# Bis. Trib. letters 5/23/04



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

Right to hunt is not right to trespass
By RODNEY and KATHRYN FROELICH, Selfridge 
Let's set the record straight.

My wife and I live in Sioux County, which is located on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Because of our location, we must adhere to federal, tribal and state laws. We do not own one acre of CRP land. We do not own or operate a guide or outfitting business. For anyone to pontificate that our current lawsuit is for personal gain would be a huge misstatement of fact.
Private property rights have always been of the utmost importance to us and to my constituents. It makes no difference if that property is a house on a lot or a farm. That is the point of our lawsuit against the state.

Over the years, many legislators have offered alternatives to correct the injustice of requiring a landowner to post to keep hunters off his land. They have all been fought by special-interest groups, leaving no recourse for us but to ask the court system for judicial clarification.
The question I want answered is simple: Does the executive or legislative branch of government have the authority to give away anyone's private property rights? The North Dakota Game and Fish Department publishes that if land is not posted, anyone can hunt on that property.
When the state declares that private property can be used by the public if we do not post signs, is that not a taking of private-property owners' constitutional rights?
I quote a pertinent section of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Some say we post signs to hoard the game. Nothing could be further from the truth. As farmers and ranchers, we have a huge financial investment in our property. It is our life blood.
One fire can cause catastrophic financial hardship, as some of my neighbors recently experienced. A fence gate left open can mean many hours or days of returning livestock to their proper places. Some suggest putting up permanent signs; but with those come added expense, not to mention the possibility that they will be shot up or torn down by those who don't respect property rights.
The media's insinuation that I am somehow an innocent dupe in the Farm Bureau's lawsuit is wrong. I challenge you to look at the policy planks of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association, the N.D. Farmers Union, the N.D. Republican Party and N.D. Farm Bureau. They all contain similar policy concerning private-property rights.
I approached the farm organizations with the constitutionality question. I applaud the Stockmen's Association, the Farm Bureau and all of the county Farm Bureaus, the county Farmers Unions and individuals who have contributed vocally and financially to this cause.
Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm, the legal entity taking up the case, is made up of a cross section of farmers and ranchers from across the state. Farm Bureau is a part of the wheel, but it does not turn the wheel. The property owners are the real driving force.
I voted for the recent constitutional amendment affirming the right to hunt. The right to hunt does not mean the right to trespass. Where does it state in the amendment that the citizens of this state gave away our private-property rights? It is a privilege to be on private property, not a right.
Some have said the current system works great. To those I say, "You have not walked in my boots." Is it justifiable to throw out the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? If so, then I say to the media, let's also throw out the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.

(The writers are ranchers, and Mr. Froelich is a state legislator. This month, a state district court disqualified the Froelichs' lawsuit as seeking an advisory legal opinion, which the judge said state courts do not give. The suit may be headed for the state Supreme Court. -- Editor)

=============================================

Deck stacked
By BILL PEDA, Woodworth 
Congratulations to Rod Froelich on his posting lawsuit. I and every other landowner who is forced to post his land are in his camp. He will lose not because he isn't right but because of politics.
The judge should have said it like it is: "I am ruling against you because there are more urban sportsmen than wildlife landowners, and that makes for more votes." We wildlife landowners are the minority of the minority. We don't even have a lot of farmers on our side because they don't have hunting land and are looking for a place to hunt themselves.
The ducks and geese have returned and are nesting or will be nesting soon on our land. Later, when I mow my Conservation Reserve Program acres, I will be careful not to destroy any nests. When harvest time comes, my neighbor will swath his wheat, and the birds will eat as much as they can before he gets it combined. 
Then comes October, and you sportsmen go to your club meetings. You jump up and down and yell, "We have our rights, those are our ducks," and go out and hunt them.
You sportsmen are right, you pay taxes for my CRP. You, along with every taxpayer in the United States. It comes to a fraction of a penny on my land. That's why the sportsmen in Minnesota are so angry -- they want their rights, too.
If you have good hunting land and don't post it, it becomes public hunting grounds. If you do post, you are checked on to see if you are at home; if not, it's an invitation to hunt.
With all of the interest in hunting, there should be more hunting land owned by Game and Fish, and that land should be enhanced with large food plots for hunting. That's something for you sportsmen to do. You already have the Legislature in your pocket.

