# STANDING UP



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Recently a friend of North Dakota sportsmen, Mark Hamilton, spoke to local service clubs in Minot. The topic was hunting issues and the Farm Bureau lawsuit against North Dakota. Mark is a landowner and businessman from Minot. (I will slightly shorten the text).

".....Let me first say that I very much respect the point of view expressed here today by Farm Bureau and Mr. Amundstead. He makes a good case for landowner rights and we can all agree that sportsmen must respect the rights of landowners. My position on all of these hunting issues has always been that the landowner, as a right of ownership, has the absolute unquestionable right to post his land, lease it, sell it to the highest bidder, whatever.

But when we speak of landowner rights, we should be talking about all landowners, not a select few who seek to impose their will on all other landowners who may or may not wish their land to be posted. And as you know, under this proposal, all lands in ND will automatically be posted whether the landowner wishes so or not. And this gentlemen, is but one of many concerns we should have about this lawsuit and one of the issues I will elaborate on.

I have heard it said time and again by the proponents of the lawsuit that this is not a hunting issue but rather a private property issue. And it can be argued that they make a good case for private property rights...But for them to say it is not a hunting issue, that it is not going to have a major effect on the way we hunt in North Dakota, is akin to the Iraqui Minister of Information, Baghdad Bob, trying to tell his people not to worry, that the American army is not coming.

The fact is, if this effort is successful, it will change the face of hunting as we know it, like nothing else in the history of this state....and much to the detriment of not only hunters but to the general population as well.

To simplify things I am going to talk about this issue as it affects three general groups.....landowners...small town businesses....hunters.

The good people supporting this lawsuit would like us to believe that they have the support of the vast majority of the landowners. I personally believe however, that landowners can be for the most part lumped into two, perhaps three general groups....

First, there is the group who strongly support the lawsuit. The 2nd group of land owners are those who are largely ambivelent about the issue...they don't much care either one way or the other. The third group of landowners are those who would like to see things stay as they are. Many of us are in this catagory.

The first group of landowners, those supporting the lawsuit certainly have some very good reasons. They are tired of putting up with hunters, they no doubt have had some bad experiances with inconsiderate hunters, and they are sick of it. .....They don't feel they should have to post to keep people off their property...........

Now the second group of landowners, who I believe to be the majority, really don't care whether you hunt or not. Their land is not posted, they see no harm in people hunting after the crop is harvested. Many of these landowners don't post because they simply don't want to be bothered...And others take satisfaction in knowing that their lands provide quality recreation for hunters...what a concept!

The current law allows hunting on these lands if the land is not specifically posted, thus provideing countless recreational hours for the general hunting public. Under the provisions of this lawsuit, ALL lands would be posted automatically, regardless of the landowner wishes. No physical signs would be required and anyone hunting on that land could be charged with tresspassing. This provision *would actually be a mandate forcing landowners to post their land.*

The third group of landowners would be those who are active hunters and who very much support the current laws pertaining to tresspass. They.... enjoy the freedom of hunting on lands that not specifically posted. I would put myself in that catagory.....

We all remember the controversy in the last legislative session regarding the NR hunting issue. We heard much testimony about the economic boost the NRs bring to rural ND. In just the last ten years the number of NR waterfowl hunters has jumped from 5,000 to now 30,000 annually.

Why? They come because we have something that is truly unique, something unattainable elsewhere.....abundant wildlife, accomendating people, and we still have good portions of privately owned lands open to the public...

It is really very simple why NRs and residents alike love ND. There is lots of great hunting here and the majority of the landowners *simply do not give a twit* that there is somebody on their northwest 40 whose only ambition is to shoot a duck!

Now if we really want to shoot ourselves in the econimc foot, enact this no tresspass provision into law and sit back and watch a nonhappening. We'll see fewer NRs and a lot few resident hunters as well. Hunting will become much more difficult, we'll see fewer NRs, and many residents will stay home, or quit altogether. Many others will never start.

Resident hunters: There is no question that resident hunters are having a difficult time finding a place to hunt.....Automatic posting of lands will make it more difficult....A recent Farmers Union survey done by county agents showed that about %60 of private ND lands are owned in absentia, absentee owners that are no longer living on the farm, primarily retirees, widows, and heirs of estates. Finding these landowners is often difficult enough.

