# East vs. West



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The Farm Bureau is having meetings all over the western part of the state this week to get support for their lawsuit about the no-tresspass law.
They met in Carson and Beulah last night.Tonight they will be in Scranton and Medora.Wed. in Watford City and Thurs. in Kenmare and Garrison.

I wonder if they will do this in the east.

They are being represented by the Northern Plains Public Interest Law Firm.It is their only case.The mission of the firm is to act as a defense fund for farmers and ranchers who feel their property rights are being violated,but lack the money to take legal action.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Where is the money trail? Why is the Farm Bureau so concerned about the no-trespass law? Do they stand to make a lot of money somewhere if the state goes to everything being automatically posted?

Maybe a good compromise would be that the Farm Bureau would have to pay to publish current plat books of every township with current landowners/phone numbers/addresses.

Personally, I prefer our pro-choice system where the landowner has the choice to force people to ask permission or just let them go willy nilly. If it ain't broke....


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

History has always been that the west had more interst in this issue. Many ranchers wanted this to limit access to public grounds. They could effectively stop access to 100,000 of acres of public grasslands. One only needs to look to MT and Co for examples.

FB is going where they know it is freindly territory, hold that same meeting in Jamestown or Edgeley and see what will happen.

Once again they are trying to turn this into an emotiona issue istead of one of facts. East/West Rural/Urban Etc.

Everyone needs to keep the emotions in check and realize that it is in the hands of the state lawyers and hope they are given the resources to defend this issue to the end.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If any nodackers attend one of these meetings, give us a report. I wonder how Eric will explain to the small towns that this suit, to drive hunters out, will help their business? And what is the purpose of getting "support"---collect money maybe? The well could be a tad low. Maybe the outfitters aren't kicking in their fair share?


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

If everything is posted then you will see signs that say Hunters welcome with a phone number.Call the number and you can hunt for a fee.The guy that posted before with his name on the poster that wanted to know who was on his land won't have to post.Who will enjoy this?


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

All this seems to do is make it so you have to use a guide to hunt. This would really hurt the small towns as it makes hunting a lot tougher and I can't imagine a lot would be for it. I remember hunting snow geese up in Westhope and trying to find the landowner was a challenge because some lived around the country and rented the land out. There really isn't much to say about this issue except it would make hunting a lot more difficult for the average person trying to find land to hunt..... :lame:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I think DK and Eric are correct. I think it's more than coincindence that the party FB chose as their surrogate (Forelich) runs a fee hunt operation. If the law is changed, it will greatly benefit and enhance the outfitting industry because as many have mentioned finding landowners is often very difficult. Just one more reason to encourage people to use a guide. With FB and GOA closely alligned during the session, this has the feel of payback. And landowners rights...........what about the rights of landowners not to be "hassled" by hunters by choosing not to post - seems the trespass law and this landowner's rights business cuts both ways.


----------