==============================================

These have not been altered in anyway, shape, or form.

H2OfowlND


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

He must of forgot about *eminant domain (*spelling), underlying all of our ownership... this is the USA not Froelich Land... what a goofball!!!


----------



## stoeger (Aug 20, 2003)

I don't see what the problem is about posting their land. In the fall I put up my signs right after harvesting in the field, fixing fence or hauling hay off. Its no big deal. I am right there anyway so it only takes a few seconds. Others might say that they have alot of acres to post. Well my arguement is that they are more than likely gonna go by their land whether their harvesting, checking cattle, fixing fence or going to town so why not put the sign up if you dont want intruders.

Just my :2cents:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

stoeger, you're right I do the same on my farm.

Farm Bureau gets the status of their policy planks confused with the law in our century code. As to which has precedence. :wink: More convienant that way. For their outfitter members.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

How stupid does Mr. Froelich think we are, His address is listed as 8710 highway 6 Selfridge ND, A company called Arikara outfitters (internet search) also lists the same address 8710 highway 6 Selfridge ND! :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

I may be a dumb old country boy, but :
When you have a ND "law maker" and a large (20,000ac.) Hunting Outfitter living at the same address, who just happens to be in a lawsuit with the state of ND, and the same person writes a letter stating how squeaky clean his motives are, well lets just say this stinks like a trunk full of week old dead fish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :******: :******: :******:

Throw in the Farm Bureau and I think we have one very large conflict of interest.

or maybe I am a dumb old country boy


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

BINGO, Open Field!![/b]


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Attaboy, Open Field. It looks like that research we are doing on the guides and outfitters is already paying dividends. I'm glad you cited the facts about the Arikara Outfitters and the Froelich connection. We are tired of being lied to.


----------



## stoeger (Aug 20, 2003)

I can just see his response. He is not affiliated with the outfitter. They are a separate entity. The only connection is that they use his land for hunting and residency.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I hope someone from up there draws up a good response to send to that same newspaper, outlining the connections to the outfitter so all the people who voted for him can know what a lying bastard he is. :roll:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

A letter is in the works!!!!!!!!!!!! :******: :******: :******:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Note that this letter appeared in both Fargo and Bismarck. Where I find interest in the whole fiasco is in his statement in the paper.

"When the state declares that private property can be used by the public if we do not post signs, is that not a taking of private-property owners' constitutional rights? 
I quote a pertinent section of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

There are three curious parts to his statement. First, as far as I know, the NDCC code states that only the landowner or leasee may post the land. It makes no mention about whether the the land is open. However, the legal interpretation is that the land is open to public access only for hunting. The same portion of the NDCC requires written permission for trapping. 
Second, even if unposted land is used by the public, "taking" implies some economic benefit is lost by the landowner or some land use is taken away from the land owner. I do not think this has ever been successfully argued in court. Taking also implies the restriction of use by the land owner which does not occur during hunting. Third, he quotes the Fifth amendment, which if you notice, has the "due process of law". Since our legislature, at sometime in the past, must have altered the century code to indicate the posting problem, there had to have been a due process of law used to alter the code, therefore, the fifth amendment is upheld for landowners. Attempts by the legislature to change that part of the Century Code is also the "due process of law" but has failed to pass any legislature in the past 30 years.

I would be interested to know if anyone has looked at the old legislative proceedings to see when the Century Code first indicated the posting regulation. The original bill and its comments on the legislative floor would be useful to decide the original intent of the Code.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Gaddy he lives and represts in his district the heart of G/O and fee hunting. Simply put to them he is representing them.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey guys hows the exclusive research on the G/O's doing? It seems you have pulled this under your wings. I, and maybe more than me, would appreciate it if you guys would share your findings or status of your efforts. 8)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Buckseye:
I have been a little busy with things so far this week but we are working on it. The list I received (15 pages long) is by name only and I have been getting acreage from the websites once I match the name to the G/O. I had an idea that there was a bunch of G/O's out there but I had no idea that there was over 400 registered. There are who knows how many un-registered G/O's as they do not need to register and get licensed if they use their own land, Froelich is a good example of that, That is all I know Bud  
I am sure Perry has more info as to the status of the Map.

