# Comments on an idea of a new trespass law???



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I mentioned this is many posts....

I would like to hear some feed back. (Please read whole post.)

How would you think a new tresspass Law in ND would work. Example you need permission to hunt on land. No more if it is not posted you can hunt.

Now what I mentioned above about the tresspass Law.....Renters have the main say who can be on the land......So if the owner is a snow bird and rents out the land....the tennant can grant permission. And you can find tennants by asking neighbors, people in town, etc.

Also if the land is in CRP....make that open....because the STATE or Goverment is the Tennant. They are the ones paying the rent (CRP Payments)! Unless the owner puts up posters. (again this is for the snow birds.) So you have to have a provision in the CRP contract that states....if you do not want hunting on this parcel you must post the property...if not posted it is open to hunting. (Same as it is now....no change!)

Examples: 
- 1000 acres in CRP....not posted - Open to hunting (permission by
contract.)
- 1000 acres in CRP...posted....need to ask permission (like now)
- 1000 acres of crop land.....need to ask permission (posted or not)
- 1000 acres of woods....need to ask permission (posted or not)
- 1000 acres of swamps....need to ask permission (posted or not)

So in other words.....CRP and no posters....it is the same as now, you can hunt.

Everything else.....need to ask permission.

Here is my logic:
It will get rid of a lot of SLOB hunters. And to be honest most of the rif between the R and NR is all because of SLOBS. This will also cut down on the NR hunters. I know because I have talked with others and that one of the main reasons why they like going to ND. They can just hunt if they don't see posters.....IMO this is very poor. I always ask permission.

Now I would love to hear some reponses on this....good and bad.

*****And please the absentee land owner arguement won't work because of what I mentioned above with the tennant.******


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> Now I would love to hear some reponses on this....good and bad.


NO


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

870......WHY?

Be productive instead of negative....why wont this work???


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

You asked, I just had a shorter answer to your question than you apparently wanted. Basically I feel that it makes North Dakota the great place that it is, I know tradition isn't everything but I think this seperates us from other states. People have tried to push this through legislature before and it fails miserably everytime.

Bob K is correct in that the landowner does not assume liability on non-posted lands.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I ask you again.....

Liability issues.....If you have an icy driveway and do not take care of it...Someone falls down. Does your homeowners policy pay that claim....it is the same as a hole at a farm or bare land (lot). Unless it is written in state law that the farmer does not have that liability for open to hunting (like the tresspass law states now.) Now in that situation why can't said individual sue the state then....because the state if taking on the liability. Again another can o worms.

Please direct me to the law and I will get off this.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

If imposed, I would spend more time looking for landowners than for geese. Serious. Even though legally I do not have to, I still try to find them to ask permission. But at least 1/2 the time I do not find them, or find out from a neighbor they live out of the area. I bet 1/2 the time I would be with out a field to hunt in the morning if the law was changed.

If you think adding to the tresspass law will effect the slobs, get real. It is just like gun control, the law abiding ones will comply, but the law breakers never will. Same for the slobs. It only hurts the law abiding ones, not the slobs IMO.

3 things are needs to regulate the slobs. Law Abiding hunters willing to call the Game warden on them. More GWs patrolling in the field. 3 Get the judges to throw the book at the slobs. Like permanent forfieture of hunting lic for life. Serious jail time--even for 1 st offenses of gross violations. That type of thing.

Meaning enforce the existing laws better and harder as that will curb them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

H2oFwler

I agree with it will take more time to find the land owner. But I only see positives in this:

- Land owner will know who is on thier land.
- You can get permission to drive on it
- You can get a better scouting report..(they have been feeding for a 
week or check out my other feild!)
- You can build a repore with the land owner.
- You can put a name to a face.
- If a slob hunter (land owner will know who it is!)
- You will stay longer in the community. (spend more money)
- Cuts down days of hunting (example of a person shooting limits every
day....many R think NR do this...some do.)
- Pressure on Birds (see above)

I know what you mean by slobs will be slobs....but it will keep some out.

It will also help with ethical hunters...

Example: I see geese flying a certain direction all the time. SO I might set up on a fence line for some pass shooting. Well that same day about a feild over (that I did not notice---and feild is owned by same farmer) was a hunter set up for these same geese. Again I am being ethical and not trying to screw up the others hunt. This way I need to gain permission and the farmer might tell me that others are hunting his land.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Chuck,

While there may be some positives, most ND hunters would view them outweighed by negative factors. Do a search - the issue has been hashed over many times, almost from the site's inception - you'll find lots of thoughts about why it is a net negative.

Keep in mind that when you're in MB, if you can't locate the landowners for scouting choices A, B and C, you'll probably at least be able to find one that owns D, E or F. With ND's current level of use and the amount of ground that's tied up, we don't have that luxury anymore.

Even "me-first" hypocrite Tony Dean finally got this one right. Years ago he weighed in and supported such a change in SD - and has since stated several times how wrong he was to do so. One day he'll look beyond his wallet and understand the rest too.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

We do not need to change the trespass law. It works fine the way it is right now.

