# North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coal**ition *

Announcing the formation of a new organization fighting for the future of the North Dakota outdoors.

The NDOHC was created from a need to ensure that the views of all sportspersons, business owners and landowners recognizing the benefits of resident and nonresident freelance hunters, and others, like many on this site, are represented at this year's legislative session. By having another lobbyist representing more than just hunters this year we also hope to further inform our elected officials as to the impacts of certain legislation on various groups in North Dakota. We have hired Curtis Blohm, Bismarck, as a lobbyist for this legislative session. Curt is currently fighting the good fight in Bismarck, carrying forward positions discussed on this site. Curt is lobbying positions consistent with our goals and mission statement below and is on the side of the average non-paying sportsperson and sustained quality hunting which will ensure that North Dakota remains a premier place to live and hunt into the future. We are in need of contributions to help pay for Curt's hard work and expenses while at the Legislature. Please send any donations to help fight for the future of outdoor recreation in North Dakota to: NDOHC, 3434 114th Ave SE, Valley City, ND,58072. Money goes for lobbying and associated expenses approved by the committee. If you're wondering how much is requested, obviously every bit helps, but ask yourself how much the future of traditional North Dakota hunting is worth to you. None of NDOHC's committee members are paid, but the out of pocket costs for the organization are substantial and the more funds received, the bigger impact we can make.

Mission:

The North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition was founded out of the need to have multi-faceted representation of North Dakota citizens concerned with the preservation of their unique outdoor recreational heritage. Its membership is made up of people from a variety of interests including, but not limited to, hunters and anglers, rural and urban businesses, farmers and landowners, wildlife professionals, and wildlife clubs and organizations, all of whom see the wisdom and necessity of preserving and fostering the underlying principals of the Public Trust Doctrine and in preserving high quality outdoor recreational opportunities that are so important to many aspects of North Dakota's past, present and future. With these goals in mind, this coalition will work with, or oppose, various policy makers at all levels and from all political parties to further it's purpose based solely upon individual issues and their potential associated impacts on North Dakota's outdoor resources.

The North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition believes that North Dakota's fish and wildlife resources must be kept as publicly held resources, owned and managed by the State of North Dakota for the long-term benefit and enjoyment of its citizens, and advocates strongly for no diminishment of this basic principal. We strive to preserve the quality of hunting and other outdoor experiences for current and future generations of North Dakotans, believing that residency in our great state earns us first consideration in matters relating to our outdoor recreation. While we believe North Dakota's bountiful outdoor opportunities should be available to everyone regardless of their residency and encourage maintaining these opportunities for residents of other states, family and friends, we also recognize that the continuing increased demand for a limited resource creates an environment which leads directly to privatization and commercialization of these resources. Therefore, we work to create and maintain a fair distribution of our outdoor recreational opportunities, giving preference to residents of North Dakota, which will ensure maintaining high quality experiences for everyone, fostering future continued use by all.

The North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition believes that commercialization of outdoor recreation represents the single biggest threat to sport hunting in our state. It has already ruined quality sport hunting for all but the wealthiest in virtually all other states with infamous hunting traditions. In just the past few years, commercialization and privatization of wildlife has already gained serious momentum in North Dakota, and unless checked, it will soon dominate North Dakota's hunting landscape as well. The negative impacts associated with large scale commercialization and privatization of wildlife are not limited in scope, but affect many sectors of our society and local communities and are ultimately detrimental to the long term sustainability of the myriad of benefits derived from outdoor related recreation in North Dakota. While recognizing there is a legitimate demand for commercial outfitters and guides, we feel that because they are deriving financial gain from a publicly owned resource deleteriously, they are therefore operating at the whim and on the graces of the rest of society. Consequently, we seek to minimize the impact of these commercial operations on our publicly held resources and recreational opportunities by limiting their numbers and the amount of land under their control to numbers consistent with keeping outdoor recreation widely available to the common man. We also believe that commercial operations should work with sportspersons and other organizations to provide access and also implement habitat and other programs which give back to the publicly held resource from which they derive profits.

