# Trespass Law



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm hearing that this lawsuit will be in court March 9.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The hearing is on 3/09 at 9:30 am before Judge Bruce Haskell at the Burleigh County Courthouse, in Bismarck. This is open to the public, and a few legislators have mentioned that it would be appropriate and potentially helpful if sportspersons would attend.

Either way Judge Haskell rules, most likely that the loosing side will appeal and that the ND Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Hearing didn't come off today. Prior to the hearing actually starting, Judge Haskel recused himself because he knows some of the parties. Case will be reassigned and hearing rescheduled. Stay tuned .............


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hasn't this case ever been to the ND Supreme Court ???


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

No, this case has never been heard in a court, period. The judges keep recusing themselves because they supposedly have a conflict of interest. I think that this is the second or third judge that has done so.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Hold on to your hats and watch the news tonight and your papers tomorrow. Another suit coming, this time from the East (guess the MN Dems are worried about being left out), that will seriously raise the stakes. All of the issues, interests and angles are very quickly converging. As far as ND sportspersons are concerned, you will need to speak and get involved now, or forever hold your peace!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

The hearing on the Froelich/FB/tresspass suit will be held tomorrow afternoon in Judge Gail Hagerty's courtroom in the Burleigh County Court House (Bismarck) at 1:30. I know it's tough to keep taking time from work for this stuff, but it would be good if some sportspersons would attend. Quite a few supporters of the law change were present for the last hearing where the matter was postponed. Those of you in the area could take a late lunch - don't think the hearing will last much over an hour.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Boy, if any of you Bismarck guys could make it we "easterners" would be much indebted!!!!


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

I sure hope cooler heads prevail. This should not be an emotional decision, but rather a well thought out one. The system, in my humble opinion, works just fine as it is. I live in Minot, but if I were in Bismarck you can bet your behind I wouldn't miss that.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Just got back from the hearing. Here's my take:

1. Rod Froelich and his wife are the Plaintiffs. They own 7500 acres in Sioux County.
2. The Defendants are the Governor and Game & Fish.
3. Its an action for declaratory judgment to determine the Froelichs property rights.
4. The Froelichs claim they have a common law property right to enjoy the possession of their property, to the exclusion of all others.
5. The Froelich's claim that the Game & Fish has made public proclamations that there is a public right to enter unposted private land to hunt without the owner's permission and that this violates their common law property rights.
6. The Froelichs also claim that this amounts to a 'taking' of their property without just compensation.
7. The Froelichs have moved for summary judgment. This means that there are no disputes of fact and the judge can decide the case without a trial.
8. The Game & Fish argues that there is no controversy subject to declaratory judgment because no 'trespassers' have been made a party to the suit.
9. The Game & Fish has moved for judgment on the pleadings, probably on the grounds that there is no valid claim made by the Froelich's since John Hoeven wasn't trespassing on the Froelich's land.

Most of the above is what's called "lawyer bu**sh**."

The hearing was actually pretty boring. Judge Hagerty is pretty smart and stated that she had read the briefs. Nevertheless, Froelich's lawyer basically read his brief when making his argument. Three-fourths of the way through, Hagerty reminded him that, although what he was saying might interest the audience, she had already read the brief. He goes, "haha. Golly, gee. I guess that will shorten up what I have to say quite a bit. hahaha".

Game and Fish's lawyer did basically the same thing. His best point was that the current scheme of posting laws create a privilege to hunt on private, not a right. The privilege is easily revoked by the landowner through simple posting. He also said the lawsuit was sour grapes because of Froelich's failed attempts to change the law through legislation. Froelich's countered that they shouldn't have to 'post every single acre.' Their attorney also stated that this is different than the failed legislation because they are merely seeking a declaration of their rights and not seeking to impose criminal penalties for those hunting on unposted land.

To emphasize the vanilla nature of the hearing, Hagerty did not ask a single question. Not a one. Unusual. The Game & Fish asked for a quick decision. She said she'll right a memorandum opinion.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

tb, thanks much for attending and the report. It is GREATLY appreciated.

Either way Juge Hagerty rules, this will probably get heard by the Supremes late Summer or early Fall. Will need some attendees for that hearing too, and that one should have more "sparks".


