# Nodak Mutual Insurance & ND Farm Bureau



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Just curious for those who've been tracking Farm Bureau policies. I was looking at their 2007 public policy and it has the following:



> We should continue to work through all channels toward the end result of considering all lands as posted and closed to public access unless the landowner grants permission.





> We support reimbursement by the North Dakota Game & Fish Department to rural communities that suffer revenue loss due to the restrictions placed on out-of-state hunters.


http://www.ndfb.org/uploads/resources/3 ... licies.pdf

I was aware that they've been pushing for a No Tresspassing law for as long as I can remember...but the ND Game & Fish reimbursement for loss revenue is just asinine. If this was in previously year's policy I must've missed it.

So let's say for example, if there's a huge blizzard this winter in a pheasant town and the majority of the pheasants die.....does the Farm Bureau expect the Game & Fish to pay for the loss of revenue? And what measure does a community use for loss revenue? Do they use their banner year figure from years back and expect a check in the mail for each season where it doesn't hit that high?

I'd be interested to know if anyone has the answer.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

Chris,

I don't know the answer, but from what you posted I think your example is way off.

Look at the second quote. I read that as saying the FB supports reimbursement for communites who suffer a financial loss due to (and I think ONLY due to) restrictions on non-resident access.

Say there is a town, let's call in Pheasantlive, where the can show that NR hunters have been spending $X each year for the past several years.

Now assume that after a "assume posting" law come in, a lot on NRs stay away, and instead of $X, the community gets 50% of X.

I read the FB proposal as advocating the State paying Pheasantville the OTHER 50% of X.

I STILL don't like it, but it hold together logically.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This info has been part of the FB Doctrine for a number of years..

As it was explained to me: If a member brings up an issue at the annual meeting it becomes part of the "stance" that NDFB takes on issues. it was also explained that just because it is in the resolution, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a wide spread, accepted doctrine amongst the FB ranks.

NDFB has had a very checkered past with sportsmen they say that they are looking out for the future viability of the family farm. I cannot remember a single instance where sportsmen and the FB were on the same side. Kind of ironic considering that there are a lot of farmers who hunt.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, They are no different than the NDWF. They also take stances on issues that clubs, and members disagree with.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Ouch! if I didn't know you better I would have thought that was a shot!!! :lol:

Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The positions are voted from the floor by simple majority at the NDWF convention. Majority rules. NDFU does their annual resolutions the same. Majority rules. Probably in NDFB also though I'm not sure.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Skip OK said:


> Chris,
> 
> I don't know the answer, but from what you posted I think your example is way off.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying...but let's just say for the sake of argument that the NDGF does put in a new restriction of some sort on NR hunters. And let's say that after that is in place a huge snow storm wipes out the pheasant population...so with few pheasants many NR hunters may not go to that area to hunt. So was it the NDGF that was the reason for the decline in hunter numbers?

Let's look at North Dakota's overall pheasant population (for example). A decade ago there wasn't a widespread pheasant population, especially going north, like there has been in recent years. With so many pheasants located in so many areas to choose from, a NR hunter may not go to the previous community for whatever reason and choose to hunt another. So on the same level, if there was a restriction in place, that restriction may have had nothing to do with the decline in business.

I'm not calling out pheasant towns, this was just an example. And I'm really just trying to understand the logic of this stance, and is the point of this thread.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

When Senator Taylor cosponsered that bill that any property with a fence around it was posted,that was with the encouragement of the FB. It was a FB bill and they found a sucker to try to get in in.Fortunatly it went down and he voted against it him self. I do not trust any Farm group when it comes to wildlife issues.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Oh boy I'm gona get grilled here. For me its not a wildlife issue it is a private property issue. I know I know the wildlife belongs to the state.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Sorry but I don't see this as a private property issue. Widlife is owned by the state and the state must make decisions on game management based on sound science. The Game and Fish Department doesn't make regulations but hey can propose regulations, which must be passed into law like any other piece of legislation. The governor has to approve the proclamation which lays out seasons, etc.

For the FB, or any other entity to propose that G&F make up lost revenue is one of the stupidest proposals I have ever heard. There is no way to track expenditures with any accuracy and there are too many variables to do so accurately. I can recall an instance a few years ago when things started to get dry and non-res duck hunters didn't frequent the Robinson area like they had in the past. The town probably saw decreased numbers but that had nothing to do with any G&F decision.

The FB would probably argue with some perverse logic that after the big winter hits and pheasant numbers drop, G&F can't reduce the limit because that might mean some non-res hunters might not come here if they can't shoot three birds. I suppose by the same bizarre logic they will expect the Fish and Widlife Service to pay if the scaup limit drops to two and the die hard diver hunters stay home.

The irony here is that the FB's other proposal could result in fewer non-resident hunters. If everything gets posted by default many non-resident might decide it isn't worth the effort of having to always track down landowners for permission.

Then I propose that if FB legislation gets passed into law and results in fewer non-residents they make up the difference!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Then I propose that if FB legislation gets passed into law and results in fewer non-residents they make up the difference!


