubt the protesters will be there to testify against the Bill. The supporters want something done about the protesters. In the end we all lose.

I don't quite understand your statement here. This new law pretty clearly would negatively affect hunting. Could you clarify?

 

[espringers]

I agree. Did I miss something?

 

[BBQBluesMan]

So people are pissed about the protest, and I completely understand, anyone living in the Bismarck-Mandan area (and well the whole state really when it comes to footing the bill) has been affected by this eco-terrorism rigamarole, but moreso the private landowners directly affected. What I don't understand is how this bill, if introduced before this whole shit show started would have changed anything? These low life hippy assholes have done whatever they want regardless of many laws on the book, in which I don't have time to go into now.


This bill is a knee jerk reaction that will do nothing to stop people who knowingly trespass. Many of my family and friends own land, and some of it posted and some of it is not. Every year, there are folks who trespass and poach, or ride snowmobile or whatever else even though land is legally and visibly posted. This type of stuff will not change if this bill is passed. What will change is the ability of people to enjoy North Dakota's great outdoors in a major way. Who on here wants to get permission to hunt every single unposted piece of land whether it be for upland, waterfowl, or big game? North Dakota is 95 % privately owned. And it is not easy to track down landowners these days, and not to mention very few landowners want to be bothered a bunch to hunt or fish on land they could give a crap less that you are on.


I urge all of you folks that rely on hunting unposted land to contact your reps or better yet testify at the legislative meetings. This is huge folks, do not let your voice not get heard on this one.


I want to end with that I fully support for stiffer penalties for trespassing, but giving the middle finger to the sportsman and women of North Dakota is not the way to do it. Outdoor recreation is a huge part of NDs economy and many seem to forget. This bill will have a huge toll on that.

 

[eyexer]

I don't quite understand your statement here. This new law pretty clearly would negatively affect hunting. Could you clarify?

"Would require an individual to receive permission from the landowner to hunt, trap or pursue game on private land. Currently permission must be received if the land is posted." Doesn't leave a lot of grey area. Unless your really inept at reading comprehension.

- - - Updated - - -

yes this new law will do absolutely nothing to rectify anything like the DAPL protest because those ass hats don't give a shit about laws either. And our legal system does nothing. so only sportsman will suffer from a law like this.

- - - Updated - - -

So people are pissed about the protest, and I completely understand, anyone living in the Bismarck-Mandan area (and well the whole state really when it comes to footing the bill) has been affected by this eco-terrorism rigamarole, but moreso the private landowners directly affected. What I don't understand is how this bill, if introduced before this whole shit show started would have changed anything? These low life hippy assholes have done whatever they want regardless of many laws on the book, in which I don't have time to go into now.


This bill is a knee jerk reaction that will do nothing to stop people who knowingly trespass. Many of my family and friends own land, and some of it posted and some of it is not. Every year, there are folks who trespass and poach, or ride snowmobile or whatever else even though land is legally and visibly posted. This type of stuff will not change if this bill is passed. What will change is the ability of people to enjoy North Dakota's great outdoors in a major way. Who on here wants to get permission to hunt every single unposted piece of land whether it be for upland, waterfowl, or big game? North Dakota is 95 % privately owned. And it is not easy to track down landowners these days, and not to mention very few landowners want to be bothered a bunch to hunt or fish on land they could give a crap less that you are on.


I urge all of you folks that rely on hunting unposted land to contact your reps or better yet testify at the legislative meetings. This is huge folks, do not let your voice not get heard on this one.


I want to end with that I fully support for stiffer penalties for trespassing, but giving the middle finger to the sportsman and women of North Dakota is not the way to do it. Outdoor recreation is a huge part of NDs economy and many seem to forget. This bill will have a huge toll on that.

they should be careful what they wish for. but they're not smart enough to do that. what the hell we have a seriously divided nation might as well have a divided state. it's new thing to do I guess.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Yes it will impact sportsmen. But that is "not" why the sponsors of this Bill drafted it. The sponsors want something done about the protesters. Right now their angry and they don't care if Sport hunting is collateral damage.

I don't like more and more laws. Each time a law is passed we all lose freedoms. Individuals need to testify and "not" turn it into "this Bill is against sportsmen." That will polarize the issue.

Don't say this:

I think the sportsman are getting the message loud and clear about how farmers and ranchers feel about them. that's probably not going to go over real big. the results may not be very pleasant to said farmers and ranchers.

The key word here is individuals making sensible arguments.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I am confused. There were a couple of guys who claimed they were neutral, but hoped the bill didn't pass, now debate for it. Hmmm were we being suckered?

I want to end with that I fully support for stiffer penalties for trespassing, but giving the middle finger to the sportsman and women of North Dakota is not the way to do it. Outdoor recreation is a huge part of NDs economy and many seem to forget. This bill will have a huge toll on that.

Excellent point.

I think the sportsman are getting the message loud and clear about how farmers and ranchers feel about them.

Also and excellent point.

yes this new law will do absolutely nothing to rectify anything like the DAPL protest because those ass hats don't give a shit about laws either. And our legal system does nothing. so only sportsman will suffer from a law like this.

Another excellent point.

In the end we all lose.

I am afraid your right Fritz, so why defend it so vigorously?

 

[gst]

Yes.