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

The attorney for the state, can't remember his name, stated that it would be much appreciated by all to have the matter decided by Judge Hagerty asap because there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court by the losing side whoever it is. He indicated the state would like to have a Supreme Court ruling prior to the legislative session. Hagerty replied that she 'didn't think I'd have the last word.'


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I think his name is Paul Germolus. I've heard he's sharp. He's right to push that this gets resolved, either way, prior to the session.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

tb and Dan, thanks for the update. Kept hearing it on the radio today but no followup.


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer 
The Associated Press - Friday, April 16, 2004
· advertisement ·
BISMARCK, N.D.

"Regulating access to hunting land should be left to the Legislature instead of the courts, an attorney argued in a high-stakes legal dispute about whether existing rules violate the property rights of landowners.

The lawsuit, filed by Rep. Rod Froelich, D-Selfridge, and his wife, Kathryn, is aimed at requiring sportsmen to ask permission from landowners before they go onto any private property to hunt deer, pheasants and other game.

Currently, hunters may go onto someone's land without asking, unless it is posted with signs warning that hunters are not welcome.

Froelich represents a rural southwestern district, including Sioux and Grant counties and large parts of Morton and Hettinger counties, where pheasant hunting is especially popular. He has sponsored proposals to require hunters to get permission before they go on someone's land, but the Legislature has rebuffed them.

During a court hearing Thursday, Paul Germolus, an assistant attorney general, described Froelich's lawsuit as "a case of sour grapes over a couple of failed legislative bills."

Froelich responded heatedly afterward, saying the legislative delegation of Fargo alone outnumbers those who represent North Dakota's territory west of the Missouri River. The issue is important to his constituents, he said.

"What gives the executive branch and the legislative branch the right to give away yours, or my, private property rights? This is what they're doing, and this is what we're trying to fight," Froelich said. "If we have to fight this to the Supreme Court, that's where we've got to go."

South Central District Judge Gail Hagerty, who presided at the 45-minute hearing on Thursday, said she will issue a written ruling later.

Both Germolus and the Froelichs' attorney, Douglas Goulding, say they expect any decision to be appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. They hope a Supreme Court ruling can be made in time for the 2005 Legislature, which convenes in January.

The Froelichs are asking Hagerty to rule that hunters must have a landowner's permission to come onto private farm or ranch land, whether or not any signs have been posted. They also want the judge to conclude that state hunting policy amounts to the taking of private property without compensation.

Germolus argued the Legislature is better equipped to handle the land access issues raised by Froelich's lawsuit. The Froelichs have the option of suing individual hunters for money damages for trespassing on their land, Germolus said.

"The practice, or privilege, by the public to hunt or pursue game on private, unposted land has been a background principle of North Dakota property law that has remained unaltered for decades," he wrote in a court filing.

More than a dozen Froelich supporters attended Thursday's hearing, along with Dean Hildebrand, director of the Game and Fish Department, and other state officials.

Hildebrand said a ruling in Froelich's favor would make North Dakota hunting and wild game management much more difficult.

"We must remember one very important fact, that the land belongs to the individual, but game belongs to the people," Hildebrand said. "In order for the people to harvest that game, they have to be able to get on that land.""

I SURE HOPE THIS DOESN'T GET OUT OF HAND, AS IT WOULD CERTAINLY CHANGE THE MEANING OF FREELANCE HUNTING AND ALSO MAKE HUNTING IN ND A WINK WINK AFFAIR THAT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN. IF THIS DOES SOMEHOW MANAGE TO SOMEHOW GO ANYWHERE, ALL I CAN SAY TO LANDOWNERS IS GOOD LUCK WITH THE VARMINTS.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I guess I think this kind of stuff (lawsuits, liability issues) just adds to the confusion suffered by most folks these days and ends up encouraging no changes. When people get confused they say "leave it like it is, I at least have some understanding of my situation so don't change it."


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

WHo is Froelich and what is his motive? Why doesn't he just post his land?


