Jump to content
Remo

HUNTING ND? MAYBE NOT

Recommended Posts

Grey Dog

Remo, please update.  The last committee meeting was scheduled for the 28th according to your latest post.  What happened?  I am usually hunting in North Dakota each year and now take my son and grandson as well. We made multiple trips this year for both grouse and waterfowl.  I strongly support your efforts and those trying to stop the Bakken Oil Field rape of the Little Missouri National Grasslands.  In an earlier post, you mentioned sending a “block email” to all the legislators.  I will gladly put together a letter to them all, but I need you to tell me what a “block email” is and how to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

 

 

1 hour ago, Grey Dog said:

Remo, please update.  The last committee meeting was scheduled for the 28th according to your latest post.  What happened?  I am usually hunting in North Dakota each year and now take my son and grandson as well. We made multiple trips this year for both grouse and waterfowl.  I strongly support your efforts and those trying to stop the Bakken Oil Field rape of the Little Missouri National Grasslands.  In an earlier post, you mentioned sending a “block email” to all the legislators.  I will gladly put together a letter to them all, but I need you to tell me what a “block email” is and how to do it.

 

Once more the ND House Ag Committee is dithering with this bill. The 9th hearing is scheduled for April 1st. I have never seen any bill get drug out in this manner and suspect that supporters do not yet have the votes and are stalling.

 

This is the group address. Copy and paste it into the address line of your email to the ND House members. They all can get the same message at the same time. Subject is SB-2315 and you are asking them for a Do Not Pass.

 

Then explain your reasons for your position. Anybody who hunts in ND is in this fight.

 

mkadams@nd.gov;bertanderson@nd.gov; dickanderson@nd.gov; pkanderson@nd.gov; tbeadle@nd.gov; rcbecker@nd.gov; lbellew@nd.gov; jblum@nd.gov; tboe@nd.gov;gdbosch@nd.gov; jboschee@nd.gov; mbrandenburg@nd.gov; rbuffalo@nd.gov; cdamschen@nd.gov; jdelzer@nd.gov; bdevlin@nd.gov; gdobervich@nd.gov; jddockter@nd.gov; meidson@nd.gov; sertelt@nd.gov; cfegley@nd.gov; jayfisher@nd.gov; jgrueneich@nd.gov; rguggisberg@nd.gov; lbhager@nd.gov; krhanson@nd.gov; phatlestad@nd.gov; cheadland@nd.gov; pdheinert@nd.gov; rholman@nd.gov;jahoverson@nd.gov; mchowe@nd.gov; craigjohnson@nd.gov; djohnson@nd.gov; marycjohnson@nd.gov; dljohnston@nd.gov; tbjones@nd.gov; tkading@nd.gov; kkarls@nd.gov; jkasper@nd.gov;gkeiser@nd.gov; kkempenich@nd.gov; dhkiefert@nd.gov; lklemin@nd.gov; bkoppelman@nd.gov; kkoppelman@nd.gov; gkreidt@nd.gov; vrlaning@nd.gov; mlefor@nd.gov; dlongmuir@nd.gov;sclouser@nd.gov; jmagrum@nd.gov; amarschall@nd.gov; bmartinson@nd.gov; amcwilliams@nd.gov; lmeier@nd.gov; amitskog@nd.gov;crmock@nd.gov; dmonson@nd.gov; mrnathe@nd.gov; jonelson@nd.gov; menelson@nd.gov; eobrien@nd.gov; mowens@nd.gov; bpaulson@nd.gov;gpaur@nd.gov; cpollert@nd.gov; tkporter@nd.gov; bpyle@nd.gov; dwrichter@nd.gov;sroersjones@nd.gov; kmrohr@nd.gov; druby@nd.gov;mruby@nd.gov; masanford@nd.gov; blsatrom@nd.gov; mischatz@nd.gov; aschauer@nd.gov; jeschmidt@nd.gov; mschneider@nd.gov; rschobinger@nd.gov; cschreiberbeck@nd.gov; lsimons@nd.gov; kskroch@nd.gov; vsteiner@nd.gov; mstrinden@nd.gov; nptoman@nd.gov; wtrottier@nd.gov; btveit@nd.gov; smvetter@nd.gov;dwvigesaa@nd.gov; rweisz@nd.gov; gwestlind@nd.gov;dzubke@nd.gov
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

