# Land Owners picked on by Game and Fish???



## ndmedic (Dec 3, 2003)

*Do you think the off establish law should be changed for land owners and only prosecutable by the landowner?*​
Law should be changed!1234.29%No driving off trails!2262.86%Boycott hunting in ND!12.86%


----------



## ndmedic (Dec 3, 2003)

My family hunted on our family farm this year. My two brothers and I all received violations. We received $50 violations for driving off established trails on private land which included our OWN PRIVATE land. I can understand if the fire index was high, or on grasslands, but private land is just that, PRIVATE! They have also nailed a number of other landowners this year all over the state. Has this happened to any one else? 
The law should be written that it is only prosecutable by the landowner himself on private land. The towns of Medora and Belfield were empty this year compared to previous years and talking to some guys from Fargo, a lot of hunters are boycotting ND. 
What other sport are there so many rules and regulations before you even leave the house. I am starting to think it isn't worth it anymore! There is a record number of licenses and disease in the White Tail because of overpopulation!


----------



## duckslayer (Oct 30, 2003)

:sniper:


----------



## Austin Bachmeier (Feb 27, 2002)

If you own the land, yes, if not no. You should be able to do whatever you want with you own land, within reason of course.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

A law telling you that you can't drive your own vehicle whereever you want on your own land. That is totally insane. Never heard of that one before. So, if we come back next year again, let me get this straight, does this apply to harvested crop fields, grasslands, or what? I am confused. So this means if you are going out to do a field hunt, you have to leave your vehicle on an establised road and carry all your decoys, guns, etc out into the field instead of just driving out there and unloading everything?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Is the game wardens initials P.L.? If so this pretty much clears it up.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Gaddy,
Believe it or not you can legally drive off road to set decoys for waterfowl hunting. You can also legally leave the trail to pick up a deer. You can't leave established trails when upland or deer hunting, however.
ndmedic,
I can see your point about your own land. As early as this year, I drove the edge of a harvested bean field that happens to belong to my grandmother while deer hunting. Was I breaking the law, yes but it sure seems rather like a waste of time and energy to walk a mile to get to the cover areas. On the other hand, there are a great number of local farmers kids that, on their own land, drive the shelter belts with their pick-ups, I've seen it done, many times. I'm sure you've seen those pick-up tracks along side every tree row that weren't there the day before deer season opened.....can't be that many deer being shot.

As far as closing your land to hunting due to this confrontation with a GW, please don't. It gets harder and harder for the average guy to find places to hunt every year. Don't penalize everyone as a way to get back at someone who may be hard to deal with on a daily basis.

How about joining the ETREE that is available on this site and researching what help there might be in changing this law that the hundreds of individuals that already belong might be able to accomplish. Looks like something that the sportsmen and landowners could work on together.

As a whole, I think the GWs have a pretty hard job to try and maintain the game laws.....there is only one I've run into over the years that truely could be called an idiot, he was a US Fish and Wildlife guy. I'd say that in your situation, if all the facts you mentioned were correct that the GW should be able to make considerations for certain situations. If the G&F relaxed or eliminated this law, I think you'd see a small percentage of hunters really abuse it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

While you may not like the rule it has merit and is founded in fair chase and safety.

First is the fair chase issue. We in the eastern half of the state see the practice of driving tree lines and dry sloughs all to often even with the law in place. How do you write a law that allows travel to a hunting spot but would prohibt this activity? Next is CRP, take away the fire issue and visualize someone going up and down the CRP with a pickup or 4 wheeler. SOme of these laws came into play because people would drag a cable bewteen two vehicles to scare up any game in between.

WI has open laws on driving, but you are restricted to having a gun cased and no shells in the magizine anytime it is in the rig. So if you want to be able to drive anywhere whenever you want on your land it more than likely would come with restrictions such as that to provide safety for all. This would be designed to prevent someone form driving game with a vehicle and shooting them with the aid of a vehicle.