Really they only need 1 constituent asking for it. So yes they are doing their job.

You know better then that gabe. I suppose because you bitch about something that makes it true every where too right?

Bottom line is whether you are for or against something someone else is always going to be on the other side. Why wouldn't the vast majority of people on a sportsmans website be against anything limiting access to said sportsman? Are there a lot of people going to some farm or ranch website and questioning why those folks are so upset about a proposed law limiting their usual practices? Maybe so I don't frequent those sites.

You should really know better than that. That is simply bullshit. They are elected by a majority of the people in their district. They are not elected by one person nor do they represent only one person. If there is not enough support from those within their district, they are not bring forth a bill such as this that has been brought forth and failed a number of times before.

The simple odds are that for every land owner that does not want to be bothered with people calling to hunt there is another that maybe doesn;t really want that either but would rather deal with those people respectful enough to make a call or stop in than the shit that goes on EVERY year.

So if sportsmen on a sportsmen site want to stop this bill from coming up, look to the real reason it does.

- - - Updated - - -

so since it's worded as such it wouldn't have changed a thing down at the protest site. they weren't trespassing to hunt, trap or pursue big game. so obviously this isn't about that situation. I think the sportsman are getting the message loud and clear about how farmers and ranchers feel about them. that's probably not going to go over real big. the results may not be very pleasant to said farmers and ranchers.

There are other changes outside that language in this bill

- - - Updated - - -

12.1-22-03. Criminal trespass.1. An individual is guilty of a class C felony if, knowing that that individual is not licensedor privileged to do so, the individual enters or remains in a dwelling or in highlysecured premises.2. An individual is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, knowing that thatthe individual isnot 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; orb. Enters or remains in anythe place so enclosed as manifestly to excludeintruders that the individual is not licensed or privileged to be.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0902-01000.pdf

The link shows the changes.

- - - Updated - - -

I am confused. There were a couple of guys who claimed they were neutral, but hoped the bill didn't pass, now debate for it. Hmmm were we being suckered?

Why do you do this stupid shit?

Everyone knows those "couple of guys" you reference are Fritz and I so show where we are advocating for this bills passage. Copy and paste exactly in full context where you see that happening.

For Christ sake plainsman the immediate post before yours fritz was sharing how to testify AGAINST this bill to NOT make it divisive and provide an example why there might be individuals out there to warrant passage of it.

I have encouraged people on this site to contact their legislators and take the time to go testify on their own behalf.

What is being done is sharing some insight into why this bill is being brought forth once again.

Distract from that if you choose, people might wish to ask themselves why.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

PrairieGhost writes,

""Excellent point, also an excellent point and another excellent point.""

No they are not. If anyone repeats what's written in those posts at a sub committee hearing then be prepared to get your ears pulled. Plainsman, you are so full of poor advice.

PG said, I am afraid your right Fritz, so why defend it so vigorously?

I've been to meetings where people spoke passionately about their life experiences dealing with the protesters and trespassing. Very convincing.

GST said,

You should really know better than that. That is simply bullshit. They are elected by a majority of the people in their district. They are not elected by one person nor do they represent only one person. If there is not enough support from those within their district, they are not bring forth a bill such as this that has been brought forth and failed a number of times before.

Correct, it takes more than one person to convince a legislator to carry a Bill. If it is a good Bill more legislators will sponsor. But if a legislator believes it is a bad Bill they can try to talk their constituency into dropping it.

 

[gretzky is denied]

sounds uniformed, I know, but is the protest over?

 

[zoops]

"Would require an individual to receive permission from the landowner to hunt, trap or pursue game on private land. Currently permission must be received if the land is posted." Doesn't leave a lot of grey area. Unless your really inept at reading comprehension.

I was asking for clarification on why he's saying that we shouldn't paint this as negatively affecting sportsmen when the bill explicitly mentions hunting, etc. That's why I underlined and bolded that part of his post. Perhaps you're the inept one?

 

[PrairieGhost]

icensedor privileged to do so, the individual enters or remains in a dwelling or in highlysecured premises.2. An individual is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if, knowing that thatthe individual isnot 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; orb. Enters or remains in anythe place so enclosed as manifestly to excludeintruders that the individual is not licensed or privileged to be.

They should have had that law on the books at Malheur right?

No they are not. If anyone repeats what's written in those posts at a sub committee hearing then be prepared to get your ears pulled. Plainsman, you are so full of poor advice.

Yes I know that. I can't remember the name of the movie where the guy says to the president "the truth, the truth, you can't take the truth". Instead I will point out where it will be an economic lose for hotels, motels, restaurants, auto dealers, sport shops etc. Where we will loose a number of hunters perhaps friends and relatives. There are things they will consider.

 

[NDSportsman]

You should really know better than that. That is simply bullshit. They are elected by a majority of the people in their district. They are not elected by one person nor do they represent only one person. If there is not enough support from those within their district, they are not bring forth a bill such as this that has been brought forth and failed a number of times before.

You know as well as I do that what you posted here is BS and there are in fact legislatures that will bring forth a bill if a certain constituent wants it done. Otherwise we wouldn't have shit that is withdrawn immediately! It's happened before and it will happen again so don't give me that shit! All it takes is one crony trying to appease another crony. That's the ND legislature in a nutshell!