If you want to stop the slobs, enforce the laws already in place, including stiffer penalties by judges. If you ask me, our judicial system is far to leniant.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

[No message]


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dan,

Can you please explain in more detail? I don't understand how this will tie up more land. Or the negatives.

The only one I have found is that it is hard to locate the owner. But like I mentioned....have the tennant give final say.

This is a national real estate law...the tennant has the right to grant or deny permission for access to the rented land/property. In theory a tennant can tell the owner you can't come on this land. Unless it is to inspect or repair said property (hunting is not inspection or repair!). But what tennant would say no don't come on my land (which I rent from you) to the owner - NONE. Because next time the contract comes up....they won't be renting. But the tennant can do this at thier disgression as written in the National law.

Yes I am a real estate agent as well. (please don't hate me too much :wink (I know I three strikes against me....Real estate agent, insurance agent, and a NR)


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I like 870's response. No.

But to be more "constructive", I'd trade a tresspass law for a complete ban on/ellimination of:
1) paid guiding and outfitting within the state,
2) caged, fenced, game farm hunting, and
3) "rental fees" paid to hunt publicly owned game animals,
4) any commercialization of hunting,
5) all green house gasses.

Tresspassing isn't the problem, the commercialization of hunting though bottom-dwelling guide and outfitter industry is. Do you know the reason and roots of the current tresspass law in ND?

How about it Chuck? Gotta a trade?

M.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Ask South Dakota how they like down there or any state that has the no trespass law. It would be a night mare for most freelancers. Like he said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This change has been attempted long before you were here and it will long after we are gone.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

In MB I used to get my A & B fields all the time--now due to guides tieing up the farms, last year I was doing the C, and D fields. :******:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chuck you could do a search on this topic on this forum and others and find all the answers to your questions! Each year for as long as I can remember this issue has been brought in front of the Leg who have turned it back each time!

When the outcome again was not what some wanted they sought to change the law via a lawsuit which they lost!

The one important factor that you may have missed is that under current law landowners who do not charge a monetary fee are protected from liability related to activity while hunting!

Most legislators I have spoken with who would like a change in the law to no trespass feel that they could not get that provision through along with the change. Without that protection a lot of land would never be open to hunting for anyone.

So do a search of the achieves and I do believe you will get what you are looking for as this issue has been debated over and over almost as much as the issues of Res vs NR!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Absolutely not. Like 870 said, this has been rehashed many times and usually by someone who stands to gain financially if the new trespass law goes through.

No 
No 
No...


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Chuck,

Please do a search - you'll find all the commentary you want, and then some.

I never said it would tie up more land - just wouldn't do much to send things the other way. Thinking about it further, it probably would serve to tie up more land. Like any other factor making it harder to get on ground, the tendency is for those who are able to get their own.



> This is a national real estate law


Ah...no. Real estate law is by and large state-specific.



> the tennant has the right to grant or deny permission for access to the rented land/property. In theory a tennant can tell the owner you can't come on this land. Unless it is to inspect or repair said property (hunting is not inspection or repair!). But what tennant would say no don't come on my land (which I rent from you) to the owner - NONE. Because next time the contract comes up....they won't be renting. But the tennant can do this at thier disgression as written in the National law.


Ah...again...no. What you describe is largely a function of what the contract (i.e. lease) says. The tenant has all (and only) the rights granted in the lease. The parties are free to contract those specific rights. Increasingly in ND, operating ag rights and hunting rights are leased seperately by a landowner to different parties.

Did the tresspass law change in SD thwart SD pheasant hunting commercialization? No. The cap, and not the tresspass law, is the only thing holding the lid on SD waterfowl commercialization.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Chuck,

If you want a hand in regulating hunting in ND, first - move to ND. Almost every comment you have made on hunting in ND seems to be aimed at insuring that you get get "your share" at the expense of the resident hunter. The resident hunter is not the one that has been the cause of the increased hunting pressure and increased leased land. That falls squarely on the shoulders of you - the non-resident hunter.

Please tell me why you think the resident hunter - you know, the one that lives in this state, buys all his clothers, groceries, vehicles, sporting equipment etc. here and pays taxes here - should take a hit on hunting so you can come in for a week or two and literally destroy what we have here. We know it's good - that's why we live here. If you want it too, move in - I'd like to have you as a neighbor.

Jim


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

Last I checked the state of ND is not the tenant on my crp land. They pay me to idle it, so if they are the tenant then why am I out there controlling the noxious weeds for them then. If they are the tenant they can send a sprayer out next time.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Did the trespass law change in SD thwart SD pheasant hunting commercialization? No. The cap, and not the trespass law, is the only thing holding the lid on SD waterfowl commercialization.


God I hate to agree with you Dan !! You have to look to the Pierre area where they have the private land goose licenses and you see commercialization at its finest.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I would love a change to our trespass law in ND to require hunters to ask permission to access because I think that it would dramatically favor resident sportsmen. It appears to me that many resident hunters want the best of both worlds.. to hop on any unposted land without asking, allthewhile wanting restrictions on NRs to reduce hunter pressure.

