Trespass Bill

[PrairieGhost]

I'm surprised your upset gst are you not against this bill?

 

[eyexer]

poll: how many people are going to go to testify or contact their legislator or complain on NDA? I have no dog in this just is interesting when these type of things happens it always seems there are a lot of people who say stuff but never act on it

- - - Updated - - -



if there was would it be buried?

hard to say. some areas have large amounts of snow out here some areas not as much.

- - - Updated - - -

poll: how many people are going to go to testify or contact their legislator or complain on NDA? I have no dog in this just is interesting when these type of things happens it always seems there are a lot of people who say stuff but never act on it

- - - Updated - - -



if there was would it be buried?

most of us work so can't go testify. I think most emails don't get looked at. Farmers are one of the few that can go during the legislative session so their input is emphasized greatly. that's one of the reasons I say ag runs the state. they have the time to go during the session. people that work regular jobs not so much

 

[PrairieGhost]

most o

f us work so can't go testify. I think most emails don't get looked at. Farmers are one of the few that can go during the legislative session so their input is emphasized greatly. that's one of the reasons I say ag runs the state. they have the time to go during the session. people that work regular jobs not so much

;:;popcorn

 

[Fritz the Cat]

eye wrote,

most of us work so can't go testify. I think most emails don't get looked at. Farmers are one of the few that can go during the legislative session so their input is emphasized greatly. that's one of the reasons I say ag runs the state. they have the time to go during the session. people that work regular jobs not so much

Come on eye...........how about fellas who are retired and type all day everyday on web-forums? Like the one above. And yes your elected Representative does read those emails. They like them short and concise because they may have quite a few. Early in the mornings they are reading.

 

[zoops]

I understand all of the pros and cons that have been mentioned throughout this thread. As a hunter with no family land or any land that is exclusively mine to hunt, it would hurt to unposted land be automatically posted. While it seems as though 80-90% of land in most (not all) areas I visit is posted anyways, I still seem to find a couple waterfowl hunts a year on unposted land. The waterfowl thing could have pros and cons as the nature of having to scout and find where the birds are using would be complicated by always having to track down a landowner regardless of being posted or not. But I guess this could also help in that if you have permission you probably won't have to worry about someone else beating you to the spot. I haven't hardly shot a pheasant on unposted land in a couple years as the few areas I knew of that were decent unposted honeyholes either are now posted or got plowed up. But again that's my small sample size and I know there are opportunities out there.

I have no problem talking to landowners and actually prefer it as I get older as it eliminates possible conflicts. If there's a farm within a mile of a spot I'd like to hunt I'll usually stop in. I've never been scolded by a landowner for asking on unposted land - but I do know of people who have gotten royal chewings for going in on unposted land (usually seems to be for being too close to a house even if not within 440 yards) without asking. About all I can ever remember a landowner saying when asking to hunt unposted land is "yep go ahead - thanks for asking." Problem is as we all know is finding a landowner in the fall, especially in today's world where farmers are so spread out. Not uncommon to have a farmer live 10-15 miles or more from a field they farm and most don't put their phone numbers on their signs and I guess my experience with trying to track down farmers by phone has been spotty. I think they are much more likely to give the go ahead face to face.

Having hunted in MN, people there get permission on a certain number of spots and those are the ones they hunt - you don't really "freelance" like you do in ND where you can kind of just wander around and probably find a place to hunt anywhere. You might hunt the same slough or two for ducks all year long. I think plenty of people would still hunt, it would be different though and not for the better.

As for the CRP discussion, while that's been brought up in many threads, of course it doesn't provide much thermal cover in winters like these. It does however provide nesting and rearing habitat for just about every game animal in ND. Thermal cover helps animals survive winters but without good reproduction you're never going to have big populations. And without thermal cover they won't survive the winter - so certainly both are very important to thriving populations. No shocker that our highest pheasant and deer populations in the last century coincided with peaks of soilbank and CRP acreage.

 

[gst]

I'm surprised your upset gst are you not against this bill?

plains why do you attempt this?

Please copy and paste EXACTLY what I have posted that makes you suggest I am "upset"?

I will admit that after peoples repeated whining about politicians I do get a bit "upset" with people that bitch and moan and make blanket fools accusations about those willing to serve as elected officials that never go and testify on issues that are significant enough to them to make them bitch and moan.

After all, it is that apathy our Founders warned of in keeping the govt they created.

After claiming what this bill will do plainsman will you go testify against it?

Or is your concern limited to whining on sites like these? This is a grand time if one is intrigued by the governing process. We can become directly involved and actually have a say especially at the state and local level. The future of this nation rests in that willingness.


[FONT=q_serif]"The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and to whine over his sufferings. If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work..."

Teddy Roosevelt
[/FONT]

- - - Updated - - -

most of us work so can't go testify. I think most emails don't get looked at. Farmers are one of the few that can go during the legislative session so their input is emphasized greatly. that's one of the reasons I say ag runs the state. they have the time to go during the session. people that work regular jobs not so much

Ah there it is. 6 pages it took.