The North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition believes that access is a key factor in maintaining our tradition of hunting, is often necessary to attain wildlife management objectives on certain species, and is critical to ensuring high quality outdoor recreation opportunities. We support programs that open private land to access for outdoor recreation especially those that are community-based because of the associated sustained economic impacts. We also support increased acquisition of public land for outdoor recreation and access easements such as the PLOTS program which increase recreational opportunities for the general public. But since access is only one component in ensuring quality outdoors experiences, when and where appropriate, we will also advocate for restrictions on the use of North Dakota's resources which serve to guarantee that all participants have satisfying quality outdoors experiences.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ttt


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

This is no Joke guys.....we need stucture to be more powerfull!!!

Let's keep this post alive!!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Lets take it one step further and put up or shut up, Lets have everyone post up when they send a contribution, I don't care about the amount, just let us know when you send in a donation to help save your outdoors passions!!!! Mine is on the way in tommorrows mail!!! (too late for todays!!  )


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Is there a member list or names of who started this? There must be some kind of board of directors or something. Thanks


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Along with it we should give our devotion to the organization. We need more people/money to support it, but mostly people. We can donate thousands of dollars but fall short in support again! Believe me it's a problem that is facing the Elk's clubs all over the country. All the members will contribute with money but won't give their time. Making their contribution worth less when there is no one out helping with the load.
We need a list of people who contributed financially and physically! 
But most of we need people for the support!!


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

What is the address ?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

This is what we need!! Lay out more detail for all to see.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

We have been busy as it has been a little more than we bargained for to start out with. More details and information will be addressed in the near future. Sorry to not have it all for you right now but we ARE working on it.

Bob


----------



## ND4LIFE (Sep 3, 2004)

how does is pull in NR support? Do you feel you need any support from NR's?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND4life

This is directly taken from the mission statement.

" We strive to preserve the quality of hunting and other outdoor experiences for current and future generations of North Dakotans, believing that residency in our great state earns us first consideration in matters relating to our outdoor recreation. While we believe North Dakota's bountiful outdoor opportunities should be available to everyone regardless of their residency and encourage maintaining these opportunities for residents of other states, family and friends"

Yes we need support from NR's

Bob


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob, what can I do to help?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

At the present time we need donations, and bodies to respond when etree notices are sent out. The next step will be after the session. stay tuned!

All NDOHC members are donating time and effort to the cause, our only expense right now is for the lobbyist effort. The thing we need the most is to find the switch that will turn the sportsmen on and to get them involved, because after the legislative crossover things are going to be real, no more second chances.

Thanks for all of the comments

Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ttt


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Where are all of the ND sportsmens clubs? Are they taking an interest in these legislative issues? With all of the clubs across ND you would think that we would be kicking the O/G arses on these issues, but we're not!

Where are all of you club members? Do you not care or are you afraid to stand up against a neighbor who is or leases to an O/G?


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

While I find this thread kind of amusing I must say something. If this little coalition of yours is paying this lobbyist you need to ask for your money back cause he ain't doin' diddly.
Just my opinion.

Also, as it sounds this would be a coalition of the minority trying to affect the majority. Isn't that the thing that most on here were fighting against originally. It is kind of ironic how things come full circle.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> While we believe North Dakota's bountiful outdoor opportunities should be available to everyone regardless of their residency and encourage maintaining these opportunities for residents of other states, family and friends"


 Except of course Plots( soon to be the only unposted lands in ND) opening week, won't they be fun when there all thats available and all the Res hunters pound them opening week, sorry Bob but this place is not NR friendly. Nrs are only given lipservice if they are relatives or close friends. But I guess its ok, soon most of you will be nrs in Montana, or bumping elbows on the Plots! I'm still on your side and I wish you luck but lets not blow too much smoke :lol: :lol: . 
The real solution is to eliminate Nrs which has precedent in many states. When NR hunting is allowed, it goes down hill for the residents, the commercial crowd takes over. Kansas is a good example they have a WIHA which is the same as PLOTS now that non resident deer hunting is allowed the choice WIHA areas are falling to the G/Os as soon as the contracts expire. Your Plots will be next after they get all the land posted, its the next step. There is no end to the greed.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Bobm said:


> > While we believe North Dakota's bountiful outdoor opportunities should be available to everyone regardless of their residency and encourage maintaining these opportunities for residents of other states, family and friends"
> 
> 
> Except of course Plots( soon to be the only unposted lands in ND) opening week, won't they be fun when there all thats available and all the Res hunters pound them opening week, sorry Bob but this place is not NR friendly. Nrs are only given lipservice if they are relatives or close friends. But I guess its ok, soon most of you will be nrs in Montana, or bumping elbows on the Plots! I'm still on your side and I wish you luck but lets not blow too much smoke :lol: :lol: .
> The real solution is to eliminate Nrs which has precedent in many states. When NR hunting is allowed, it goes down hill for the residents, the commercial crowd takes over. Kansas is a good example they have a WIHA which is the same as PLOTS now that non resident deer hunting is allowed the choice WIHA areas are falling to the G/Os as soon as the contracts expire. Your Plots will be next after they get all the land posted, its the next step. There is no end to the greed.


WOW! This one outta' bring some comments. :stirpot:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Look Guys

There are a few here and a few out there in ND that are total protectionists when it comes to North Dakotas Natural Resources. Our mission statement defines our goal and what we want to accomplish. It is that simple. will a hand full of people be able to do this on our own? the chances are nada, zip, zilch, but it will not stop me or any of us from trying to achieve the goals we have set. Today you can look at the glass of water that represents North Dakota and see it as half empty or half full. I see the glass as half full. With organized efforts directed to the attainable solutions that we face we can keep the glass half full. If apathy, complacency and pessimism are allowed to infiltrate more of the resident and non resident sportsmen that enjoy North Dakota outdoors we will be in dire straits. We are far from that scenario today. IMO we have gained more than we have lost this legislative session. The session is only half over though. If we lose the bills that will be crossed over we will have lost a great deal. The process starts all over again next week the bills that passed the House go to the Senate for hearings and floor votes and the bills that passed in the Senate go to the House for hearings and floor votes.
ETREE notices will be issued and now will be the time to act on them.

Get active, Get Involved and lets do what needs to be done for North Dakotas Outdoors.

Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I posted this on another thread also but it is a big part of NDOHC's platform

For The Good of The People

Ed Owens, Chair, Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management

PO Box 14245, Tumwater, WA 98511-4245, July 2001

Regardless of how we trace its ancestry the Public Trust Doctrine - the principle of common law directing who owns and manages natural resources - is deeply rooted in our culture and history. Some historians have argued that hunting of game, fishing and wildlife management responsibility components of the doctrine have their origins in English common law dating back to the Saxon invasion of England in about 450 AD and maintained after the Norman Conquest in 1066.[1] It is clearly evident that elements of the doctrine related to fish, shorelines and water have come to us from codified dictates enacted by the Roman Emperor Justinian in about 530 A.D.[2]

The English monarchy added strength and recognition to the public trust doctrine with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Changes in English common law enacted in 1641, and additional modifications enacted by Colonial Ordinance in 1647,[3] reinforced the public trust doctrine concept that government has an affirmative duty to administer, protect, manage and conserve fish and wildlife; hence, government cannot relinquish its obligations to a popular vote to establish administrative management, protection, and conservation practices for renewable wildlife and marine resources. In other words, ballot measures cannot supersede governmental (sovereign) rule.