You are traveling to your hunting spot or dropping off a poster and a big buck jumps up. Granted you where headed someplace else but your path took you by where that deer was bedded. Gun accidents would increase and many other problems that can and do occur when the law is stretched to encompass this activity.

Get over it and move on, because the law has more merit and protection for both hunters and the wildlife we pursue than a loss of induvidual wants. Safety for the majority outway the wants of teh induvidual in this issue to me.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

I agree Ron.
I don't want to people driving up to every rockpile and shelterbelt rather than walking them. If the law was changed, CRP would be in pretty sad shape by the end of season which would affect all wildlife that depends on it.

I also think the title of the post is misleading. Landowners caught breaking the law would be more apt. I am all for landowners having rights but you knowingly broke the law and were caught. And why is it hunters' faults that you were cited for breaking the law? You say you are closing your land to them if this is how you were treated.

If this Game Warden is indeed such a renegade, press charges against him. How would he say his shotgun arrived in your friends possession? This just sounds more like trying to run down the rep of someone who was doing their job.

Leave the law as is and make it apply to all. That is my vote.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

ndmedic:

First of all, I do not believe I have ever read such an interesting post in my life. As a landowner, we can drive wherever we like, just can't combine hunting along with daily activities...should we be above the law when it comes to hunting simply because of our landowner status? As a sportsmen, one of the biggest complaints I continuously hear from landowners are "lazy hunters" not wanting to get out of their vehicle. Landowners (at least I feel the majority) do not appreciate hunters driving off trails..it is not ethical, it is illegal, and it looks like crap as a landowner to have tire tracks all across your property. One of the most mis-used statements I hear is...." I can do with and on my land whatever I want".....and the answer is NO. Property owners do have more rights on their land than a non-property owner (obviously), but it does not give them the exclusive right to whatever, whenever on the land. 
As to your allegations against this warden, where is your proof and please make a copy of the complaint filed against him for this action. Anybody can write anything on this type of forum, but these types of allegations are pretty serious, so I WANT PROOF. 
No one hunting ND anymore? I talked with Game and Fish last week and currently, ND has the MOST HUNTERS EVER HUNTING IN THIS STATE. It is too bad you are "shutting hunting down on your land" and penalizing sportsmen simply because you feel you don't have to play by the rules.

Dazed and confused in northwest ND


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

It might be private land, but since it is public game, I think everyone should abide by the same rules and regulation. Hunting is a regulated activity,the laws are to regulate how you hunt, not what you do on your own land. Drive all over your land if you want to, just don't be hunting when you do so. Being a landowner doesn't put you in an elite class and able to diregard laws as you see fit. Whatever happened to getting out and walking? I drive on our land when we are doing other things such as working on our trees, etc., but during hunting season I park my truck and walk in as the law requires. Unethical hunting such as road hunting, off road hunting from a vehicle, shooting from a vehicle does far more to harm our sport than all of the other things we constantly argue about such as nonresidents.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

This is an interesting thread. I can see where driving fence lines and slough edges would be a problem and give unfair advantage.

I am curious about the term "trail."

The place we hunt pheasants has a farm yard in the middle of a section. Obviously, we can use the farmers drive way to his house and farm yard. He also has a "trail" that runs out through the back of the grove to the far end of his property. It runs right through the middle of his wheat stubble. But, it is a pretty obvious farm trail. Can we drive on this "trail" to get to the outer edge of his property?

We did use the "trail" in order to save about 1.5 miles of driving all the way around the edges of the section.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Perry the rules are clear on this in ND for upland and predator and deer. Trails that are sestablished from ag activity that are not used year to year do not qualifiy as established. Section lines or other trails that have years of use do. I was stopped a couple years ago going around an area that deviated from the section line by a couple hundred yards. This trail had not been used for a number of years becasue of high water but was passable at that time.

I showed the warden on the plot map that this trail is clearly shown and he agreed that it was legal. Today it is very clear that it was a established trail.

