# Fargo Forum Letter to the Editor



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Ther is a letter to the editor today that addresses the issue of land owner rights. What do you think?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Other views:* N.D. 'trespass' lawsuit is about property rights*
By John Brown, The Forum
Published Friday, April 23, 2004

As the new president of the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm in Bismarck, I would like to offer my reasons for being involved with the "trespass" lawsuit.

I was in the Burleigh County (N.D.) Courthouse on the day South Central District Judge Bruce Haskell recused himself from the lawsuit. On my way back to Slope County, N.D., I heard Assistant Attorney General Paul Germolus being interviewed. He was asked about the purpose of the lawsuit. His reply was that it was a question of Fifth and 14th Amendment private property rights. After I got home, I looked up the exact language of those parts of our Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. It says that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." I found this part of the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868, that deals with private property: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Germolus is right. It is about property rights. I believe the Fifth Amendment very clearly gives me the right of exclusive use of my private property unless I am compensated for its public use, and the 14th Amendment compels the states to not infringe on this right.

This will not affect most of the people who hunt on my family's private property. We get a Christmas tree every year from four avid bow hunters who work at power plants and own a factory in Illinois.

A couple from Hettinger, N.D., whom I consider close friends, hunt on our land for at least a couple of weeks every year and in exchange they help us work cattle a couple of times a year. A group of men who own and operate a car dealership in Wahpeton, N.D., draw for doe tags just so they can get to southwestern North Dakota more frequently than drawing for a mule deer buck in area 4D will allow.

All of these people will still have the same permission to hunt on our private land that they ask for every year. The ones it will affect are the few who insist on driving anywhere they want and refuse to check on land ownership or call ahead.

My two sons recently took the hunter education course and I took it many years ago. I was impressed by the emphasis this required course for hunters puts on asking permission to hunt and knowing who owns the land you hunt on.

Hunting is an essential part of the North Dakota heritage. I believe it will not only continue if this lawsuit is successful, but better landowner-hunter relations will result. The few hunters who in the past have spoiled this relationship will need to start following the rules they were taught in hunter education: Know who owns the land you are hunting on and ask permission.

Hunting is important to North Dakota and preservation of our Fifth and 14th Amendment constitutional right to own private property is crucial. We can have both and develop better landowner-hunter relations at the same time. That is what I hoped for when I agreed to be president of the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm.

I have heard that the North Dakota Stockmen's Association and North Dakota Farm Bureau have been labeled anti-hunting for the financial support they have given the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm. That criticism is wrong. They have the same concerns I do about loss of private property rights. These groups are not anti-hunting, nor is this lawsuit. It is about retaining private property rights given to all of us in the Constitution.

Brown is president of the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm, Bismarck, N.D. E-mail [email protected].


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I think first of all that the letter writer is being disengenous. Did you know the Northern Plains Public Interest Law firm was funded by the North Dakota Farm Bureau? See http://www.pheasantcountry.com/news/Story.cfm?ID=208 where it is stated "The lawsuit is supported by the North Dakota Farm Bureau. Its president, Eric Aasmundstad, said Farm Bureau helped to form a separate organization, called the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm, to handle the litigation. " So is he representing himself or the position of the North Dakota Farm Bureau in the letter. Second, he states "Hunting is an essential part of the North Dakota heritage" The laws governing trespassing and posting in this state are also part of its heritage and was defined by the legislature back to the days when there were numerous non resident landowners. 
Third, I agree he quoted the 5th and 14th amendment correctly. However, is walking on another person's land constitute a "taking" and is it subject to compensation? That is for the courts to decide. From my perspective, a hunter who walks on unposted land is not a representative of the state but rather a private individual therefore the state is not "taking". If the court decides this is a taking by a private individual, then I will be curious to see what the court decides is the just compensation value of footprints on the property. Since state law already says wildlife belongs to the "public", if you harvest any wildlife, that is not compensable and assuming no other actions are taken by the hunter, the only thing left for the courts to decide is the cost of access.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

A further argument could be made that the landowner is not prohibited from posting their land therefore the state is not "taking" any property right of the landowner.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Just for perspective check out the voting record of Rep. Froelich, the plantiff in the trespass suit. He scored 140 in a possible 141 on ND wildlife legislation. Second to last. http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/scorecard.php
Interesting that Rep Froelich was interviewed on KFYR last Friday and told of his strong support for hunting in ND. :wink:

Farm Bureau has to keep their image "clean" so I believe they have created these satellite organizations to carry the message for them. FB then says "look at the popular support these issues have" , sort like cloning yourself and saying the clone is a handsome guy.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dick
I agree the FB is trying to stay "squeaky clean" or maybe a better term is "sneaky clean"


----------