If the law was changed, any resident freelancer should be able to gain permission to all kinds of hunting property if they are simply willing to work at it. Now, before all the "but, what about snowbird landowner" nay-sayers jump in to argue, I have no sympathy. You just need to scout and start meeting landowners well before the hunting season.

Buy a plat book or two and start knocking on doors. It is not that hard. Plus, you don't have to lay awake all night the night before your hunt wondering if anybody else is going to beat you to "your" unposted field the next morning.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

But again....why?

I know the aint broke don't fix it....But many of the issues that people are complaining about this will type of law may help.

1. Pressure on birds by NR's
- You have to obtain permission (could take a day or two)
- less days hunting and more scouting
- Farmer might see how many people hunt his land and manage the
pressure.

2. Too many NR's....
- This law will filter some out.

3. People Posting land (access) - Farmers veiw.
- Don't what to waste time and money in posting land
* some post it now to just know who is on the land.

4. Unethical hunting
- The some unethical ones again will get weeded out.
- setting up on fence/section line and shooting before they get to a
spread. (can be ethical or unethical)

5. People will be in the small communities longer (more money)
- see #1

6. Limits/hampers the NR
- Days in Feild actually Hunting (see #1)
- Can't have the Shoot, shoot and shoot. You need to dosome leg
work
- If they take an early visit (Pre season) See #5

You see I hear people debating all of these other issues and with a tresspass law it could help with the these issues.

Now negatives that nobody has mentioned....

1. Bugging the farmers in the feild.
2. Access....or the preception of that. 
- like stated above on positives for farmers (see #3 above)
- but the people who say no will still say no.

Responding to Indvidual comments _____________________________________________________________

Disldog.....Thank you for your comment. I total forgot about the maintance of the crp. Again thank you.

______________________________________________________________

Jhegg.... How will this limit the R. Like you mentioned. You live there. You should have the best possible way to gain access and make a relationship.

This would limit the NR more. Example. I have 7 days to hunt. With a tresspass law. I have to take time to hunt down the Landowner. Or I have to make a visit before the season. Met with land owners and gain permission. Again this is another visit to the state. (again taking my time and see above)

______________________________________________________________

Dan....

Agreed a lease can be written many different ways. But if it is not stated in the lease that the owner retains hunting rights or access rights. They belong to the tennant. THEY MUST BE STATED!

Also agreed that some state laws can trump national laws.

_____________________________________________________________

Ron....

Thank you for your response. But my question is how well has that held up in court? All it will take is one lawyer and one judge. (I have seen many situations where that is all it took)

_____________________________________________________________

H2ofowler

Question. In MB can quides lease land? In SK they can not. They are freelance. They have to ask permission everyday to hunt. (heard this from a guide in SK this past weekend.) That is why they are having problems with Rogue guides.

_____________________________________________________________
Bigdaddy....

Thank you!
:beer:  :jammin:

_____________________________________________________________

Everyone. Thank you for your responses
Chuck


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

CHAPTER 53-08

LIABILITY LIMITED FOR OWNERS OF RECREATION LANDS

(North Dakota Century Code Chapter 53-08 will cover all of the definitions, etc listed below)

53-08-01. Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires: "Charge" means the amount of money asked in return for an invitation to enter or go upon the land.

"Land" includes all public and private land, roads, water, watercourses, and ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment thereon. "Owner" includes tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises.

"Recreational purposes" included any activity engaged in for the purpose of exercise, relaxation, pleasure, or education.

53-08-02. Duty of care of landowner. Subject to the provisions of section 53-08-05, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.

53-08-03. Not invitee or licensee of landowner. Subject to the provisions of section 53-08-05, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not hereby:

Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;

Confer upon such persons the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or

Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of such persons.

53-08-04. Leased land to state or political subdivisions. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, an owner of land leased to the state or its political subdivisions for recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that land safe for entry or use by others or to give warning to persons entering or going upon such land of any hazardous conditions, uses, structures, or activities thereon. An owner who leases land to the state or its political subdivisions for recreational purposes does not by giving such lease:

Extend any assurance to any person using the land that the premises are safe for any purpose;

Confer upon such persons the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or

Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of a person who enters upon the leased land.

The provisions of this section apply whether the person entering upon the leased land is an invitee, licensee, trespasser, or otherwise.

53-08-05. Failure to warn against dangerous conditions. Charge to enter. Nothing in this chapter limits in any way an liability which otherwise exists for:

Willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or

Injury suffered in any case when the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land other than the amount, if any, paid to the owner of the land by the state.

53-08-06. Duty of care or liability for injury. Nothing in this chapter may be construed as creating a duty of care or grounds of liability for injury to person or property. Nothing herein limits in any way the obligation of a person entering upon or using the land of another for recreational purposes to exercise due care in that person's use of such land and in that person's activities thereon.

Prepared by the Office of State Tax Commissioner - February 2004

Leona Kuntz, Compliance Officer - 701-328-3389, [email protected]

Tax Department website: http://www.state.nd.us/taxdpt


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob

Thank you for making that clear.....I with drawn my statements about the liability.

Question about the accident when the farmer shot into the decoys and killed that hunter. What has happened with that? If anything?

