# SB 2315



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It would appear an automatic posting bill comes up every time our legislature is in session. This is without doubt the worst they have ever written. It rivals Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bill the "New Green Deal" or whatever she calls it. I forget the radical hunter haters name in the legislature, but he brought it up and Farm Bureau, no surprise, supports it along with the Stockmens Association and some western ranchers. Oh and the only winners are the guides and outfitters. They have a few special things for them written into it. Call your representatives fast because I think they vote Thursday or Friday. Some crazy amendments went into it and it doesn't even go back to committee. This one is a ram rod job so call today.

They are talking about some kind of data base that would have three levels of trespass. One posted and don't even ask, another posted, but can get permission, and another not posted. The expense would be crazy, most would make mistakes, it would solve nothing. I think it would reduce the number of hunters, cut into profits of hotels and restaurants, and cut back on funds for the Game and Fish. I guess if you see a coyote you have to find a high hill where you can get service and check an app to see if you can shoot or get permission. Landowners will love that call at sunrise.

This will drive one huge wedge between landowners and sportsmen. Hunters are about the only people out on the land and support farmers because we appreciate the access. That's the strong opinion on another form that I am on. They feel that if farmers don't appreciate the taxes we pay that pays their support prices then why do we appreciate them? I think hunters and landowners both loose, so whether your a hunter or a landowner I encourage you to call your representatives today.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P5qrgk ... Ty2ol/view


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So they are talking or want to make a cell phone "App" that tells the public: 1. Don't ask you wont get permission, 2. Ask and maybe get permission, 3. Open if you want to go?

So they want to spend thousands of $$$ and hope everyone has a cell phone or is in cell phone coverage. Plus they want or hope people know how to use an app, find where to download the app. How about if the land changes ownership? Who will update it or how quickly? What if the land owner changes there mind and all of a sudden doesn't want people on the land? How about the people who just post it during deer season but allow bird hunters a month or two of hunting? How about people post it until after deer season but then allow coyote or fur hunters onto the land later on in the year?? Do you think land owners will want to give up cell number or contact info to an "app" so anyone can get it???

That whole APP thing is the stupidest thing I have heard. We all know how fast "apps" can get updated.. uke: Look at OnXhunt. This is a great resource but is always a few months off. Or if you don't update it you might be a year off.

This is coming from a NR and can see the head aches and pain this will cause. Plus the money wasted on this. Technology is great and a great tool to have in your tool belt. But a good old plat book and knocking on doors is your best bet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This from another site. I'm so ticked I can't say much right now. Passed the senate 28/18. Lobbyist need to be gone.



> by PrairieGhost View Post
> Even if most of my relatives farm I can't support landowners if it's a one way street. They complained on the radio today about the expense. I'm sick of my expense April 15 that they get their greedy hands on.
> 
> I hope they do read these forms because I didn't contact Wanzec from district 29 for his opinion, I contacted his aggogant *** to give him my opinion. I voted for him in the past, but I'll vote for someone else next time even if the are a striped hermaphrodite illegally from Mars.





> He was by far one of the rudest legislators that replied to my email to him. I told him my concerns with the database and what they should fix. I also proposed other ideas to fix this issue. All he did is chew my *** by saying I had a bunch of excuses to not help landowners and said because of whiny sportsmen that he was now going to post all of his land. Sounds like a great representative for the people of ND!


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Leave it up to government to ruin what little is left of a good thing. Don't they realize that most farmers don't own land they rent it 100% or crop share? How is this going to work with the majority of landowners who live in large cities and states far from the land they own? Is this really being perpetuated by the large conglomerates, out of state landowners and plethora of government representatives that own land?

Sounds like a cluster that a lot of farmers and ranchers(including myself) who don't support it are going to get blamed for. While the rich landowners who live in Fargo, Bismarck, Phoenix, Florida, etc. will get their wish. I will contact my rep but if it passes I hope my landlord in Florida gets calls or texts in the middle of the night cause I will not be responsible for policing the families land.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Well I did my part. Took awhile but composed very poignant and barbed but respectful correspondence to my representatives. They know my stance and the reasons behind it. Pray it rings home. Will see if I get any response.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This would be a nightmare....But wouldn't affect my hunting group much. We have been hunting the same posted land for over 30 years and the landowners and there kids. hunt with us.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Here is more info on this bill. Representatives are seeing this as a compromise between land owners and hunters. BUT will the legislature give the GNF money to put it in place? Like it says.....maybe more changes now that it has moved to the House.