With a history spanning upwards of fifteen centuries, or potentially more, it would be impossible to cite every publication, historical record or litigation associated with the public trust doctrine. Fortunately, such a bibliography is not necessary to illustrate the constantly evolving history of the doctrine as it applies to wildlife management responsibilities. As it seems to be the case with many important issues in America, litigation, and the occasional Act of Congress, have played roles in defining the responsibilities of government under the public trust doctrine. A profile of some of the Acts of Congress and Supreme Court rulings that have defined the public trust doctrine include:

v In 1842 the Supreme Court ruled that the Magna Carta had settled the question of who owns fish and wildlife and that King Charles II did not have the authority to give away the "dominion and property" of lands in colonial America. The court further ruled that since the American Revolution the people held public trust responsibilities for fish and wildlife except for rights specified in the U.S. Constitution.

v In 1892, the Supreme Court declared that the "Sovereign Lands" of a state are held in trust by the State for all present and future generations, and that such land may not be sold for development incompatible with uses covered by the Public Trust Doctrine.[4]

v In 1896, the Supreme Court declared that the states' property right in game was to be exercised as a trust for the benefit of the people of the state.[5] Up until this ruling the 10th Amendment of the Constitution only appeared to give states jurisdiction over wildlife. This court case is considered by many to be the core ruling of states' public trust authority over wildlife but it is somewhat controversial because it does so in terms of ownership.

v The Lacey Act of 1900 utilized the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce to initiate federal involvement in wildlife conservation by prohibiting transportation across state lines of wildlife killed in violation of state laws.[6] Since 1900 the Lacey Act has been amended numerous times as federal and state government public trust authorities have been further refined.

v It took about seven years (1913-20), two Acts of Congress (the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918) and two Supreme Court rulings (the first ruled the 1913 Act unconstitutional and the second upheld the 1918 Act) before the role of Congressional Treaty Powers were sorted out as related to migratory birds and the public trust doctrine concept applied to the management of migratory birds.[7] The 1918 Act and subsequent Supreme Court ruling gave the federal government a strong basis for leading the conservation and management of migratory birds resulting in the application of the public trust doctrine in many treaties for the protection of migratory birds.

v In 1976 the Supreme Court decreed that federal authority may be superior to that of the states in some wildlife management situations but the extent of the authority remains unclear.[8] This relatively undefined aspect of the ongoing public trust doctrine debate is an area likely to draw additional consideration by the courts over time because of the broader states rights versus federal powers (and related issues) debates.

For the first hundred, or so, years of America's history public trust doctrine litigation and legislation generally tended to focus on providing for the public use of waterways for commerce, navigation, and fisheries; a consequence of the mandates established by Emperor Justinian. Court rulings at both the federal and state levels - and legislation including the relatively recent federal Endangered Species, Marine Mammal and Environmental Protection Acts - over the last 150 years, or so, added hunting. In recent years courts have added swimming, recreational boating, and preservation of lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat values as codified elements of the public trust doctrine.

For example, A 1983 California Supreme Court ruling held that the State has an "affirmative duty to take the public trust into account" in making decisions affecting public trust resources, and also the duty of continuing supervision over these resources which allows and may require modification of such decisions.[9] More recently, the definition of the doctrine has been further refined by the California courts as providing the public the right to use water resources for: navigation, fisheries, commerce, environmental preservation and recreation; as ecological units for scientific study; as open space; as environments which provide food and habitats for birds and marine life; and as environments which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area."[10]

A Court in New York State declared that, "[T]he entire ecological system supporting the waterways is an integral part of them and must necessarily be included within the purview of the trust." The Court was calling for protective measures against actions that would degrade the trust resource, the waterway.[11] Another court in the State of Iowa noted that the Public Trust Doctrine has, "emerged from the watery depths [of navigable waters] to embrace the dry sand area of a beach, rural parklands, a historic battlefield, wildlife, archeological remains, and even a downtown area."[12]

The New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County upheld the Long Island Pine Barrens Act ("Act") against a takings challenge by highlighting the public trust doctrine. The decision was handed down on April 22, 1998, Earth Day. Briefly stated, the Act is a comprehensive planning law that established in a 100,000 acre area of Long Island a 50,000 acre protected preserve surrounded by a 50,000 acre managed growth area. Justice William L. Underwood's decision includes an analysis of the common law and he concludes that, "Contrary to popular misconception, the Common Law did speak on the subject of environmental regulation."[13]