Again Thank you for clearing things up. Like I mentioned in the states I am liscensed to sell insurance in.....the landowner or thier insurance company will pay. Again thank you.

Chuck


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Don't know that incident happened in SD


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I thought it happen in ND.....but could easily be mistaken.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

It did happen in SD 1.5 years ago, and that hunter HAD PERMISSION TO HUNT.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This history of the posting law was passed word of mouth from an old legislator many years ago, don't know if it's true, but it does make sense.

In the early days much land was purchased on speculation by people who did not live on it or work it. There were no telephones to call for permission. The county seat was a days ride away by horse. A high number of people hunted for meat. So the legislature passed a tresspass bill that required posters if the owner would not grant entry for hunting.

It's served us well, keep it as is.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Chuck have you gone to Tony Deans site and asked him why he changed his position? Think about other types of hunting. How about predator hunting? Will the coyote wait for you to find the land owner and get permission? You would eliminate the small town income from these people.A no tresspass law would eliminate this hunting. The system has worked well for many years. It doesn't need changing.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Old Hunter.....Good point. I never thought about the predator hunters.

But in this past year hasn't there been some problems with those hunters as well....(Driving on prop, shooting out of vehicles, etc.)

Maybe it can be a provision excluding predators....

Yes I know it is a lot of work. But if you can make a good tresspass law....it would help with alot of other problems.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> But in this past year hasn't there been some problems with those hunters as well....(Driving on prop, shooting out of vehicles, etc.)


Explain to me please how a trespass law would affect this type of behavior?? BTW they were from Wiscinsin.

Would it be fair to the just shift the burden to landowners that freely welcome hunters to their property by not posting to put up signs that say hunters welcome??

There are a number of landowners that do not want people knocking on their door and being bothered so they do not post their land. Others welcome hunters because of depredation problems and they want the wildlife thinned to benefit them. Shifting the burden of posting to benefit hunting is not the answer in fact I will go so far as to call it kinda selfish of hunters because it is the landowners choice, who are we to tell them what to do with their property. The landowners have spoken everytime this has been brought up in our legislature. It has been defeated with a resounding NO!

If that is the way they(the majority of ND landowners) want it so be it and I will abide by their decision, and work along side of them to defeat the proposal if it surfaces again.

Bob


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chuck the fallacy that creating a new law will reduce bad behavior is kind of pie in the sky thinking! I have landowners who post some of their land and leave the majority open.

Yet those who have no regard for the posting enter the land anyway, and a law change would not make it better! Plus as it was back when the law was put on the books more and more landowners are becoming absentee owners. This a result of inherited land by children who have left ND or the immediate area and from those who are investing in land when it becomes available.

I hunt a good deal of that land and most of the landowners have signed a sheet of paper for me to hunt it until they notify me otherwise. i did this because of some unethical G/O who attempted to make it sound as if they had leased the land for hunting! But in regards to waterfowl hunting, I know for a fact that if the land was closed under a trespass law, most people no matter how hard they tried would never get in contact with the owners in a timely manner to secure permission!

ND law works well and it has other benefits as well! Case in point is deer populations! The G&F heard the concerns that fewer adult does where being seen in many units. Success rates have fallen in some of the units for does also. Open access has allowed the people to harvest the deer!

Take the access tool away from the G&F as a management tool and the populations will continue to rise unchecked as they are in many areas of the state that are heavily leased or posted with little access.

This this issue like a lot of others is not as narrow in scope and impact as we sometimes think it is! To fix one perceived problem we many times cause other problems to increase and become even larger than the one we thought we where fixing!

As others have pointed out Tony Dean learned that lesson the hard way, we would be remiss to not learn from his mistake!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron:

How will this effect the deer population? If people will let you hunt...they will let you hunt. You just need to make contact with them. If it is posted now.....it will still be posted.

I also don't understand how it is a management tool. Please explain more?

With Cell phones, computers, etc.....you can get a hold of people very quickly.

Or if you can not make contact with them for that year of the waterfowl season....get the contact information for the next year or return trip. I have done it for years in canada, missouri, iowa, western mn, wisconson, etc. For pheasants, deer, turkeys, ducks, geese. 
*IT CAN BE DONE, BUT IT TAKES WORK AND EFFORT!*

_____________________________________________________________

Bob,

What I am getting at with the poor behavor...The land owner will know who the people are doing these things.

Example...YOu ask a land owner for permission. They grant it. You then drive in a feild. They will know it is you that was driving in the field. So if they do not like this type of action......they can chew you a$$ out, not grant you permission anymore, call authorities, etc. This way the land owner will know who it is.

Another example.....You get permission to drive in a feild. So does another group.....You witness the other group do some bad things....You can go back to the land owner and get names (if possible), state in which they are from, where they are staying, etc.

****Because sometimes you can't write down lisc plate numbers that quickly, or get the state in which they are from, or they are not in a vehicle (shooting over limits). All you have to do is go with the G&F and id them, vehicle, etc. Then let the G&F do thier job.

You get my point. People will be held more accountable. Because the law as it is now.....who knows exactly is on that land.

Yes I know that the people who disrespect the posters now this will have no effect on at all.