Eye you would be surprised at the every day working folks that take a day to go testify on an issue that is of significant importance to them.

For some people being a part of our form of self governing is just as important as taking a vacation day or accumulated sick day to go fishing.

But if you have never bothered perhaps you do not realize that. But then again less than half of eligible voters bother to even vote so perhaps expecting people to participate in the creation of the laws that govern them has become to much to ask.

 

[labhunter66]

Before we go too far down that road, 2 things.

1. I am liable if my property walks into your back yard and eats your wife's garden. What's a "fair trade off" then when your "property" comes into my backyard and eats mine?

2. The non hunting public far outnumbers the hunting public so you might want to be a bit careful when talking about what people are allowed to do with their "property".

Say out of curiousity what are you or most of this public doing to help save your "property" this winter?

That's a slippery slope to start down.

No it's not a slippery slope, it's the law. Why is it unreasonable to ask a landowner to post his property to have people not pursue game that belongs to the people? As far as non-hunters go, they already have an influence on what is allowed with wildlife and that won't change because of this bill.

 

[Kurtr]

No it's not a slippery slope, it's the law. Why is it unreasonable to ask a landowner to post his property to have people not pursue game that belongs to the people? As far as non-hunters go, they already have an influence on what is allowed with wildlife and that won't change because of this bill.

So who is liable for all the feed the farm owns is eaten by the states deer?

You never said what are you doing for wildlife this winter?

 

[bucksnbears]

so USMDCI, why is it you post 36 sections??

and once again, i see GST is stalking PG's posts like a JOB!!,

 

[labhunter66]

So who is liable for all the feed the farm owns is eaten by the states deer?

You never said what are you doing for wildlife this winter?

There is no liability. It's a cost of doing business for the most part. I doubt many got into farming thinking there were no deer or wildlife on the landscape. Not much different than putting a business in a high crime area and expecting someone to put bars on the windows for you. I've had deer eat flowers, trees, and items in my garden should I be compensate for that? But if you insist on pursuing compensation North Dakota farmers receive approximately 1.7 billion dollars per year in subsidies so I believe they are compensated in some way for what loss they may have to wildlife.

As far as my contribution to wildlife, I'm not out there throwing feed out in the winter but I'm comfortable with what I do. Whether it be contributions to wildlife organizations or assisting some farmers and ranchers who's land I do hunt on, or other contributions to wildlife, people that know me know that I've done a lot in my life to benefit wildlife.

 

[Kurtr]

I am sure not but when people want to tell them how they are ruining wild life and they are greedy horrible people I can see why a bill like this gets introduced

 

[labhunter66]

I am sure not but when people want to tell them how they are ruining wild life and they are greedy horrible people I can see why a bill like this gets introduced

I never once said landowners are greedy horrible people ruining wildlife. Quite the opposite. I do appreciate what landowners do for wildlife but to make it sound like they are the only reason we have wildlife isn't accurate either. All I simply did was state a fact. Wildlife is not owned by the landowner it's owned by all people. There's no question about that. It's part of our State law. My questions - which no one has answered - is why is it unreasonable for someone to post land to prevent access to something that belongs to the public?

 

[gst]

so USMDCI, why is it you post 36 sections??

and once again, i see GST is stalking PG's posts like a JOB!!,

Holy man he asked me a question (note the ? on the end of his post) ......I replied

you and old wstnodak must hook up and comfort each other like a couple of liberals anguished over Trumps election.

- - - Updated - - -

I never once said landowners are greedy horrible people ruining wildlife. Quite the opposite. I do appreciate what landowners do for wildlife but to make it sound like they are the only reason we have wildlife isn't accurate either. All I simply did was state a fact. Wildlife is not owned by the landowner it's owned by all people. There's no question about that. It's part of our State law. My questions - which no one has answered - is why is it unreasonable for someone to post land to prevent access to something that belongs to the public?

With the ownership of property comes the responsibility for the liabilities that property can cause. That also is state law.

You want to speak of what is reasonable, once again tell me why I must compensate YOU for my property destroying yours, but apparently you have no concerns about compensating me when your property ruins mine.

So if you are going to embrace the wildlife are the publics property should the public not carry the same responsibilities for their property a private individual must according to state law to be "reasonable"?

To directly answer your question, it is no more unreasonable to expect someone to post their land to prevent access to something that belongs to the public than it is to expect the public to be liable for the damages their property incurs to others.

After all, we are trying to be "reasonable" here right?

- - - Updated - - -

so USMDCI, why is it you post 36 sections??

,

"only 36 quarters,"

Why is it you are concerned??

- - - Updated - - -

But if you insist on pursuing compensation North Dakota farmers receive approximately 1.7 billion dollars per year in subsidies so I believe they are compensated in some way for what loss they may have to wildlife.

And there ya go 6 pages.

every couple years when the legislature is in session and bills come up like this............... like clock work.