Senate Bill 2315, No Trespass, will be voted in the ND House on 4/10. We'll find out if we get candy or coal tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

Good luck today 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaskan Swamp Collie

I'm afraid to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Canuck

It appears to have not been voted on? Might that might be good news for the time being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

The weasels have to get it on the floor tomorrow morning,  4/11 and have been stalling because they don't have the votes to pass it. The dirty rotten @*^$)!^%. But this is the effect you good people have had: https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/north-dakota-lawmakers-blasted-with-emails-on-so-called-trespass/article_a192d2c6-dd54-5c6d-9f3d-28bf8410dad5.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

 

I thought it kind of cute, "even from Massachusetts".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GB Jack
1 hour ago, Remo said:

The weasels have to get it on the floor tomorrow morning,  4/11 and have been stalling because they don't have the votes to pass it. The dirty rotten @*^$)!^%. But this is the effect you good people have had: https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/north-dakota-lawmakers-blasted-with-emails-on-so-called-trespass/article_a192d2c6-dd54-5c6d-9f3d-28bf8410dad5.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

 

I thought it kind of cute, "even from Massachusetts".

 

I gotta be honest , I’m at a Sh** or get off the pot moment for this thing. I’ve hunted ND , often over the last 15 years , I don’t get why this is such a big deal, we always ask permission, period . But the constant and non informative updates about “ no change” make me want to poke my eyes out. No offense to ND residents , I still don’t get  why asking to hunt others land is such a big deal , respectfully 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

Yeah, it's like a ND soap opera. Maybe this will help you Jack. It is an email from Bill Antonides, a retired SD wildlife biologist, warden, and outdoor writer for Dakota Country magazine. It was his reply to my query of how the no trespass law in SD has worked out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible, the short answer being the trespass law in SD had a profound effect on fishing (and trapping) access, as our law refers to all three activities. I have to look up a couple of laws to see which came first, but we also have a vehicle trespass law. A person cannot drive on private land with any machine or device, including bicycles and horses, for any reason without permission from the landowner. Just keep this in mind as it substantially impacts fishermen.

 

Also, the recent law you refer to was the privatization of non-meandered waters. All surface (and underground) waters, by law and supreme court decisions over the past ~140 years, belong to the people. If a person could legally access any water, they could use it for commerce and for recreation such as fishing and fowling. The ownership of the land below the water did not greatly impact the use of the water over the land. Exceptions reserved for the exclusive use of the landowner include mining, milling, ag and domestic uses. A person could not, for example, pump water from a wetland to water his own livestock or irrigate his land if he did not own the land underneath the water. However, he could hunt, fish, trap and otherwise recreate if he legally accessed the water by means of section lines, improved highways, or water attached to but not owned by the “offended” landowner. (Navigability of the particular water also enters into the mix, but federal and state definitions are not the same and would unnecessarily complicate this particular discussion.)  

 

SD decided to ignore territorial law (look up the Desert Land Act, which applies to ND), state law, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the good of the people as a whole and gave access (but not ownership) of the public water over private land exclusively  to the landowner.  In essence, our legislators determined that publicly owned water should be treated like privately owned land. This will happen in ND, but not immediately.

 

First, as you indicated, fishing and other recreational uses will be added to the new ND hunting trespass law. The new law is not simply a foot in the door; it throws it wide open and keeps it that way. What happened here will happen to you; shore fishermen will be immediately impacted, as they will be limited to fishing from a 66 foot wide swath of shoreline on roads that have easements for public access, which includes all  section lines, improved or not. Fishermen will no longer be allowed to wander the shoreline in search of a good fishing spot. Again, we are referring to non-meandered waters (publicly owned waters over private lands). You will simultaneously see a large number of permanent road closures (vacations), all supposedly “for the safety of the public, but in reality designed to limit access to hunting, fishing, etc. Even on good roads, parking will be outlawed near water to prevent fishing, under the guise of allowing farm machinery to pass uninhibited.