In my opinion not having a tresspass law or want to change it is very selfish of hunters. It also shows laziness of hunters. Myself I like to know who's land I am on. This way I can thank them for allowing me an oppurtunity to hunt on thier land. Maybe it is because I like doing business face to face.

Last fall, my only time hunting in ND, I knocked on a door to ask permission to hunt pheasants. I got permission. The land owner even told me about the law. I told him that I would rather met the land owner and speak with him for awhile, instead of "running and gunning". I told him it felt like I was abusing or taking advantage of his land. He told me he never thought of it this way. After our visit he thanked me for taking time to talk with him and appreciated the stop. When I left after my trip....I stopped again and talked with all the land owners that gave me permission. I also handed them fruit baskets and my business card. This past christmas I got X-mas cards from two of the farmers and letters asking if I was going to return this fall.

Again maybe it is just me....but I see the US and it is less and less personable than it used to be. I see a me first society. I can't stand this.......Also to let you know...I am 28 years old. Sorry i will get off the soap box.

*Again if the landowners want the law this way...then that is the way it should be. This is fine by me.* But I will still knock on doors because I think it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> It also shows laziness of hunters


.

Making a big assumption there Chuck!! You think that you are the only one that asks permission weather it is posted or not??

I think you will find the vast majority do ask!! again your logic is completely lost trying to regulate the fringe element by regulating the whole. Ain't gonna happen. All it takes is one slob hunter to make an impression, it wont matter at all weather there is a posting law or not.

BTW I have had to ask permission about 4 times in the last two years. Most of the land I hunt on is landowners that turned into very good friends and they have been for years. You will find that there are many of us residents that are in the same situation.

Bob


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am sorry, I didn't mean to call other hunters lazy. I know others ask permission.....But many don't.

But I think people are taking advantage of that law. *IMO* Not asking permission = not respecting the land owner or land. *Again this is in my opinion.* Maybe I have this veiw because of every state I hunt in there is a tresspass law and I did not grow up with a type of law like the one in ND.

But Bob like you mentioned.....you became good friends with those land owners. Think of how many others could meet good people if they were kinda "forced" (tresspass law in place) to ask permission.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Chuck,
Your thoughts remind me of the Mexicans who come to America and want to change America into Mexico. :wink: Theres a reason you travel away from MN to come to ND. Why do you want to make ND more like home?

Putting in the trespass law will do nothing to stop the idiots who are going to trespass. There are lots of people who trespass on posted land (it is already against the law to trespass on posted land). Making everything posted will do little to curb the problems.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Chuck,

You ask a question and then try to make an argument for your view with people's responses.

I think it is quite clear that a majority of sportmen and landowners like the current law in ND.

I don't feel the need to qualify my answer to this question more than "just because I like it"

As is the case a lot these days in America, the vocal minority seems to get more attention than the majority. Majority still rules for the most part, however, which is as it should be.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Gander....please don't put me in that catagoery....

My original post was that a tresspass law. Will help with:

- Pressure put on birds
- NR or R will have to do some leg work. THis will limit the NR time in 
the feild hunting (7 day trip...need at least 2 days to scout and 
gain permission.) (if NR is early...more days in ND hotels, bars, 
etc.)

- People shooting limit on top of limit on top of limit. (Some R think the NR 
does all the time.)
*You will have to do some leg work to find the hot feild instead of
just driving around (also goes with pressure)

- SLOB Hunters......
- The people who are on a fence line shooting the birds before they 
get to anothers spread. People will know others are hunting the 
land. See previous examples in other posts!
- Roost Busters....land owner can say no don't hunt water.

- Cut down on the NR hunters.
- I know some don't think this will happen but it will. Because it will
require more work to be done for the hunter.

If you don't agree that a tresspass law will accomplish any other these. Please explain why. I agree people who tresspass now will keep doing it. I have made that comment over and over and over!


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

If you don't like our laws, you don't have to visit us. Just visit folks somewhere else where the laws are more to your liking.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

drjongy,

Thanks for your response. But after reading post after post after post Talking about pressure on birds, NRvs R, roost busting, etc. I think a tresspass law would help out with this. *again IMO*

That is why I ask for reposnses other than...cuz that is the way it is.

I want to know or get feed back on why don't you think it will help. Then I will retreat with my tail between my legs if it is a good argument or can hold water. I have yet had anyone refute some of these topics. Again I know SLOBS will always be SLOBS....but if a law was in place....some might not become SLOBS or watch a little more carefully what they are doing.


----------



## raineyriver (Sep 20, 2003)

GOD BLESS NORTH DAKOTA AND ALL ITS FREEDOM


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing that Baffles me is that why are so many against this that still want tougher restrictions on the NR against this.....

This total restricts the NR more than the R.

Here I am a NR asking to be restricted. I think you would have an out cry by some NR's.

Ways it resticts the NR:
1. Need to use the 7 or 14 days to use for scouting or asking permission
2. If I want to hunt the full 7 or 14 days....need to spend more time in ND
3. I have to do more leg work than a R. (The R might run into the land owner at the store, coffe shop, work, etc.) NR has to make phone calls, visit the home, etc.
4. NR might not know who owns the land and has to run them down. (See above for R)


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Chuck,
I don't mean to make you sound like an imperialist but every once and awhile I like to have a good time and do some demonizing.