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Froelich is a rancher from Sioux County. Rumor has it that he has leased his ranch to out of state hunters for years. Its posted tight. He's been a state representative for quite a while. He has tried many times to get the law changed in the legislature, but each time he loses by a bigger margin. Froelich Dam is right near his place. 
My take is that the guys that lease their land to hunters don't want any competition. For example, I think that the Cannonball Company told the Game and Fish not to create any PLOTS in its area. Doesn't want competition. Same with guys like Froelich. They want you to pay. They don't want you to be able to drive 2 miles down the road and hunt on their neighbor's land for free. He wants you to pay to hunt. Period.


----------



## Goosehunter_ND (Mar 24, 2004)

I say put this SOB in the same prison cell as Sheldon! I don't think this guy has a chance in hell of winning this case, and if he doesn't like the way the laws are in ND i sure wouldnt be sad to see him leave. WE don't need people like this around, who already lease there land away and make hunting land less scarce.


----------



## Goosehunter_ND (Mar 24, 2004)

If you would like to send your state legislator, Rod Froelich an email about this issue here is his email [email protected]


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

What's so wrong with asking for permission to hunt?

Would you city-slickers mind if I came in and pitched a tent on your front lawn and went camping?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Buckshot the issue is not about asking permission th issue is about promoting commerial market hunting.

I seek permission and most of the guys I hunt with do also, but not all landowers are local or even in state. This makes it very tough for waterfowl hunting.


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

Buckshot said:


> What's so wrong with asking for permission to hunt?
> 
> Would you city-slickers mind if I came in and pitched a tent on your front lawn and went camping?


Leave your keys in your cars also so Buckshot can use it just in case he needs to go somewhere too. It's only right isn't it? Landowner bought and OWNS the land and you think you all have the right to use his personal property for your own playground? Do you have to post your yards to keep people from camping there etc? Ridiculous......


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

OK Bubba whats your game? NR trying to stir up the trash!! :withstupid:

Buckshot there is not a darn thing wrong with getting permission, as a landowner I expect it and as a hunter I do it.
This is just another tactic to promote commercialization of hunting. I don't know you but if you like hunting in a freelance manner it will be over as you know it. I really want to pass this heritage and way of life to my kids not only tell stories!!
There are better ways to get to know your nieghbors, not to divide this state amongst landowners and sportsman.

Unless you are for commercialization, guides and outfitters, fee hunting and all that??? Hmmmm???


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

4CurlRedleg said:


> OK Bubba whats your game? NR trying to stir up the trash!! :withstupid:
> 
> Not trying to stir anything up! Here in Mn it's been that way for YEARS and you know what???? Life didn't end!!! The sky didn't fall!!!! Hunting did not become extinct!!!! It's THEIR property... :eyeroll:


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2004)

4curl, look back 50 years in WI. Land back then was great, no-one was around. You depended on your neighbors for help. Look at now. Your life stories will be just that with the way people are relocating and over populating these days. Life as a country boy will be over in 25 years.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

NoDak is no MN or Wi. Not even close. By the way, hows the quality of hunting in those states?? :down:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Actually the quality of hunting is extremely high in both MN and WS, so is the quality of living.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Here we go again on the "mine's almost as big as yours" theme (where's PH when we need him). I know I should, but I have a hard time laying off this stuff.



> Actually the quality of hunting is extremely high in both MN and WS


 For what and compared to what? For waterfowl and pheasants as compared to AZ, or for matter most other states? Sure. I've lived and hunted in all three states, and for wing-shooting, any comprehensive comparison is silly. For deer hunting? ND offers whatever kind of deer hunting you wish. Want to drive around for 10 days and shoot one from the ditch (lots do), that's available. Want to hook up with a group and drive hunt (like they do in lots of parts of MN), plenty of that. Want to find a nice secluded spot that you have to hike into and still or stand hunt, you're right at home in ND. Just don't shoot someone else's deer.



> so is the quality of living


 You've got your priorities; we've got ours.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

ND does offer many ways to deer hunt, but like the wing shooting comparison, is almost silly in comparison to the ones offered by MN and WS. If you are party hunting and you don't want someone else shooting your deer, simply say "I'm shooting my own". It's not as complicated as it sounds.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I've deer hunted and fished in all three states too, and all I can say when this debate about fishing and deer hunting quality comes up is: Thank God more NR's dont truly appreciate how spectacular the ND fishing and deer hunting is - we've got more than enough problems already!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

The reason few NR's deer hunt in Nd, because you can not 
purchased a buck license over the counter, lottery only!