Show where these Federal programs are tied to compensation for state public property damages. Those dollars may be tied to some pretty bullshit programs but you can't just glob onto them to cover to what YOUR property does in damages. This wild life is your property right? Shouldn;t you be liable for damages your property does?

- - - Updated - - -

I do appreciate what landowners do for wildlife but to make it sound like they are the only reason we have wildlife isn't accurate either.

Can you show in this thread where that has been done? I missed it.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as non-hunters go, they already have an influence on what is allowed with wildlife and that won't change because of this bill.

No one has said this particular bill will change that.

- - - Updated - - -

No it's not a slippery slope, it's the law.

claiming ownership of property can open up a can of worms you may not want it to. Think about wildlife that does not fall under state management or regulation such as migratory waterfowl. What a Federal lawsuit can accomplish might surprise you.

Every year there are attempts, some successful from the "public" to protect their wildlife from a form of hunting or hunting all together.

When this nation believes we are simple majority rule democracy with the initiated measure to create law, this "public ownership" of wildlife can in deed become a slippery slope.

Add in Federal judges appointed to fullfill agendas...............and groups that use the tax payer dollars to file lawsuit after lawsuit........

Simply look to the struggle wolf management thru hunting has become and tell us again how this can not become a slippery slope when the public embraces the "ownership" of their wildlife.

Say what do you think would happen if the moose is declared an endangered species here in ND by the public that is concerned over the future of their property?

http://www.climatesignals.org/headl...ndangered-species-protection-nd-moose-species

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found the petition, filed on July 9, 2015, to contain “substantial scientific or commercial information,” indicating the northwestern subspecies of moose, also known as andersoni, may need protection, according to the findings of the wildlife service..."

- - - Updated - - -

http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ptd_10-1.pdf

I can;t get it to copy and paste.

Go to page 25 and start reading where it starts "As case law"........

Then tell us how this public ownership under the Public Trust Doctrine can not turn into a slippery slope for hunters.

 

[labhunter66]

$1.7 billion per year doesn't count for anything? As far as public ownership is concerned you act like I'm proposing something new. This is what it is already. Call it a slippery slope if you want to but your arguing about something that is already fact and State law. You can spin anything, it's amazing.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

When a young man begins farming he understands wildlife crisscrossing his property and eating some his profits is all part of doing business.... To a point.... It's all about tolerance. Last year we took a picture of a moose in the yard. One moose cool, one hundred moose standing on the hay pile would be, not cool.

Lab66 said,

why is it unreasonable for someone to post land to prevent access to something that belongs to the public?

I give up.

$1.7 billion per year doesn't count for anything? As far as public ownership is concerned you act like I'm proposing something new. This is what it is already. Call it a slippery slope if you want to but your arguing about something that is already fact and State law. You can spin anything, it's amazing.

Lab66, what are you talking about?

 

[deleted member]

well i just caught up on this thread. i can see it is going places. places like shit town. this is obviously a tough topic to discuss civilly.

 

[gst]

Ha, was there any doubt where this would end up? Get ready for a couple more threads over some bill that end up traveling the same path.

lab. all that was asked for you to show where the dollars you bring up were tied to damage your property causes, can you do that or not? Or are you suggesting your property does not do any damage to others property?

Or are you saying u bear no responsibility for property you claim as your own when they do damage to others property? You went down that path.

You want to claim ownership of property accept the responsibility the state tells me I have with mine.

Why not address the issues I have shared regarding what the non hunting public wants to see happen with THEIR property when it comes to things like wolves or other species. The link I shared on page 25 ADMITS the PTD is a slippery slope that will face challenges by a public that demands other uses for their property when it comes to wildlife which is a bit different when it comes to the public trust doctrine and case law supporting it. It admits management of this property might have to change to acknowledge those other peoples ownership of this property.

So when those non hunting public want to end wolf hunting, who will you as a hunter turn to for support to fight this battle?

When they want to ban morning dove hunting, baiting bears any number of other limitations on YOUR usage of THEIR property who will you turn to for help fighting that battle?

It isn't "spin" lab, it is the reality of what is happening every year.

So oppose this bill if one wishes but to do so in a manner that drives a wedge will not help in the long run when it comes to your "property" and how the rest the public demands it be managed.

 

[deleted]

- - - Updated Farmers are one of the few that can go during the legislative session so their input is emphasized greatly. that's one of the reasons I say ag runs the state. they have the time to go during the session. people that work regular jobs not so much

There will be plenty of sports men and women as well as lobbyists from wildlife clubs and federations testifying. As far as emails and letters. They absolutely do read them and often reply. Many of the posts on this page take longer to type out than a respectful email stating your position does.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Woodpecker I sent emails yesterday and received an answer to one already. He said that a bill has not been introduced yet, but when it is he will keep my thoughts in mind.

 

[deleted]

Woodpecker I sent emails yesterday and received an answer to one already. He said that a bill has not been introduced yet, but when it is he will keep my thoughts in mind.

Glad to hear that PG..........That is how it is supposed to work.