The use of the trail you mentioned if waterfowl hunting would not be a violation especially if you have the owners permission to travel it. Interesting twist to this is waterfowl hunting during deer season. I talked with a couple guys that where driving out to set up goose decoys that had a warden come out to the field they where in. Reason being is they had orange on for safety. He laughed and wished them well, but did caution them about taking a deer while setting up as this would be an unfair advantage.

They asked if they could keep there rifles with them in the field while goose hunting and he indicated yes, but I am not sure if you would be in violation of the trail laws if you harvest one because of taking the decoys out with a truck. He then said I would not write the tickect but another officer might. They have not heard back from him with a clarification.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Last year down by Lidgerwood we were ticketed for driving off an established road. We walked a field while phesant hunting and a guy drove his truck over a field road and picked us up at the end. On the way back a GW stopped us and asked what we were hunting. We said phesant and he said too bad. If you said duck you wouldn't get this ticket. Kinda humorous huhh?

If it isn't on a map it isn't an established road in my eyes now. Besides, I can use the exercise so I walk.

Private land is private land but you still have to obey the law, bottom line.

:sniper:


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

If it is your own land, why don't you just establish some trails where you need them?


----------



## ndmedic (Dec 3, 2003)

First thanks to everyone for their replies - it is great to hear things from both sides! 
1-st I just want to say that it was a violation and the game warden was doing his job. I definately have and know of witnesses about what was said or done- but I shouldn't of said anything about him and I took the wrong approach - this wasn't my intention for this post and I didn't mean for the post to go that way or center around the game and fish or whether it is breaking the law.As the law is - it was a violation - the law is the law - laws can be wrong or made to accomplish one thing and hurt another. Therefore I edited my first post taking out anything that pertains to the location of this and anything about the warden himself. I wanted to hear everyone's thought pertaining to the law! so I am sorry for even bringin that into the picture! I wanted the post to center around the law - and to see what people thought!
2nd - According to the game warden - the deer wasn't the issue. That is why there are other laws protecting them like no rounding up, etc.It had to do with destroying vegitation. 
3rd - Like one person was mentioning - and I am going to put it into a different perspective - if the deer are a sovereign animal of the state and the state is in charge and responsible for them, then why aren't they responsible for them every time they hit a car instead of us and the insurance company. We get nailed if any of our cows even get out or a dog causes damage - just a weird thought I threw out!
4th - I beleive in this law - but like one guy said - the landowners are tired of lazy hunters - so is it their right to say that and not the game warden's responsibility? This law should the law be in affect for the LAND OWNER ONLY TO PROSECUTE? Here is my big question- WHAT IS THE GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT PROTECTING THE LANDOWNER FROM WHEN THE MAIN CONCERN OF DRIVING OFF TRAILS IS THE DAMAGE OF VEGETATION? Once again this concern comes from the game warden himself!
I feel this law is needed - just in the right context! Someone said well you should make established trails - and trust me that is not a bad idea - and we have thought of doing it - but why should we have to play a game because of over regulation - and a law that was put on the books to probably protect the land owner from people he lets on - which should be his own responsibility! 
The whole purpose of this post wasn't to say whether it is illegal or not - it is to ask your feelings on if you think this law is in its right context and maybe should be changed! Also, if you are posting - please submit whether you are a hunting land owner! Thanks
Once again thank you all and please answer the poll at the top!


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Personally I think it would solve many problems to just make it illegal to dischaarge a firearm within 25 yards of a vehicle under any circumstances. In SD during deer season you can no longer shoot from a roadbed or right of way. I think it has helped with road hunting, and that is something that is badly needed.

Finally, although I have no idea who the warden was, we are only getting your side of the story. It would be interesting to hear what his justification really is for stopping off trail. I think you will find that vegetation damage is a ways down the list. The main thing is to keep people from running deer with pickups. If you think that is OK, then I guess you are right, and we need to change the law to allow it.