Not that bad of an idea.

MN needs to start a lottery for bucks. Went out to a friends
house Sunday evening for supper, saw over 200 deer in the
ditch and fields. All in 12 miles!

Fishing is great in ND, I have noticed one problem, lack of
cpr. A little education can go a long way!

There Ken W I have edited my post to please you and you
only! Stop being such a poultry pop!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

how can you tell they were all does at this time of year?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Today Judge Hagerty granted Summary Judgment in the State's favor. The forces of commercialized hunting loose round 1. :beer:

She based her decision on 3 grounds. Froelich's improperly sought an advisory opinion from the court. They failed to name all persons who have a claim or interest in the relief sought. And Froelichs "retain a common law claim for civil trespass, if one exists". If one exists, "uch an action would probably require proof of damages".

Look for the appeal to be heard by the NDSC late summer, which will hopefully allow for a decision prior to the session.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The sun is out, the breeze is mild, birds abound, and Froelich lost the first round......Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssss! Thanks for the update Dan.

Just a note. When I attended my county Farm Bureau meeting last winter, the speaker, I believe the VP of NDFB, said this case will settle it, one way or the other , for Farm Bureau involvement. Win they have, lose, they won't touch it again. Will they keep their word?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Whooppie :beer: :beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Here is the news release! :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

COURT DISMISSES FROELICH HUNTING LAWSUIT

BISMARCK - State District Court Judge Gail Hagerty ruled in favor of the State today in a case closely followed by hunters and landowners. The case, filed by Rodney & Kathryn Froelich, asked the court to decide whether the public had a legal right to hunt on unposted land without permission. Froelichs also asked the Court to declare the State's interpretation of the "posting" law was an unconstitutional taking of private property.
In granting the State's Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Hagerty concluded that Froelichs were seeking an advisory opinion, which the Court may not give. Judge Hagerty also concluded that a ruling interpreting the State's trespass laws is inappropriate because Froelichs failed to bring the proper parties to court. "Even if the Froelichs were not requesting an advisory opinion, their failure to name a trespasser as a defendant prohibits me from issuing a declaratory judgment," she said. Finally, the Court said that, in spite of its ruling, Froelichs still "retain a common law claim for civil trespass, if one exists," but noted that "uch an action would probably require proof of damages."
"I'm very pleased with today's decision," said Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. "I've said from the beginning that the State should not be a party to this action, and the Court agreed. Judge Hagerty reiterated in her opinion that the Governor and the Game & Fish Director do not make the law. 
"But," Stenehjem continued, "Judge Hagerty also indicated that, had she reached the merits, she would conclude that the State had correctly stated the law in this matter. The executive branch is interested only in correctly interpreting and faithfully executing the laws passed by the legislature. Any change in the trespassing statutes is properly one for the legislature to make."
Stenehjem noted the skillful efforts of Assistant Attorney General Paul Germolus, who argued the case for the state.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Another update: Today South Dakota Farm Bureau lost their suit to over turn the SD anti-corporate faming law. Large corporate farms are not hunter friendly. Two torpedoes-solid hits.


----------



## Crabby (Aug 27, 2003)

:eyeroll: Just a setback. You creepy little land grabbing morons will be left high and dry shortly. In your eyes - what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine. Sweat bullets because sooner than later somebody other than your little cornbread judges will be hearing the story. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Crabby


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2004)

Cry us a river Crabby!!! :lol: Sounds like it'll be solved in another 3 years after everything runs through the "System". Wahahahaha!!! :lol: (as GB3 would say)


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Crabby, please explain what you mean and what exactly is your problem.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Cornbread judges???? You aren't one of those posse freaks are you??


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

What exactly is the definition of a corporate farm? I know a lot of family farmers that incorporated the business to protect themsleves?

On the other hand, Cargill comes to mind. This is a huge agriculturally based company, but it is privately held. What about American Crystal Sugar? A fairly large co-op that brings in many economic dollars to the Red River Valley?
Land O' Lakes is another huge co-op. All three have the resources to put up what some like to refer to as "mega-corporate farms". but they are merely a company or co-op of individual producers.
Could someone please define a corporate farm for me?


----------



## mfeining (Nov 2, 2002)

buckshot, where exactly is god's country?