The bill that was passed is much different than the version that was heard in the Senate Ag committee. The new version also has a fiscal note that NDGF will pay at least $250,000 in expenses for the proposed database. The bill will likely be amended again as it moves forward. Some of the points of the new bill, as provided by Senator Myrdal:
• An electronic landowner database will be developed with the intent of having several counties, probably those with the most complete GIS data regarding land ownership, be the test counties. Legislative intent is to have operational electronic availability by fall hunting season of 2020 and state-wide availability by September 1st, 2022

• The database will allow secure ability of landowners or the legal occupant to log into the system and identify their land

• The system will have three levels of access, initially identified as:

o Red:Closed to hunting.

o Yellow: Hunting possible with permission; this category requires landowner or legal occupant contact information to be included.

o Green: Open to hunting; this is the default category and requires no action by the landowner or legal occupant

• Physical posting of land will override anything that is listed in the database

• Landowners or the legal occupant may list different tracts of land with different designation regarding access.

• Landowners, through a secure website, will be able to change how their land is classified.

• The trespass penalties remain the same as in existing law.

• The phase-in of the database will give IT professionals more time to ensure a sound, accurate, more complete, and useful resource.

• The amended bill represents many months of discussion and drafting to address landowners' property rights, and sportsmen's concerns about information and access at the same time.

• Long range plan is to be able to possibly designate times land is closed or open as well as species open to hunt

(someone may designate land open to waterfowl but closed for deer); these options will more than likely come after a successful implementation of the initial phase.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

IMHO, as I stated previously. An unneeded cluster. Another taxpayer funded government run program with red tape and bureaucracy.

I will not be putting my info on any government website run by "IT" personnel. NEVER happen. I do not trust the government in any way shape or form for anything irregardless of who is in charge.

I will continue doing as I have done for 30 years. I will place a no hunting sign where my home, my parents home and my shop is located. All other areas are open to hunting for moose, deer, waterfowl, upland game and furbearing animals.

They can take their "program" and put it where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

They used CALL as an excuse for this bill so why would they expect Game and Fish to foot the bill. I think Farm Bureau had their fingerprints on that.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Word out from the Sportsman e-tree is.....

the House Ag Committee intends to amend SB2315 to make it a TOTAL TRESPASS LAW- everything would be considered posted. This would be a devastating blow to North Dakota's outdoor recreation and the many businesses which rely on it.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Yep. This is what happens when government sticks their hands in places where it doesn't need to. Utter insanity.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just wait to see all the R hunters also get "pinched" on this issue. Especially during deer season. I talked with some about this bill before and they had no clue it was going on.

You will also see less and less NR hunters because of this. Especially newer hunters. You could also see less out of state people going to college in ND. I know one person from my hometown that said he chose ND because of the hunting and fishing opportunity.

I hope people read reg books this year. They should every year but most stop a season dates and limits. :eyeroll:

Edit:

I still cant believe they are relying on Technology to give up to date info. ND cell phone coverage in places is sketchy at best. Plus with cell phone plans or "coverages" changing... ie now there is 5G rolling out. So upgrades and what not will hamper sharing of info via cell phones or mobile devices.... :eyeroll:

Look at the mess out west that people are getting into with the "checker board" stuff. If you don't know what that means it is where 4 parcels of land come together at four corners and the diaganol parcels are owned by the same person or if you have permission on them but not the other two. You cant access them by walking across that exact point. Because you are on the other two. Or you have to "leap" or "hop scotch". This is an issue out west where people were locking up state land by buying property around it and what not.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Is this bill passed or still getting discussed? Also when will it become "law"... 2019 hunting or 2020?