> Pressure put on birds
> - NR or R will have to do some leg work. THis will limit the NR time in
> the feild hunting (7 day trip...need at least 2 days to scout and
> gain permission.) (if NR is early...more days in ND hotels, bars,
> etc.)


Ethical people will follow the law unethical people will not. The type of law won't matter.



> - People shooting limit on top of limit on top of limit. (Some R think the NR
> does all the time.)
> *You will have to do some leg work to find the hot feild instead of
> just driving around (also goes with pressure)


Ethical people will follow the law unethical people will not. The type of law won't matter.



> - SLOB Hunters......
> - The people who are on a fence line shooting the birds before they
> get to anothers spread. People will know others are hunting the
> land. See previous examples in other posts!
> - Roost Busters....land owner can say no don't hunt water.


Ethical people won't downwind spreads. Usually the downwinders see your spread and then do it. They don't go and ask permission, get rejected and then plan on downwinding.



> - Cut down on the NR hunters.
> - I know some don't think this will happen but it will. Because it will
> require more work to be done for the hunter.


The guys who can afford to travel had to have enough social skills to make their money in the first place so asking permission probably isn't much of a problem.

I always find it laughable that people think you can, through legislation, give people ethics or motivate them to work. Sometimes in life you just have to be a little pragmatic.

While I enjoy imagining the world as it should be I find it much more useful to see it for what it is.


----------



## DakotaDog72 (Sep 27, 2005)

The title of the thread should read "What do you think of NR's in our state?"

Make the tresspass law more strict and watch the to g/o gain more and more land.

Btw....if you think by have a more strict tresspass law will cure the slob problem, your lying to yourself. Slobs are everywhere. You fellas have more problems the whether or not someone has access to land.

Same old problem...


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Just so Chuck isn't the only person on this board battling all the others, let this *resident* hunter voice his support once again for changing our trespass law. I have two reasons for my wish to change our trespass law: one is ethically-based, while the other is selfish.

First, I think that our current law stands against the principal of private property ownership rights. Why should a landowner have to post his land to keep people off of it? The land is his, meaning that the burden should be on the visitor to ask for permission, not on the landowner to tell visitors to stay off. Under our current system, the burden is on the landowner to keep people off.

Second, I would like to change the law for selfish reasons. Simply put, it would decrease hunter pressure and competition for hunting spots. I spend a considerable amount of time building relationships with farmers and getting permission to hunt their property. I do this out of courtesy and respect. In all honesty, I think that having to ask permission will provide a disincentive for "fair-weather" hunters to compete with me for access. It will also provide a disincentive for people to travel long distances to areas if they have not done the necessary legwork to scout and meet landowners. This doesn't just apply to NR hunters.... it applies to resident hunters as well. If it keeps the hunters from Bismarck (which I am one), Minot, Fargo, and Grand Forks from doing a quick scout the night before for a place to hunt the next morning, so be it. I am not egotistical enough to think I am any more of a resident of Sheridan or Stutsman Counties than a person from MN is.

Now, to be fair, I know that many people on this board hunt fields, meaning that they are scouting in the evening for a spot to set up the next morning. Finding the landowner can be tough. I, on the other hand, hunt mostly over small sloughs, and I might hunt the same sloughs multiple times in the same season. Asking permission for a field hunter would make things tougher, and I understand that.

Resident hunters simply need to accept that the very things that make freelance hunting easy and appealing for a resident are the same reasons that make ND an attractive destination for NR hunters. People from Bismarck and Fargo love our current posting law because they can drive 100+ miles to waterfowl country and find a place to hunt without having to ask permission. This is also one of the major factors why people from MN and WI drive all the way to ND. If we are serious about decreasing pressure, we need to address those factors that make it easy for "fair-weather" and NR hunters to apply this pressure.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Why should a landowner have to post his land to keep people off of it? The land is his, meaning that the burden should be on the visitor to ask for permission, not on the landowner to tell visitors to stay off. Under our current system, the burden is on the landowner to keep people off.


Because the land is his, the game is not.

What burden? BS :roll: you can post a ton of land in a couple hours easily.



> Second, I would like to change the law for selfish reasons


Gee thats something to brag about, one more obstacle to freelance hunting, although at least you admit who you are and what you're about uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Excellent post gandergrinder. There is no reason to change the law other than to change a persons advantage over others. Develop a relationship, how many times have I heard that? I will be one of those retired guys next year and it would be of great benefit to me if everything was automatically posted. The problem is I wouldn't like to look myself in the mirror. Sure I could be for it, and disadvantage all those poor suckers who work 40, 50, maybe more hours per week, and have no time to scout or "develop relationships". Personally I couldn't take advantage of some poor sucker like that who finally gets a day off, and would like to hunt. I know farmers who don't care, so don't post, and don't want to be bothered. As a matter of fact I have heard some say if I keep getting bothered I am going to post don't ask. If I was a farmer I wouldn't want a vehicle full of hunters in my yard every day asking to hunt. Hats of to those who tolerate it.