 

Next, non-meandered water will be privatized, and this is where you will really see the impact on fishermen. Although SD requires marking of closed waters, it is not as simple as painting lines on a highway. It becomes even more confusing when numerous landowners own parcels of land under a lake, or the non-meandered portion of the water extends into the meandered portions (public water over public land). Some landowners may allow fishermen, while others don’t. A landowner who does not allow fishing must provide a clearly marked “no wake” travel lane to open waters. “Clearly marked” no trespass zones and travel lanes on dozens or even hundreds of waters? I’m sorry, but it is my opinion that anyone who values their hunting and fishing rights and a clean arrest record will or should stay off these lakes no matter how good the fishing.

 

In time, the requirement for marking will be dispensed with. Some landowners already claim it is too expensive to post dry land. They will find that the time and money required to mark waters which fluctuate between fluid and ice are vastly higher than hanging signs on posts along a road, and much less precise. The law will ultimately be changed so that users will be required to work from maps downloaded over the internet. Good luck with that.

 

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but all sportsmen and women need to stick together, as what happens to one group will surely happen to the next. SD laws will be a blueprint for ND. In the long run, there are only a very few winners, those with land or the ability to pay for access. In my experience, payment can be in the form of extravagant amounts of cash or in political favors. Most members of the general public do not have the resources to provide either.

 

Finally, sportsmen should listen to valid complaints from landowners, and act on them. Do everything we can to reduce littler, avoid invading the landowners privacy near homes and outbuildings, don’t tear up wet roads and fields with our equipment, and in general treat the land how we’d treat our own.   

 

Good luck, please keep me posted, and feel free to share my comments.

 

Bill Antonides "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it's easy to see how the thousands of nonresidents who come here to hunt waterfowl over water will get...screwed...to...the...wall. Fishermen too. Stop to eat lunch on a road approach, ah well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharptail grouse
8 hours ago, GB Jack said:

I gotta be honest , I’m at a Sh** or get off the pot moment for this thing. I’ve hunted ND , often over the last 15 years , I don’t get why this is such a big deal, we always ask permission, period . But the constant and non informative updates about “ no change” make me want to poke my eyes out. No offense to ND residents , I still don’t get  why asking to hunt others land is such a big deal , respectfully 

I don't blame ND sportsman for fighting this and I wish them luck. But I've said it before and I'll say it again - it won't be the end of the world if it passes. It will be like it is in MT, which is still pretty nice.

Sounds like there is a good chance of defeat,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

Supposedly this is a live video link of the House vote. It will commence at 1 PM Central time and the bill should be in the next quay, likely 1 or 2 away. I am embarrassed that some of the testimony you will see comes from North Dakotans.

http://video.legis.nd.gov/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GB Jack
14 hours ago, Remo said:

Yeah, it's like a ND soap opera. Maybe this will help you Jack. It is an email from Bill Antonides, a retired SD wildlife biologist, warden, and outdoor writer for Dakota Country magazine. It was his reply to my query of how the no trespass law in SD has worked out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible, the short answer being the trespass law in SD had a profound effect on fishing (and trapping) access, as our law refers to all three activities. I have to look up a couple of laws to see which came first, but we also have a vehicle trespass law. A person cannot drive on private land with any machine or device, including bicycles and horses, for any reason without permission from the landowner. Just keep this in mind as it substantially impacts fishermen.

 

Also, the recent law you refer to was the privatization of non-meandered waters. All surface (and underground) waters, by law and supreme court decisions over the past ~140 years, belong to the people. If a person could legally access any water, they could use it for commerce and for recreation such as fishing and fowling. The ownership of the land below the water did not greatly impact the use of the water over the land. Exceptions reserved for the exclusive use of the landowner include mining, milling, ag and domestic uses. A person could not, for example, pump water from a wetland to water his own livestock or irrigate his land if he did not own the land underneath the water. However, he could hunt, fish, trap and otherwise recreate if he legally accessed the water by means of section lines, improved highways, or water attached to but not owned by the “offended” landowner. (Navigability of the particular water also enters into the mix, but federal and state definitions are not the same and would unnecessarily complicate this particular discussion.)  