Just curious. Also passing this along to all my friends in ND because they don't know anything about this.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Hope this helps.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Apparently our legislature along with some farmers and ranchers in this state want hunting to stop, that is in effect what this law will do in time. Maybe not right away, but eventually, as people get tired of putting up the ****show that this will create, they'll just quit going.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm a farmer and find it very, very sad. Called my representative and gave him a sore ear about it. Didn't do much good:-(.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I should have said "some farmers and ranchers", I know that there are some of them that do not want this. In fact, I'll edit my post. And I thank you, north1, and the other landowners who are against this thing passing.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This will come out of the House Ag committee. Not Natural Resources. If it passes the house it would have to be reconciled with the completely different Senate version. Basically Eberle got through a version that was a compromise and now is bringing the hammer down to get what he really wants.....a no trespass law. This guy has been in the Senate since 2001 and brings this up every session. This time he is trying a new tactic.

I no longer live in ND but still go back to hunt. We have fought this battle every session.

What needs to come out is that NR hunters will be affected by this big time. That will hurt businesses A LOT. They need to know what is going on.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The final version of SB 2315 will be the worst of both worlds:

1) Everything's Posted; and
2) A study on how to make an electronic database.

The version of the House Ag Amendments released at 5 pm yesterday ARE AT THIS LINK.

Of key note are lines 17-24 on Page 7 - ALL LANDS ARE POSTED. ALL PRIVATE LANDS REQUIRE PERMISSION TO ENTER. They tried to sneak this by us with six pages of "feel good" language, but it's very clear (though sneakily written in) this is an ANTI-HUNTING BILL trying to amend G&F Code to prohibit hunting on ALL PRIVATE LAND (including unposted).


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

It will have minimal effect on my group. We hunt wpas, state, PLOTS, and around 15,000 acres posted lands. Still, there may be a lot of residents, and NRs that find it too cumbersome, and quit.
The effect on gf funding could be devastating. NRs already provide more than half license sales income. Sad end of an era and cultural practice.
My sympathy to the very fine folks of North Dakota.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

From the ND Sportsman e-tree......

On Friday the House Ag committee gave a DO PASS recommendation to an AMENDED version of SB2315. The version that came out of the Senate wasn't a perfect bill, but it had the foundation for possible success. The version passed by the House Ag Committee carries a 100% posted provision whereby all private lands would be closed to entry without permission. It is a serious threat to hunting and fishing in North Dakota.

A summary from John Bradley of ND Wildlife Federation is attached, along with a copy of the amended version. It's not an easy read and portions appear redundant. One of the problematic areas is on page 7, lines 14-24. Basically it declares that permission is required to enter private land for any reason.

The second area of trouble is on the last page. It states that if the interim committee doesn't come up with a plan by 2020, everything will be posted ANYWAY. This means that if an agreement isn't reached, (meaning the sportsmen give in) the law would automatically become "Everything is posted". In essence, the members of the committee can easily steer the process the get their ultimate goal.

Summary below......


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Summary from e-tree.....

SB2315 Summary - interpretation

Section 1 - Criminal Trespass - Law enforcement officer can write a $250 ticket, landowner does not need to press charges

For some reason fixing buried and above ground infrastructure is exempt

Section 1 is declared to be an emergency measure - See Section 14

Section 1 becomes effective until July 31, 2020, unless the legislative management committee does not receive agreed upon recommendations regarding electronic posting of land from the land access committee by August 1, 2020 - See Section 13

Section 2 - Criminal Trespass - Non criminal offences - Law enforcement officer can write a $250 ticket, landowner does not need to press charges

Does not become effective until August 1, 2020, unless the legislative management committee does not receive agreed upon recommendations regarding electronic posting of land from the land access committee by August 1, 2020 - See Section 12

Section 3 - Adds electronic posting - specifies that only physically posted land has to have contact information - only one category of electronic posting - no hunting

Section 3 is declared to be an emergency measure - See Section 14

Effective until July 31, 2020, unless the legislative management committee does not receive agreed upon recommendations regarding electronic posting of land from the land access committee by August 1, 2020 - See Section 13

Section 4 - Hunter exemption - Allows for hunting only on land not posted physically or electronically. Trapping needs written permission - no change to current law. However, this Section has-July 31, 2020 sunset clause if the legislative management committee does not receive agreed upon recommendations regarding electronic posting of land from the land access committee by August 1, 2020 - See Section 13