----------



## ndmedic (Dec 3, 2003)

Thanks for the post - like I said before - it doesn't matter who the warden was - he was doing a job - and you are only hearing one side of the story!
I can understand where some of the people are coming from because hunting the plains is different from the badlands - a lot of people just drive the top of the draws - instead of chasing down tree rows or in CRP like they do in the plains - but I would think the landowner should be able to be responsible on his own land. I guess I haven't seen the problems out on the plains like a lot of the hunters have, because I haven't hunted them. If someone is driving clear across a CRP field or tree rows vs. the top of a draw 50 ft from the trail, it puts a whole new perspective on things! I can see more safety issues, etc. Thankyou!
Hunting in the badlands has been the way we grew up hunting even with our grandparents.
As far as herding or chasing deer - I totally agree - that is totally wrong - and if that is what this law is for(even though there is another one for this) then great - I agree with it and understand. Also, if it is a safety issue - especially in the flats - then I agree too! But if it is merely for vegetation - then I think it should be the land owners choice to prosecute! There should always be a law that says no driving off trails especially on govenment land!It was fun throwing this out there and seeing everyone's point! Once again I thank you for all your posts - it is great to hear from both sides and it was fun!


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

You know, I don't mind walking a mile when I am actually in pursuit of birds. But, it would be nice if I could drive a mile to get to the actual hunting spot. Some of the places I like to hunt are in the middle of a two mile square and there are no roads or "trails" in there. It is a whole mile in there. I am certainly not going to walk a mile just to get back to the pheasant hunting spot. I'm too old for that!

I guess those spots are reserved for the young guys. The birds back in there should be plenty safe.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I've always wondered if a Land owner can do (drive) anywhere they want on their own land ??? You saying they have to follow the same laws as anyone else ??? Same must go for using 4 wheelers & ATV's ???

The law would allow them for waterowl - but most else they would have to follow same rules - novel idea :roll:

Is that so bad ??? Other wise it would be OK for Landowners to give permission to anyone ??? to not follow the Laws, on their property ???


----------



## WorkinToHunt (Dec 4, 2003)

Perry,

Check with you local game warded. We were told this year, by a Game Warden, that it was legal to drive section lines. We've always heard that, but never tried it. During a check this year we asked and he did say it was legal. So in a 2 mile square plot you should be able to access the center of that 4 section pacel quite nicely.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Can anyone post the relevant link to the law? Does this appear in ND Century code? Is the wording the same as the printed regs?

The regs say:


> * Motor vehicles may not be used to pursue game.
> 
> * It is illegal to shoot with bow and arrow or firearm while in or on a motor driven vehicle.
> 
> ...


Conversely, the G&F regulations appears to be giving permission for anyone to drive onto, and across, private posted agricultural land making no exception for standing crops, to retrieve a downed animal.

What defines an established road or trail? Is a "public road" considered an established trail? If so, then:



> The United States offered easements for travel on section lines to
> the Dakota Territory in 1866, an offer which was accepted and has not
> been surrendered. See Ames v. Rose Township Bd. of Township
> Supervisors, 502 N.W.2d 845, 847 (N.D. 1993), Lalim v. Williams
> ...


Of course, the pursuit of game off road with a vehicle is abhorrent, but traveling lawfully along public right-of-ways seems doesn't seem like a citeable offense.

NDMedic
I tend to side with you - as long as the land owner isn't pursuing game or shooting from the vehicle (e.g., actually engaged in the behavior of hunting) then they should travel on their land as they see fit.

Were you perhaps within 33 feet of a section line when you got stopped "off trail"?

M.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thanks MRN,

Those citations were very helpful.