Have a good one!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

A very hearty thank you Open Field...any questions about McHenry County I would be more than happy to help with. Again thanks 8)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is the Reply for the Froelich Letter

In their recent letter, Represantative Rodney and Kathryn Froelich made several statements about their lawsuit challenging the states posting laws. I'm confused by many of the statements in that letter and hope the Froelich's will, finally, set the record straight.

First, they state: "WE DO NOT OWN ONE ACRE OF CRP LAND. WE DO NOT OWN OR OPERATE A GUIDE OR OUTFITTING BUSINESS. FOR ANYONE TO PONTIFICATE THAT OUR CURRENT LAWSUIT IS FOR PERSONAL GAIN WOULD BE A HUGE MISSTATEMENT OF FACT."

According to records at the office of the North Dakota Secretary of State, a business named Arikara Outfitters LLP, has as its principal place of business the same address as is listed for Mr. Froelich's legislative contact information. The nature of the business is listed as Guide and Hunting Outfitting. An internet search for 
Arikara Outfitters turnes up a very nice web page offering 20,000 acres of land, called the Froelich Ranch, for clients to hunt various species of game. the address listed on the website is the same as the Secretary of State and legislative information.

This information and the statement by the Froelich's seem inconsistent. Perhaps the Froelich's lease this land to an outfitter, or perhaps family members, and not the froelich's themselves, operate the guiding and outfitting business on their property. At one level or another, however, it seems the Froelich's , or their land, are closly associated with guiding and outfitting.

A change in the trespass law would greatly enhance the guide and outfitting industry, an industry that has played a disproportionate role in the decline in the quality of North Dakota hunting, for the vast majority of resident and nonresident hunters alike. Land that has not been posted over the years would automatically become posted through a law change, further complicating already difficult access issues. Further, without purchasing expensive atlases for each county and frequently repurchasing those atlases to stay current, there would be no way of knowing who to contact for access permission. These factors would force hunters into the arms of the outfitters.

Also, Mr. Froelich claims the current access law violates his Fifth Amendment rights. In certain parts of the state, there is still a fair amount of unposted land, and I know certain communities are encouraging landowners not to post their land to facilitate access for hunters and their dollars. What about the rights of those landowners who choose to freely grant access and/or don't want to be distracted by hunters, and elect not to post their land for those reasons? Are their rights less important than Froelich's. Why should they be forced to post their land affirmativly granting access?

Finally, Mr. Froelich tries to downplay the role of the Farm Bureau in the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm and this lawsuit. On it's website, however, the North Dakota farm Bureau states: "A public interest law firm formed through the initiative of North Dakota Farm Bureau has filed a lawsuit........Aamundstad said NPPILF was formed to litigate this case and others like it that affect farmers, ranchers and rural communities."

The Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm is patterned after similar organizations in other Western States that have promoted the commercilazation of and profiteering from fish and game and worked to exclude average, common outdoor enthusiasts. And anyone who has followed the hunting debates over the last few years knows farm Bureau has worked, at every opportunity, against the interest of resident sportspersons. It seems that, to Farm Bureau, the hunting debates have become more about an opportunity for self-promotion through confrontation and fight than about finding solutions that can work reasonably well for everyone.

Contrary to Mr. Froelich's comments, it would appear Farm Bureau is The Wheel, Turns the Wheel and is the real driving force behind this suit, and through it, wishes to further divide North Dakota citizens for another opportunity at self-promotion and self-importance and further facilitate profiteering from the STATE'S game for some of its prominent Members. That's what "rights" this suit seems to be all about.

Thanks to all who helped   

Have a good one!


----------



## stoeger (Aug 20, 2003)

Looks good except for the typo in paragragh three. Arukara


----------