Section 4 is declared to be an emergency measure - See Section 14

Section 5 - No hunting on physically posted land without permission - However, this Section does not become effective until July 31, 2020 sunset clause if the legislative management committee does not receive agreed upon recommendations regarding electronic posting of land from the land access committee by August 1, 2020 - See Section 12

Section 4 and 5 have the same number 20.1-01-19 and title: Hunting on posted land and trapping on private land without permission. Amendment 4 goes into effect August 1, 2019 for one year basically leaving the law as is now. Amendment 5 goes into effect on August 1, 2020 if no agreement is reached on electronic posting by August 1 2020. Covered in Section 12 and 13

Section 6 - Retrieving game on posted land. My read is that a hunter will no longer be able to retrieve games on posted land without permission, but G&F said this doesn't change the current system.

Section 7 - Clarifies mentored hunts, etc. Has a sunset clause of July 1, 2020, unless the legislative management committee does not receive agreed upon recommendations regarding electronic posting of land from the land access committee by August 1, 2020 - See Section 13

Section 7 is declared to be an emergency measure - See Section 14

Section 8 - Eliminate guides and outfitters on any private land unless they obtain permission

Section 9 - Repeals Section 20.1-01-17 and 20.1-01-20. ???

Section 10 - Sets up the legislative management committee - NDGF, Game Warden, Ag commissioner, and ITD are non-voting members. 2 from ag, 2 from sportsmen, 1 from association of counties and 4 legislators - Need to come to agreement before August 1, 2020 or no trespass become law on July 31.

Section 11 - NDGF and Tourism educates public on new law

Section 12 and 13 are the contingency sections. If the legislative management committee does agree before August 1, 2020 the nuclear option becomes law.

Section 14 is the emergency clause to make all this work.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Thank you very much for posting this Ken. I have a problem with the whole blame thing but in section 2. Law officer can write a $250 ticket without landowner pressing charges. I hope this means if I give oral permission but don't file any electronic BS the hunter can't be fined? Or if I take the time to compose permission slips signed and dated by me the hunting party(s) there are no problems with me not electronically filing? Talk about a government induced cluster!!!


----------



## 27ducks (Mar 13, 2013)

As a NR hunter that owns a house, pays taxes, utilities and supports the local businesses in the surrounding counties i agree with north1 and see this as a cluster. The cell coverage in the rural area we hunt you might have 4g service in one spot today and 1x coverage tomorrow.
As a NR hunter we have and will always try to contact the landowner even if the land isn't posted. But that's out of respect. We have heard on several occasions "if I cared it would be posted" or something along those lines. We even been told no hunting on land that wasnt posted. 
Not sure where I was going with this post :rollin: :rollin: i guess just to vent and just to say its crazy how far the government tries to reach into everything.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Sadly given what I've seen of some of the state databases. A database such as being suggested will be grossly neglected and almost useless.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Or it will be hacked like every other private or government database. Then more dollars spent on internet security and the creation of more red tape. My final words to one of my reps who replaced a Democrat was "PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT BECOME WHAT YOU REPLACED!!!" It's like they are required to turn over their brain before walking into the capital building.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Sadly given what I've seen of some of the state databases. A database such as being suggested will be grossly neglected and almost useless.


This is the most accurate statement that will happen.

Look at Apps that are meant to be "land owner" or "land ownership" maps...ie: OnXhunt. They make money off of this app. It is a great app. But it is also behind on owners names by a year or more in some cases. So you think the government will be better? Also onxhunt pulls data from the government on ownership. So again.... the government is behind on this aspect already. :eyeroll:

So the whole "APP" or "Database" is one of the dumbest things out there if you ask me. These elected officials should ask people in smaller towns or those city government about what they think of this? Those smaller towns might be for or against it. Because if they start to see a drop in NR owning homes or lets say not paying "taxes" on those homes. Will that hurt or help with the city budgets and what not. I am not sure if it will or wont. But that would be a great indicator on how the "out state" people would think of this bill. Not just the Fargo or Bismark people.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

From what it looks like to me......this APP thing is a smoke screen until 2020 when the whole state will be no trespass. And nothing can be done about it at that point. Since the legislature doesn't meet next year. Once NO TRESPASS is in place.....it won't ever go away.