----------



## montebabeck (Dec 4, 2003)

I totally agree with ndmedic. I too was cited by it sounds like the same warden for the same offense. I agree with not driving draws and tree rows in the pusuit of game but give me a break! Nothing I hate worse than walking a draw and seeing other hunters posted on the tops of hills waiting for movement. To say I do not walk is ridiculous. As the regulations for most hunting read right now a farmer can be cited for driving off an established trail from September through January if they have a firearm in their vehicle and possess a hunting license whether it is small game, big, game, furbearers, etc.. How many farmers do you guys know that carry a firearm in their vehicle all year long? Granted if you meet up with a warden who is a jerk you would be cited but a warden that realizes the landowner can be a friend or enemy, warn you. Why does the game and fish want to ruin the fragile relationship with landowners anyway? Section lines in the badlands, where? Apparently a previous post stated that land could be accessed via section lines has not hunted the badlands. You might find a section line here and there but they are few and far between. I to refuse to give permission to other hunters to hunt my property not because I dislike hunters, I have actually have had real good experiences with other hunters, but rather I don't want to give the game and fish department an opprotunity to cite people or myself for what they do or don't think is an established trail. The law needs to be changed! Don't do away with the law but change it. The law should be similiar to the no tresspassing law and enforced the same way. I am betting that most of the posters on this thread live in town. Let's hear what some of you landowner sportsman have to say.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

> I to refuse to give permission to other hunters to hunt my property not because I dislike hunters, I have actually have had real good experiences with other hunters, but rather I don't want to give the game and fish department an opprotunity to cite people or myself for what they do or don't think is an established trail.


 :roll: 
That has got to be the lamest excuse for not allowing someone to hunt that I have ever heard. Because you are protecting me from the Game and Fish Dept you won't let me hunt? If you do not want to allow people to hunt your land, fine; that is your business and right. But don't tell me it is to protect me.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'm pretty sure no one can keep anyone off a section line (trail or not) Lots of abuse here by landowners !!!

It would still be illegal to hunt there if legally posted on both sides (How many are legally posted - Not many - (But I have always went by my own personal rule - If it is posted anywhere - their intention is they either don't want you hunting or want you to ask permission.) that is why I always drive around a section & make sure of where it is OK & where it is not - (This is where many get into trouble - take off & assume) But if things get worse - Why not follow the letter of the Law for all ???

- People like Hardcore Farm Bureau Members are making ND into a Big Mess & Harming relations between Farmers / Land owners & Hunters :******: (You Get What You Give) !!!

I know of a guy who got a ticket for shooting over the hood of a vehicle at a deer & one that got a ticket for using the door as a rest to steady his shot


----------



## duckslayer (Oct 30, 2003)

:sniper:


----------



## montebabeck (Dec 4, 2003)

Like I asked before. let's hear from landowner sportsman.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Hunting ... shotgun in the truck ... guilty

Farming or ranching ... no gun in the truck ... should not be an issue

Just because someone owns the land it does not entitle them to break the law. I would imagine these restrictions are inplace to enforce the idea of

Fair Chase

The no-trail/no travel law would be in effect for waterfowl hunting except we all need to transport decoys in and out of the field. Note that you can not hunt waterfowl in a moving boat in ND (boat must be secured). Again likely a fair chase issue.

I can not park my truck on the grass in my yard. Zoning rules and regs say I will get a ticket. City guys face rules and regs on their land too.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

There are areas in ND where all section lines are open & have trails & the land owners stay back the legal distances.

There are areas where all section lines are farmed right up to the line - I don't think this is legal ???

If a farmer owns both sides - I guess he could & post it - But if he doesn't & one side is open - It would be legal to drive down that section line - But how many times do you see them posted ??? - LOTS !!!

I know of a lawsuits where a Onery farmer has tried to prosecute, for hunters traveling across a section line - only to have the case reversed & a counter suit was filed - Hunters have Civil Rights also - & the farmer got into trouble for Farming more than he should be !!!

Alot of Land is Farmed that really should not be in ND - That could be Great Habitat

& Losing these Laws would make ND no differnt than any other State & be bad for wildlife too.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Fetch, 
It is a little bit different than that. Here's some of the AG's (Heidi's) opinion from 2001 (?) (The spite part is one of my all time favorites...)

M.



> A landowner has ownership of the land within a section line easement,
> and has statutory authority to plow and cultivate within that
> easement with the expectation that some crop damage may occur in the
> path of usual travel. See State v. Brossart, 565 N.W.2d 752, 757,
> ...