Have you noticed that people who come from out of state, perhaps are even residence now bring along the screwed up attitudes and ideals of those states. I can't name the number of times I have heard "we don't do it that way in California, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri etc". I had permission to hunt land out west for Archery antelope. This guy comes running across the field and says he wants to see my written permission. I asked who are you? He was some guy from Colorado telling me the laws in North Dakota. I gave him a destination he could visit and walked off.

You will find few North Dakota natives that want everything automatically posted, unless they are a farmer charging to hunt, an outfitter, or a guide. Someone mentioned why is it the farmers responsibility. Maybe because half their income is government money that comes from our taxes?????????? No one has a lip lock on the government boob like agriculture. I don't think anyone owes me anything personally, I think as a society we all owe each other. I don't think that excludes farmers. I have nothing against them until someone says something socially unacceptable. My attitude is we treat each other right and we all get along. There are foreign countries lined up to sell food. Treat your neighbors like dirty and you may not have much of a future. Good advise for all of us not just farmers.

Keep it the way it is. Nothing is more insulting than someone from some other state telling us how it should be here. I hear this offensive attitude about many subjects. You normally hear this stuff from some old fat cat with time and money on his hands. Time and money, something some young fellow 25 years old with two kids working six ten hour days doesn't have much of. Just because I am old and retiring, I'm not about to become hypocritical. I even feel a little guilty about the senior citizen discount at a restaurant. I will not let myself become a selfish old man like those I noticed when I was young. I want the young people of North Dakota to enjoy the freedom of the outdoors as I have.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> What burden? BS you can post a ton of land in a couple hours easily.


Bobm I'm glad you think so I invite you to come with me if you think its so easy.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o,

As long as you will give me and my "big city" buddies access to your land, we'll post it for free. Then you can deal with every one else that wants to hunt.

Jim


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

how many buddies?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

The fearsome "Delta Gang"!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

what are we taking the 440 members or the 24 committee members or what?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I can tell you one thing, I wish south dakota's law was like north dakota's. You can pretty much forget about hunting on private land in the central part of the state if you don't want to pay at least $100 per day. And it is spreading to most of the state as well. The public land is extremely over hunted when it comes to waterfowl and pheasants unless you get in some extremely tough terrain or some with a real long walk to get to the good stuff, which is what I do. Living in NE SD, we have a lot of Walk-in land which is almost the same as your guys PLOTS. But is you get down to prime pheasant country, you are lucky to find one single quarter of WALK-IN land because of the commercialization of the hunting. My father has lived in the same town for the last 30 years. When I was growing up we could hunt anywhere, were always respectful of the land and the landowners wishes. Now, maybe in november or december we might get permission on some less than ideal places.

My opinion, which is probably an unpopular one, but is mine, is this. If you recieve federal subsidies in the form of LDP's, CRP's, or of some other type, your land should be open to foot traffic hunting. If landowners can take federal tax dollars, then the federal tax payers one and all should retain some form of retribution.

If you don't want that, and still want to have pay hunters getting excess income off of the land, then don't take the federal payments.

But that's my 2 cents, and I know it will never happen.

The commercialization of hunting, if it continues to spread in it's current form, will acommplish what the anti-hunters want, the elimination of hunters. Look at how many youths in the past went hunting, and look at it now. Many simply can't afford the license fees, and the pay to hunt on top of it, and the competition for the public land is so intense that the quality of the hunt suffers.

But I will get off my soap box now, and recieve my whooping from those who disagree.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

The committe members.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

southdakbearfan

I agree with you. I say if they don't like it lets vote to remove all agricultural subsidies. They say they want a free market, lets let them have it. Remember NAFTA, boy did they like that. Ask them if they like it now. They thought they would sell to everyone, but everyone wants to sell to us. How about that Canadian beef? We have mad cow now also, but they don't want that Canadian beef down here. They don't want that Canadian wheat either. Or Argentine beef, or Australian meat. It's cheap, maybe I want some. 
It's not my preference, I would prefer to support them, but if all I am to them is a wallet, then those type of people mean nothing to me. Fair is fair right? I am afraid that to many all any of us are is a walking wallet. At least that's the feeling I get from many. 
There are good farmers out there that we can't turn our back on and the greedy ones know that because of them they are safe. If I had my way I would do as you say. Remove all federal money of any kind for those that want to be paid to hunt on land where we support them. The government isn't magic, that money comes from somewhere. Our pockets that's where it comes from.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chuck you miss the point completely, many acres of land are owned by people who are not even in the state! I know every farmer in my home area and a lot in other areas, getting permission to hunt is not an issue for me, but when it comes to deer hunting especially the extra doe tags, people travel outside of their normal area to harvest these deer. Many of those hunters are accessing land that is not posted. A lot of them not because of laziness but lack of available information on who owns the land would not be pursuing those deer into those areas.

Chuck I fully understand your view, it is just wrong! I lived and hunted in WI and I can tell you that the advent of the trespass law is one of the biggest reasons that they cannot get a handle on the population. Concerns over liability, and a host of other issues really has put a damper on things.