Historical Precedence: There is great historical precedence against the provision of this lawsuit. These No Tresspass proposals of one sort or another have been introduced into the ND legislature for decades. *In each session, it has been soundly defeated. Gee whiz, I wonder why? Could it be that the majority of the people did not want this legislation??
*
What the proponents of this lawsuit were unable to do through the legislative process, they now hope to shove down our throats by suing the state, the NDGF, and the attorney general.

In closing I would like to say it is ironic that I should again be speaking on this topic....30 years ago I found myself in Bismarck testifying in Committee against this same proposal. In that session as in all others, the people of North Dakota voted against it...*Gentlemen, it was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.*xxxxxx with permission, DM
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Guys, my reason for posting Mark Hamilton's presentation is two fold: It was excellent material, but he also had the balls to stand up before the North Dakota public to educate them concerning the disinformation being spread on hunting issues by commercial interests. Do not hesitate to volunteer as a speaker, just as Mark did for us in Minot. Thanks Mark.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

That was a great post. Thanks Dick.

I'm curious, are you the guy that paints the "Protect whats right: hunting, fishing and trapping" sign outside VC? I love that sign. Enjoyed the Nodak Outdoors one too.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

DK, the "Protect What's Right " sign was put up by Barnes County Wildlife Federation, with the consent of a spotrsman-farmer. It's been in two national outdoor magazines. Swing by sometime, the coffee is on.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

DM,

Thanks for the invite, I will sometime.

When I was growing up in ND, it always felt good when I passed that sign. Always wanted my picture taken next to it. Its been up for alot of years and always looks like it has a fresh coat of paint.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Dick, I would love to stop by and have a cup of coffee with you. You are the person who used to be the rule, instead of the exception in this state. You are the landowner who would stop and talk, tell all the good places to hunt and offer to show those spots. I admit, we all have become less considerate of our fellow NDakotans as time passes, but some of us like to cling to the past. I see these third/fourth/fifth generation farmers, who inherited or recieved great land deals from uncles, parents or grandparents, forget who their neighbors and lifestyle supporters have been. I remember hunting land as a kid, this land was owned by an older man, who worked his *** off to make it what it is today. He loved to visit with hunters and he would love to show anyone where the deer, geese or upland where hiding. He realized what it meant to be part of this small state and the brotherhood that existed between outdoor sportsman and landowners. Now his grandson has taken over and all you hear is about the bad local/resident hunters who don't appreciate how hard he works and don't offer money to get to the game on his land. I don't have time to coddle an ego like that, his grandfather is the one who worked his *** off to set that land up for future generations, the grandson is only reaping the rewards of hardwork of the past. I bet his grandfather is rolling over in his grave at the outright greed and contempt his grandson has shown towards his fellow statesman. To bad that is the way things are going in this state, but it is only a matter of time, as kids have many things given to them nowdays and don't understand that many others help the landowners make their "lifestyle" in this state. Oh well, call me old fashioned or just call me ignorant, but the resident sportsman hasn't changed in this state, so there is only one other place to look.


----------



## Shorthair (Sep 19, 2003)

Fireball
How much do you think the grandson paid in inheritance taxes? How much does he pay in taxes yearly? Ever hear that saying there is no such thing as a free lunch?
What exactly are we as sportsman offering the landowner? How does the landowner benefit from you and I hunting on his land for nothing? These are the questions that we could address as sportsman to come up with solutions for this leasing epidemic. How can we make it more attractive for the landowner to leave his/her land open to the general hunting public?


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Thought you all might appreciate input on this issue from a Montanan. We were force fed similar legislation by our Republican Legislature about seven years ago. Like, ND, Montana used to allow upland hunters access to any unposted private lands. These lands are now closed to hunting without permission, even if not posted. Here is the impact this change has wrought. 1) It's extemely difficult to find many landowners because they often do not live on the land, but rather in a nearby town or out-of-state. Searches for landowners often result in convoluted trails of trustee owners. 2) It has led to a proliferation of lands being leased by guide/outfitters (and therefore an increase in nonresident hunters--proven by license sales). 3) It has resulted in a decrease in overall resident hunter numbers (proven by license sales) who are frustrated with the difficulty in finding places to hunt. 4) It has increased pressure on public lands where resident hunters compete with each other, plus the increased number of nonresident hunters who want these places as well as the private lands. MT made an effort a few years ago to deal with this issue. First, it created the Block Management Program, which pays landowners with license dollars to open their lands to hunters. This is a great program, but does have a few abusers who take the dough but allow only friends and family to hunt. Second, the first 2 days of upland hunting were closed to NR. These measures sure helped relieve pressure on public lands but problems persist. The 2-day NR closure was removed this fall by the efforts of the new member of the fish and game commission (who happens to be a landowner who leases his property to a G/O with NR clients). The Block Management program is up for reauthorization next year. Hopefully, we can salvage it but it's under attack by outfitters who lease land. The G/O feel that block management areas unfairly compete with their leased spots for NR clients. What a crock! There is also a movement to create hunting lease clubs. One group has 100 members who each ponied up $1,000 to lease over 500,000 acres.