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Hey fellow sportspersons! Read the posts in this thread and found them to be quite interesting. As far as the Froelich lawsuit goes, hope and pray it never materializes. We have the exact same law in WI and it is a total pain in the a$$. Many of you spoke of asking permission before accessing land which is a practice we always exercise and for the sake of landowner hunter relations is just the right thing to do. This law however created an undo hardship on all people due to the following reasons:

1.) The burden of knowing who's land you're on rests on the outdoors person. This is great just so long as you have the land surveyed prior to accessing it. I've had hunting friends of mine having to explain to the county sheriffs deparment why they were on someone elses land.... by two feet. None of them got fined but potential was by all means there and the landowner was there in both cases demanding blood from the trespasser. It was a fairly common practice to put fences up on the boundry lines of properties in WI but many of the farmers now bought up the small parcels of land and the fences were either removed or are totally meaningless. Nine out of ten times when inquiring about where the property lines were you got an answer similar to " Oh it's a couple feet to the left or right of...". Many times the landowners aren't even sure where they are.

2.) Plat books - Plat books in WI were never designed to be an accurate depiction of a piece of land. Glad I spent big money on them every year.

3.) Land changes hands and without a posted sign it can be a real hassle trying to find out who owns it. 98% of the land posted in ND has the phone number of the owner on it so it's usually not too tough to find out who owns it.

4.) The normal penalty for trespassing (not hunting, trapping or fishing) is someplace around $250. If you violate the law while hunting under the "doesn't have to be posted" law the fine is about four times that.

Personally I think Froelich's claim is lame when he says that every square acre shouldn't need to be posted. ND law is one sign every 850 yards which if placed properly covers a full mile of frontage. In any case I'm a fan of asking permission at all costs but the required permission is a real pandoras box. Watch this one real close.... you don't know how bad this one will affect the traditional hunting in ND should it go through.


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

> where exactly is god's country?


Well, it could be any place you choose. What I define as "God's country" could be the devils kitchen to others. this is besides the point, I answered your question, you answer mine.

Dick M. wrote


> Large corporate farms are not hunter friendly.


They are also not farmer friendly. But, for the sake of discussion, this seems to be fairly ambiguous. I'm not out trying to tout the corporate farm. I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective as an avid outdoorsman with an interest in farming and business.

I just got done reading the other thread on CRP and since we like to hash things out here, would put in another point of view.

buckseye wrote


> Park...you just don't understand the importance of food. It must be trivial to you but about two thirds of the people on this planet have alot of concern for food.


Because of this, it can be very lucrative for corporations to get in to.

BigDaddy wrote


> One of the first things a government does to keep a content citizenry is to keep them fed. When people are hungry they get ornery, and revolutions start in countries that let this happen.


Mega-farms keep the prices low by economies of scale.

My point is that things in the ag industry are changing, always have been always will be. Times are tough, productions up, prices are down, and profit margins are slimming. Its getting harder for the "family farm" to succeed.
Case in point, there used to be a market for domestic turkeys in the US. Companies like Cargill, Jennie-O, & Butterball, with huge investments in processing plants, have a vested interest in running everything at full production. They also would like to guarantee themselves a price on the commodity coming in.
To solve this, they started offering contracts to turkey producers, most of who when presented with them gladly accepted. From a farmers standpoint anytime you can take the market risk out of production and still make a living, you'll save yourself endless worries and headaches.
Eventually, the processing plants end up having 100% of the turkeys contract grown. You don't need an economics major to figure out where the cash price for turkeys went.
Now, the processors who are being jibed by the "Wal-Marts" of the world, are pressured into lower prices, if you can sell to Wal-Mart, you can sell to the entire US population. It is a great way to move product.
The processors who aren't going to absorb the costs, start tightening the belt of the producer for them, and those contracts aren't looking so rosy anymore.
Who's to blame for this, the farmer for signing the contract, the processors for monopolizing the market, Wal-Mart for throwing their weight around, or the consumer who is purchasing the product on the other end? It seems to me capitalism at its strongest.