Each of these cases, and others just like them, point to the inescapable conclusion that management of our natural resources is the administrative responsibility of government (the sovereign) and that government cannot turn that responsibility over to someone else. In recent years, in the twenty-four states that permit ballot initiatives, the animal rights movement has ignored management of our natural resources on the premise of science and law and bought their way to the ballot with measures seeking to establish their political agenda by changing how natural resources are administered. As a consequence of this activity there are now a number of states where public trust doctrine lawsuits seek to overturn these politically motivated initiatives.[14]

Wildlife management has historically been, and continues to be, a difficult and often contentious arena. Contrary to the political hype of the animal rights movement there are no "magic bullets." To drive wildlife management on the premise of political agenda - on the premise of ballot box biology - when at least fifteen hundred years of history, science, litigation and experience has demonstrated that government (the sovereign) must make such decisions so that they reflect the balanced needs of society and the resource is simply wrong.

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

Footnotes: 
[1] Historical records for the Saxon and Norman periods in English history supporting the concept that hunting of game and wildlife management responsibilities are components of the public trust doctrine are limited. Significant documentation in support of the public trust doctrine does not make itself clearly evident in English law until 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta. While interpretations vary, the premise that Saxon and Norman kings "owned" all that they ruled is the basis most commonly cited to justify the premise that hunting of game and wildlife management responsibilities are elements of the historical record associated with the public trust doctrine.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thanks Bob... very informative and interesting.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Your Welcome!

Later.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

An Open Letter to the NDOHO,

First, Congradulations on trying to ORGANIZE! I was really quite surprized to read the ND didn't have an active waterfowl/wildlife association that is truly committed to acting as a voice for ND sportspersons of any kind that was worth it's own weight.

Bob, you're right. Unless you guys commit to organizing your mission will never be accomplished. I'm sure many of you noticed the WWA insignia by my name. It stands for Wisconsin Waterfowl Association. We are a 501(c)3 organization that is working for the betterment of the Wisconsin Waterfowler commited to restoration and preservation of wetlands, education and legislative representation. We formed 20 years ago and in the beginning it was tough but I firmly believe that WWA has made a remarkable difference in regards to the state of affairs concerning waterfowl hunting in Wisconsin. We now have representation at the state and federal level, have restored thousands of acres of wetlands, purchased many more acres and have been involved in numerous large projects. It's all pretty much grassroots and that's what you need. As well meaning as this forum is and it is a great tool, nothing works quite as well as organizing. Imagine how well the both of them combined will work.

In closing I wish you the best of luck. You're not going to get everything done overnight and you sure as heck ain't going to get it done alone. I would hope that the masses of ND would support this cause as it is really something that you would all benefit from.

Good Luck
Wiscan22 :beer:


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I joined three weeks ago. I am getting many involved in the various aspects of North Dakota Resident hunting rights. The fight will never end.. Apathy is our worst enemey.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

For many years we have talked about a proactive organization that would unite the efforts of outdoorsmen for *strictly legislative issues*. When Cannonball pushed for exclusionary use of the pheasant season that cataylst was born. We need to get over the idea of reacting. Instead put our own agenda into the forefront. The g/o organization and the CVBs do it very effectively, sportsmen do not. The effort of sportspersons to sponsor legislation has been pathic.

I admire the work that state wildlife organizations and the habitat organizations have accomplished. But their scope is too wide, or non- existant, when it comes to issues of law and resource use. When has there been a press release defending the public trust doctrine? Nothing against the habitat based organizations, but they will not stop or slow exclusivity, or even take a stand on it.

We had hoped that the North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition could fill that empty hole. That it would furnish the vehicle to launch and or defend legislation that upheld the public trust for North Dakotans. And our guests. That is why it was designed to be strictly issue based. Being strictly issue based is the difference. Time will tell.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

When and where does this group plan on meeting???


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

dj, right now it is strictly by email. We are in crunch time and can't hold a meeting untill the session is through. But you can bet your waders there will be organizational meetings down the road and an open opportunity for both planning and involvement.


----------

