As expected, the final amended version of SB 2315 just went up on bill tracker.
https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66-2019/documents/19-0896-02000.pdf
I see they've added the infraction portion, and have now included members from an "agriculture committee" and "sportsmen committee" as public overseers of the database with the previous government appointees. Though I am guessing they mean "groups" (ie: NDWF, DU, etc.) and not "committees" and that will have to be clarified, further evidence of a rush job.
They've also made the guide language less extreme and don't specifically open unposted lands though they don't exclude guides from them either, as is how it is currently arranged.
No matter how this ends, it is apparent sportsmen were heard on the oversight issue and the reaction to the guiding language (much of the changes seems almost verbatim from some of this site's discussions). Fundamental issues still remain, and the addition of Section 8 at the last page creates more confusion as to whether or not this creates a guide for the next legislature, or if this will be the law (probably both, which makes me more concerned about the forced and kitchen-sink nature of this bill).
Now we wait and see what the Senate does. Thanks to everyone who reached out and contacted their legislators, it has been quite the experience. I'm still not in favor due to the lessened penalty and "free pass" which wasn't previously available, and that there is little in this bill that will prevent trespassing - only the hope of reducing posting duties. A good bill should have done both, this does neither.
But there's an old saying -- "A good compromise is one in which neither side is happy."
https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66-2019/documents/19-0896-02000.pdf
I see they've added the infraction portion, and have now included members from an "agriculture committee" and "sportsmen committee" as public overseers of the database with the previous government appointees. Though I am guessing they mean "groups" (ie: NDWF, DU, etc.) and not "committees" and that will have to be clarified, further evidence of a rush job.
They've also made the guide language less extreme and don't specifically open unposted lands though they don't exclude guides from them either, as is how it is currently arranged.
No matter how this ends, it is apparent sportsmen were heard on the oversight issue and the reaction to the guiding language (much of the changes seems almost verbatim from some of this site's discussions). Fundamental issues still remain, and the addition of Section 8 at the last page creates more confusion as to whether or not this creates a guide for the next legislature, or if this will be the law (probably both, which makes me more concerned about the forced and kitchen-sink nature of this bill).
Now we wait and see what the Senate does. Thanks to everyone who reached out and contacted their legislators, it has been quite the experience. I'm still not in favor due to the lessened penalty and "free pass" which wasn't previously available, and that there is little in this bill that will prevent trespassing - only the hope of reducing posting duties. A good bill should have done both, this does neither.
But there's an old saying -- "A good compromise is one in which neither side is happy."