 

SD decided to ignore territorial law (look up the Desert Land Act, which applies to ND), state law, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the good of the people as a whole and gave access (but not ownership) of the public water over private land exclusively  to the landowner.  In essence, our legislators determined that publicly owned water should be treated like privately owned land. This will happen in ND, but not immediately.

 

First, as you indicated, fishing and other recreational uses will be added to the new ND hunting trespass law. The new law is not simply a foot in the door; it throws it wide open and keeps it that way. What happened here will happen to you; shore fishermen will be immediately impacted, as they will be limited to fishing from a 66 foot wide swath of shoreline on roads that have easements for public access, which includes all  section lines, improved or not. Fishermen will no longer be allowed to wander the shoreline in search of a good fishing spot. Again, we are referring to non-meandered waters (publicly owned waters over private lands). You will simultaneously see a large number of permanent road closures (vacations), all supposedly “for the safety of the public, but in reality designed to limit access to hunting, fishing, etc. Even on good roads, parking will be outlawed near water to prevent fishing, under the guise of allowing farm machinery to pass uninhibited.

 

Next, non-meandered water will be privatized, and this is where you will really see the impact on fishermen. Although SD requires marking of closed waters, it is not as simple as painting lines on a highway. It becomes even more confusing when numerous landowners own parcels of land under a lake, or the non-meandered portion of the water extends into the meandered portions (public water over public land). Some landowners may allow fishermen, while others don’t. A landowner who does not allow fishing must provide a clearly marked “no wake” travel lane to open waters. “Clearly marked” no trespass zones and travel lanes on dozens or even hundreds of waters? I’m sorry, but it is my opinion that anyone who values their hunting and fishing rights and a clean arrest record will or should stay off these lakes no matter how good the fishing.

 

In time, the requirement for marking will be dispensed with. Some landowners already claim it is too expensive to post dry land. They will find that the time and money required to mark waters which fluctuate between fluid and ice are vastly higher than hanging signs on posts along a road, and much less precise. The law will ultimately be changed so that users will be required to work from maps downloaded over the internet. Good luck with that.

 

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but all sportsmen and women need to stick together, as what happens to one group will surely happen to the next. SD laws will be a blueprint for ND. In the long run, there are only a very few winners, those with land or the ability to pay for access. In my experience, payment can be in the form of extravagant amounts of cash or in political favors. Most members of the general public do not have the resources to provide either.

 

Finally, sportsmen should listen to valid complaints from landowners, and act on them. Do everything we can to reduce littler, avoid invading the landowners privacy near homes and outbuildings, don’t tear up wet roads and fields with our equipment, and in general treat the land how we’d treat our own.   

 

Good luck, please keep me posted, and feel free to share my comments.

 

Bill Antonides "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it's easy to see how the thousands of nonresidents who come here to hunt waterfowl over water will get...screwed...to...the...wall. Fishermen too. Stop to eat lunch on a road approach, ah well.

Tha is for sharing, it’s still like the majority of other states. It’s just change , don’t be scared of it . You may he surprised how many friends you make in the process asking permission, we certainly have.  I’ve hunted South Dakota as well, don’t have problems their either .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

They split the bill into 2 parts voted separately. Spirit of compromise you know and will send back to the Senate and bounce it back and forth like a tennis ball. MOST of the bad stuff was killed off, like automatic NO TRESPASS, but the Senate has to concur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gjw

Thanks Dick for the update.  As your the point man on this issue here, could you give us a general update on what the revised bill looks like as it stands now?

 

Thanks again for all your efforts!

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robp

Thanks Dick.  I have emailed the Senators with 6 different emails

This is a big deal for me and if it  passes this will really put a dent in if not end my hunting in ND

I just can't see landowner picking up an unknown number. I've hunted about the same areas for the last 20 years have never once had a negative interaction with a land owner or other hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×