This past winter I was sitting in a café in a small town in ND. I was a stranger and it is not one of the areas I hunt much. Couple of guys sitting at the table next to me saw the Delta sticker on my window and asked about it. After a while the conversation came around to hunter behavior, and they both stated that they no longer post the land they own. One big reason is that outsiders from the community mostly respect the land and the land owners, but the locals do not. Posting made no difference and in a small town while I our Bob or you could raise a bunch of hell with a bad local hunter, many times they cannot because of the politics of small communities.

A posting law is not going to fix that issue, nor will it encourage the local to turn in or prosecute his neighbor. We have a bigger issue with outlaw G/O than bad behavior from trespass issues in this state. If you notice and if you check this site and others the opinion is that the law is working the way it should and does not need changing, nor did the reasons which pretty much paralleled those used in SD to get the law changed and in MN or WI have eliminated or reduced the behavior you are targeting.

WI has one of the toughest laws on trespass that I have seen. Yet trespassing continues at or above levels before the laws where enacted. Which means that the law did not alter the bad behavior any at all and put people who made honest mistakes on boundaries in very expensive and bad situations.

One other thing you may not know is that ND has two trespass laws, one civil and the other covering hunting. So there is currently remedies in place to deal with the behavior you are hoping to control!!!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

G/O I've spent a lot of days of my life swinging a hammer 10 hrs a day framing houses so riding around in my truck putting up small signs on posts just doesn't strike me as hard work.

I'd rather hit myself with that hammer than post land.

Wisconsin hunting is so out of wack its pitiful, luckily they have a lot of state, county and national forest land or most people would of gave up hunting long ago. ( and before you get on your high horse with the "you don't live there" BS I did for 25 years).

Wi does have the best "rails to trails" bike path system in the country though, and lots of real nice people :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> People from Bismarck and Fargo love our current posting law because they can drive 100+ miles to waterfowl country and find a place to hunt without having to ask permission. This is also one of the major factors why people from MN and WI drive all the way to ND. If we are serious about decreasing pressure, we need to address those factors that make it easy for "fair-weather" and NR hunters to apply this pressure


.

Big D

Is the pressure on the resource the result of the posting law the management system, economics or..........?

Which of the above would have a greater effect if changed, on mitigating pressure?

The basis of this thread is "to reduce pressure" and solve other preceived outdoor problems in ND by implementing a posting law. I ask will it add to the problems or subtract from the problems.

Although this is a good thread with civil discussion if the problem at hand is to be addressed we need to keep our eye on the ball and look the problem in the face and deal with it, and not create another level of regulations that are a little round band-aide (owie sticker as my grandson puts it) on an arterial wound.

Bob


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> The basis of this thread is "to reduce pressure" and solve other preceived outdoor problems in ND by implementing a posting law. I ask will it add to the problems or subtract from the problems.


Good question, Bob. I think that implementing a posting law will decrease hunter pressure overall. I ask lots of NRs why they travel to ND each fall to hunt waterfowl. Based on the people that I talk to, the answers are: A) because hunting sucks in their home state, B) because hunting is good in ND, C) because they know they can hunt anywhere that isn't posted, and D) because we provide them with a PLOTS guide to find other open areas to hunt.

If we really want to decrease hunter pressure and create a system where you don't have another group of hunters 200 yards down the cattails (which does exist in other states), we need to either set arbitrary limits on the number of hunters or create disincentives for some hunters to go afield.

Now, I fully realize that the future of waterfowling depends on having waterfowlers, and it sounds terrible to throw up disincentives to hunt. However, if the posting law is changed, I think that the passionate waterfowl hunters will still hunt. It is the fair-weather ones that will decide that it is too much work. I have two young boys, and I plan on teaching them how to be ethical hunters. Part of that will include teaching them the importance of knocking on doors and building relationships with landowners.

I hunt ducks primarily in Sheridan and Kidder Counties, and much of the property there is posted. I have still gained access to lots of property through visiting with landowners. However, I recall an instance a couple of years ago, when three different parties had pulled up next to an unposted slough to hunt. I had gained permission the day before, while the other two parties (one from WI and one from Fargo) had scoped it out because it wasn't posted and everything else around it was.

Now, I had obtained permission, but the other two parties had just as much legal right to hunt the slough as I had because it wasn't posted. I dealt with the issue by politely moving to the next spot on my list. However, one of the WI hunters commented that he wasnt' going to come to ND in the future because everything was getting posted. This tells me that he was coming to ND with very little planning and was simply looking for PLOTS land or unposted property. I would guess that the Fargo party was doing the same thing.

One last point before I end this long post. If hunters were required to ask permission to hunt private land, the kneejerk reaction for a NR hunter would be to hit the internet and find an outfitter. Therefore, we would need to partner a change in our trespass law with limits on commercial hunting activities. Some of these have been discussed at great length on this board, so I don't need to go into them here. If we do both of these, we should create a system that favors the ethical freelance hunter.

I simply think that a change in our trespass law provides a huge incentive for resident hunters to stay in ND. We have 12 months a year to go out and meet landowners if we simply put time and effort into it. NR hunters don't.


----------