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I'm not a landowner but I would hope that anyone that saw another person drivng down a section line that was planted with crops would turn that person into the authorities. I think this has gotten way too complicated. If there are tracks that have been on the Side of a quarter for more than a year....drive it. If not don't guess....stay off. Anyone can tell if the tracks are a "trail" or a track the farmer used to haul grain from his field.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

there is a seperate law for unharvested fields


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

what is worse is - there are PUBLIC hunting areas where Farmers have tried to keep us Out by posting section lines - or making them impossible to travel -

These should be reported to the NDG&FD & / or USFWS so access can be improved

Washington, D.C. - Ducks Unlimited and other leading hunting and fishing conservation organizations are working with Congress on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act, also know as the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act" (SAFETEA). Recently, the legislation was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with the bulk of the conservation provisions suggested by the groups included. Another version of the highway reauthorization bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Knowing that highways will be built and improved, DU is involved with this legislation to support certain provisions which will minimize or compensate for habitat degradation; and ensure that areas most important to wildlife served by roads have financial resources to care for them in way that can benefit adjacent habitats," said Scott Sutherland, Director of Governmental Affairs for DU when asked what is significant about the current transportation bill for waterfowl. He added that it is critical to utilize available science to select the best potential routes and possible wetland mitigation sites early in the planning and design process.

The Senate's proposal for SAFETEA includes a significant funding increase for National Wildlife Refuge System roads, which will improve habitat quality and access to hunting and fishing areas for sportsmen.

Other provisions in the Senate bill include funding for recreational trails, invasive species control, and habitat mitigation projects. The sportsmen-conservation groups are collaborating to ensure these critical SAFETEA provisions become a reality.

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

maybe they should use some of this funding to give us access to ALL of our public lands :******: But they will most likely make more signs - parking lots :roll: etc


----------



## ndmedic (Dec 3, 2003)

MRN - just to answer your question real quick - no I wasn't within 33 ft of a section line - we were on top of a draw. 
Thanks for the post!


----------



## waldo (Mar 7, 2002)

Fetch - The law for unharvested crops does not apply to section lines.

Field Hunter - You are wrong, if its a section line you can drive it, EVEN IF IT HAS A CROP. There also has to be a gate or cattle guard at any spot a fence crosses a section line. I'm not saying its a good idea to cut a fence of trample a crop, BUT IT IS LEGAL. North Dakota Century Code 24-06-28 & 24-10-02.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

I do not hunt upland game or deer up there, but it is just very strange to see the differences in the hunting laws in different regions of the country.
Down here you can drive anywhere you want to on your own land, or land that you have permission to be on to hunt any type of game. But here is the catch, ANY time you are in a vehicle (even in the back of a pickup) or ANY time you are on a ATV travelling, your weapon has to be in a closed case and unloaded. If the gun is inside of a pickup, the ammunition has to be stored in an elcosed case or in the back of the pick up. While hunting, even if the vehicle is parked (ATV included) you can put an uncased gun in the back of the truck or inside the truck. I have even heard of people getting cited for leaning their gun up against their truck while taking a break from hunting. 
I definately see the reason for the no travel off of established trail law in regards for deer hunting. No excuse for driving around locating deer with a vehicle then jumping out and shooting.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Its special to be able to have a gun at your side & two in the magazine & ready to go.

I hunt less this way every year - But I have have had alot of fun & shot alot of birds (& other things - ALL Legal !!!)by being ready & in the right place at the right time  & have used vehicles to get myself in the right places & have many more opportunities in a day than most who do not know how to do it Legally :roll:

I'm just glad Enforcement is out there & doing their job k:

Folks need to know or learn our Laws or suffer the consequences - They are unique & make ND sooooo special

I wish we could double or triple our enforcement people & have more eyes & wardens in the right places - catching everyone !!! who trys to take advantage of them - Not keep changing them to please a minority.

Maybe they should have to pass a test to get a license ??? Keep the Riff Raff & ignorant from messing it up for others ??? :roll:


----------