Anyway, that's our situation. Here's how I feel about it personally. On one hand, I don't mind the automatic closure of private lands since it has really cut down on the number of slob hunters. Sure I have to work a little harder to get on these places, but they can be had with a little scouting and homework. On the other hand, it's harder to find places because of the proliferation of leased lands--not a good thing. Overall, I think the negatives outweight the positives because it has led to a decrease in resident hunters. The fewer residents we have hunting, the more those of us who remain will have to struggle to maintain our interests.

One interesting side note, the Republican state legislator who sponsored this legislation in the first place is a game-farm owner who has received tens of thousands of dollars in government checks for CRP and farm subsidies. Saw in the paper yesterday that he's now suing the state for nearly a million bucks. Last year, Montana voters passed an initiative to phase-out game farms because of their risks to our wildlife. Seems this guy thinks the government is taking away his livelihood. Interesting debate that could go either way. All I know is that I HATE game farms. They've been proven to spread chronic wasting disease to our wild herds and these jerks always come crying to the state whenever their animals escape. We spend tens of thousands from license fees (which are supposed to go towards habitat enhancement) to help these idiots round up their elk with helicopters and manpower. If I ran this state, I'd just put an ad in the papers to tell hunters to come and get 'em.

Sorry for the rambling. Had to get all that off my chest.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

MTP, thanks for the great insight. Best way of figuring out how things things will affect us is to see how they've affected others. I share your thoughts in that there may be some positive side-effects of a tresspass law change, but that the negative will outweigh the positive, especially with waterfowl, deer and predators added to the mix that are often time-sensative.

The comments about your commission raise a couple of points. Was the repeal of the two-day deal an action of the commission or your legislature? The commission format as opposed to an advisory board format like ours becomes a highly political, unaccountable environment, and can produce some very scary results. As those involved in last session will recall, FB offered as one of its flagship pieces of legislation the conversion of our G&F advisory board to a commission that would have had policy-setting authority. This is not an insubstantial matter and would have set us back decades. We buried it last session (don't hear that much from FB do you?), but look for this to come up again next session and we'll need to jump all over it again.

Finally, don't you guys have a cap on NR pheasant hunters? What's the number and how has that worked at mitigating pressure?


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

The Fish and Game Commission (appointed by our Republican Governor) used its authority to eliminate the 2 day NR restriction. Our Republican Legislature had nothing to do with it, though I suspect they would have made the same decision if it was theirs to make. The Commission has representation from sportsmen, but they are outnumbered by landowners, particularly those interested in proliferating fee-hunting opportunities for nonresidents.

We do not have a cap on nonresident upland licenses--though we did double the cost of them last year to $110. Still a pretty good deal in my opinion.

One other Commission story worthy of note. Montana has always used license money to support habitat enhancement projects around the state and has tried to ignore its Legislature-mandated chick-raising and bird-releasing program. This seemed to work very well for Montana pheasant hunters, but not for a select-few landowners. One such landowner, managed to get appointed to the Commission (yup, same guy who got the 2 day NR closure removed) managed to convince his colleagues to stop spending this money on habitat and instead spend it on releases--presumably onto his leased land. Both of these decisions (NR restriction and bird releasing) were made despite over 1,000 public comments from me and my fellow hunters (95 percent of whom opposed the changes) and the objections of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks' OWN biologists who demonstrated proof of the worthiness of habitat enhancement and the futility of releases.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I've heard many other "Commission" horror stories from several other states, including a few from a former Idaho Commissioner who was appalled by the way G&F management came to be handled by those having no actual knowlege or training and was based on everything other than biology. As with the examples you gave, he cited many instances where sweeping changes were the result of one person's pet problem/idea and many of the others often abided so as not to face resistance when it was their turn. Verrrrrrrrrry scary.


----------