 :thumb:

And I'd propose that NDFB sticks to farm issues instead of trying to become a seperate political party to run the rest of the state.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Dick, I agree 100%.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Shame on the NDFB for having an opinion on something. An opinion and nothing more. But it's alright for the NDWF to try and put the Elk farmers in ND out of business. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

This is a very tough subject, and some people get fired up pretty easy. But I would like to ask what gives Mr. Hunter the right to go onto someones property without asking? Yes the game belong to the state, the property in which they are on is private property. I always asked for permission when I hunted. Even if they were my neighbors and they have not posted it and have always said yes , I asked . It was just the right thing to do . What impact would this have on hunting in ND? From what I can tell it would only hurt the road hunters. Those of you who hunt the proper way should not have a problem. This could and most likely would help hunter/landowner relations. Most of the NR hunters already know where they are hunting and the landowners in the area that they are going to hunt. I have talked with more NR hunters about their hunting than residents or even neighbors. I post a little piece of land for my daughters to hunt but other than that its open to who ever, so no I'm not into saying NO HUNTING , but I would like to know who's out there. Would I like to see a Posted ND?? It has its good and bad


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Angus first let me say that reading your posts is refreshing. I commend you on your demeanor and well thought out messages. With that said the biggest problem in ND with a posting law is the absentee landowner's of which there are many. I understand the arguement of property rights. But isn't it the right of property owners to openly allow people to chase game on their property without being called fifty times a week? Last year I had written permission from a landowner to hunt deer. He wrote the permission statement on a copy of the plat map page with his land on it. We were approached by some guys and swore and threatened us for not getting permission from the renter that farmed the land. It was not the renter that confronted us until later. When the renter came to talk to us he was amicable and said to go ahead and hunt but we should have called him too. Where does the permission end? I couldn't believe I almost got into a fight over hunting on land I had written permission on. In ND all a posting law would do is keep peoples phones ringing day and night when they don't care to be bothered. On the other hand the self proclaimed trespassing vigalantes will continue to harass people and lay claim to land they have no right to. Back in the eighties it was rare to see a posting sign now it's rare not to see a sign I ask why is that?


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Yeh , I see your point on the phone calls. When I'm out doing chores there are times I hate to see a load of hunters coming in the yard cause I'm pretty busy , but I always take the time to chat. I figure they took the time for me so I had better take the time for them . Why are there so many posted signs? I think it could be because of several reasons. Liability, kids coming home to hunt, slob hunters who piss off the landowner, hunting shows where the "big buck" is always taken and of course pay to hunt and lease operations. Like I said I only post a little for the kids. What gets me is every year there is someone who just goes and hunts it any way . A Posted ND certainly wouldn't prevent that by no means. I think if hunters would track down some of the landowners who own the land they currently hunt on and just say hi and thanks and even just plain ask " I know its not posted but this is who I am and thank you for the opportunity. " the posted issue I believe would go away.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Swift, in my state when a land owner rents or leases his land he must state in writing on the contract that he retains the right to allow hunters or recreation on that property. If this is not in the contract then only the renter has that authority and if it is in his contract then the renter knows he may see strangers out and about on the property he rents. Seems to make sense to me because as a renter I would also want to know who is on the land I'm paying money for. Just mentioned this as you might want to check to see if that same law exists in the lease laws of your state.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Angus, I wish all landowners were like you. I try to meet as many landowners as I can. Over the past few years the ratio of angry landowners compared to friendly ones has increased. The one thing I wonder is (and don't take this the wrong way) why didn't the farmers from the 70's and 80's care who was out there? I don't have a problem with it but it, seems like a new phenomenom. The statistics say the numbers of hunters has declined over the years. That tells me there should be fewer hunters looking for places to go. On the other hand the number of small farms has diminished as well. That leaves fewer people owning more of the land so those people get hounded more. As far as liability goes there has not been a sucessful lawsuit against a landowner by a hunter that didn't pay to hunt because the landowner is exempt from liablity if the hunter was not charged to access that land. This goes hand in hand with the posting law. Now that the land is open the landowner has no obligation to make that land safe for hunters. If the land is posted automatically who knows what the ruling will be.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Gohon our law in ND states a landowner or lessee are the only people that can post the land. The idea of separating the hunting rights from the land was shot down in the legislature this year. I'm sure individual contracts can spell out whom will be in charge of what. So let me ask you this. Hypothetically I get permission from the landowner. The lessee has a contract with the owner he will control hunting. The lessee comes to me and presses charges for trespassing even though I have written permission from the landowner. The landowner broke the lease by giving me the permission. Am I to be held responsible in criminal court? The lease issue is a civil issue. Trespassing is a criminal issue. I did what was reasonably expected by talking to the landowner. Afterall the county plat books don't put renters names on the tracts of land they put the owners name on it.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

No, the land owner broke the law by giving permission to trespass that he legally did not have the right to do, at least in some states. However the renter of the land would have the legal right to order trespassers from the property regardless of what the land owner said. Look at it this way....... if I as a property owner rent you a house and you are out of town for the weekend, do I have the right to offer that house as quarters to someone else for the weekend just because I own it? Or to allow someone other than the renter to park their truck in the driveway? If I lease property from someone, I expect full control of that property until the contract expires unless there are stipulations in the contract. Kind of makes sense why a renter would post the land doesn't it, if that is the only way he could control who is on his rented land. Anyway, that's how I see it but I think I pulled the thread off topic...... sorry.


----------