Farmers with the only choice they have left are joining together and forming partnerships and co-ops just to save themsleves.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Buckshot, you are correct that large scale corporate farming is neither farmer friendly nor hunter friendly. SD courts just rejected SD Farm Bureau's bid to roll over the anti-corporate farm law in that state. As ND Farm Bureau tried to pass in the '03 session here. It was soundly defeated. It was encouraging to see the ND Sportsman's Alliance and the ND Wildlife Federation testify against an expansion of corporate farming in ND. The highest grossing ranch in Texas has world renown for their work in beef genitics, and it was their highest income stream. Now it is surpassed by their selictive breeding program for big racks on whitetails.

Of course you, the hunter, buy the rack by the B&C point. No freelancers there. Just another man-made commodity.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Some folks wanted to know how a corporate farm is defined. Here are some excerpts from Chapter 10-06.1 of the ND Century Code:



> 10-06.1-02. Farming or ranching by corporations and limited liability companies prohibited. All corporations and limited liability companies, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, are prohibited from owning or leasing land used for farming or ranching and from engaging in the business of farming or ranching. A corporation or a limited liability company may be a partner in a partnership that is in the business of farming or ranching only if that corporation or limited liability company complies with this chapter.


Furthermore:



> 10-06.1-08. Cooperative corporations allowed to engage in the business of farming or ranching - Requirements. This chapter does not prohibit cooperative corporations, seventy-five percent of whose members or shareholders are actual farmers or ranchers residing on farms or ranches or depending principally on farming or ranching for their livelihood, from acquiring real estate and engaging in cooperative farming or ranching.


If I read this right, cooperatives are allowed, as are corporate relationships among fellow farmers, but at least 75% of the shares need to be owned by people that actually live on farms or ranches.

Question for Dick and others: Could similar language be drafted to define a commercial G/O? Could we define and prohibit a commercial guide and outfitting unless the G/O owned a certain percentage of the property?


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

Thanks for the info BD!

That 75% of ownership by people who actually live on farms or ranches seems like a good idea, but it doesn't specifiy that they have to live in ND.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

God's country is Wallhalla.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Gods Country is in a marsh somewhere in who cares North Dakota, with your favorite hunting partner and your dog, your favorite shotgun, a 30 mile an hour north wind, cloudy threatening skies, a hot cup o' coffee and mallards flyin all over the place...... oh ya, one more thing, no appointments and no schedule!

Sorry guys, couldn't resist.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Ah Yes the perfect day has just been described Thanks Wiscan22 I am going to read that once in awhile to get me through the summer.

Have a good one!


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

My defenition of Gods Country...........Sitting your spread of Bigfoots, or snow goose decoys BSing with your 4 best hunting bud's (You guys know who you are) and chewing spitting all over the place while you one buddy makes fun of the girls you hang around with. 
During that day nothing has gone wrong, the birds have worked just great, the weather is just perfect. And to end the hunt you look up towards the sky as it clears, and you see thousands of ducks or geese piling into the roost you will be hunting the birds off of that next day. And you sit back and think to your self.....Is this real or am I dreaming. So in other words it feels like im in a dream every weekend during the fall. Thats why I will never leave this great state!


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Open Field said:


> Ah Yes the perfect day has just been described Thanks Wiscan22 I am going to read that once in awhile to get me through the summer.
> 
> Have a good one!


Thanks Open Field! Some of my most memorable hunts occurred in that "up north" state that some refer to as having nothing.... Goes to show what they know. Glad to see that I hopefully will make your summer seem shorter!

:wink:


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

GooseBuster3 said:


> My defenition of Gods Country...........Sitting your spread of Bigfoots, or snow goose decoys BSing with your 4 best hunting bud's (You guys know who you are) and chewing spitting all over the place while you one buddy makes fun of the girls you hang around with.
> During that day nothing has gone wrong, the birds have worked just great, the weather is just perfect. And to end the hunt you look up towards the sky as it clears, and you see thousands of ducks or geese piling into the roost you will be hunting the birds off of that next day. And you sit back and think to your self.....Is this real or am I dreaming. So in other words it feels like im in a dream every weekend during the fall. Thats why I will never leave this great state!


Kinda brings a new definition to the "White Tornado" doesn't it? Even the sounds of that many birds together, WOW.... and we are all fortunate enough to have experienced it.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Here is the document on the action.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/opinion.pdf


----------