Interesting that there is no fiscal note. Earlier I saw something like $250,000 from the GNF. Total waste of license money.


----------



## 27ducks (Mar 13, 2013)

If this passes into law will we have to have written permission or will oral permission be good enough for green pants? If you have to have written permission I see a lot less land access because most farmers dont want to be bothered by hunters already much less stop and take time to write out letters.(which i dont blame them)


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

27ducks said:


> If this passes into law will we have to have written permission or will oral permission be good enough for green pants? If you have to have written permission I see a lot less land access because most farmers dont want to be bothered by hunters already much less stop and take time to write out letters.(which i dont blame them)


Unless the landowner called and left his number even Mr. Green Pants won't be able to get ahold of him.....LOL


----------



## 27ducks (Mar 13, 2013)

thats my point! :rollin: just makes land less accessible to everyone


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Saw this on another site. Hope it is true.....

"VOTE DELAYED! - Reports from the House of Representatives indicate that the sponsors and lobbyists pushing SB 2315 have done a vote count and THEY DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. They are dragging this out to the very end to continue to work over those who represent us in attempt to garner more support on the house floor -- DO NOT GIVE AN INCH! "

If you want to see when the vote will be......go here. Not up for a vote today.

https://www.legis.nd.gov/lcn/assembly/l ... ber=Senate


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bill on the floor right now.....

http://video.legis.nd.gov/en/PowerBrows ... 1/-1/13146


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bill was divide into Section A and Section B.....A passed, B did not pass. Not sure exactly what this means because it will now go to conference committee since the House bill is different than the Senate bill. I think this is what happened. but not completely sure....

Section A gives the land owner the right to remove people from their unposted land if they want to. Doesn't hurt hunting or access. That passed.

Section B had all the bad **** in it and new laws making everything posted. That failed.

If this winds up right.....we can live with it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

From the ND Wildlife Federation.....

SB 2315 - WHAT HAPPENS NEXT...

A lot of the "bad stuff" in SB 2315 was struck when the bill was divided into Division A and Division B today. With Division B failing and A passing, it became obvious that sportsmen were heard in this process and despite all the dividing and categorizing of outdoorsmen, it was clear our voices echoed in Bismarck. What remains gives sportsmen a place to finally bargain from, a show of what's important to this state, our legislators, our heritage and our future. Thanks to all who wrote, called and talked to their legislators.

The bill as it passed will now be returned to the Senate for acceptance. The Senate will vote to either accept the bill as-is, or turn it over to another committee. That committee will then consider any amendments one more time. The latter is what is likely to happen, as our game of whack-a-mole continues. Now we must be vigilant as to what goes in, as this committee meeting, while open to the public, is announced the "day of" and will not take public comment, unless a spectator is called on (sometimes an agency rep or an expert) for discussion.

From my discussions with folks and what I understand, what will go to the committee is this:
AMENDMENTS 1-4-7-8-11 of THIS DOCUMENT --> https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66...0896-03000.pdf

Concerns I have are that fishing and any other non-hunting outdoors recreation is now prohibited on unposted land. That is going to be addressed by the sportsmen's reps I have talked to and they will try to get it so that that possessing a valid fishing license and equipment will be treated much like hunting license and equipment under this bill. Photography, hiking, fat-tire biking, snowshoeing, shed hunting, walking your dog, etc. on unposted land - we don't know, but as for now under Division A they're out.

Three weeks are left in the session and it will be crucial to stick with this process to the end to ensure access continues and we have a good place to work from for BETTER lawmaking next session that will benefit landowners AND hunters. I think we can get there, but the price of freedom, as they say, is vigilance. Thank you for yours.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Division A is essentially a feel good bill. Property owners/ tenants can already kick someone off their own un-posted land.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

Somewhat off topic.....as to other than hunting trespass. Iike trespass to fish, hike, mountainbike, dog training.
Neighbor and I discussed a summer trip to Fargo. Imagine a couple returning home from work, and finding us swimming in their pool, and the barbecue fired up.
"Wasn't posted!" We tell them.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I sure hope this goes away for you guys.

Growing up in South Dakota and spending most of my life here it has been "everything is considered posted" my entire life. It does lower numbers as some guys just won't go ask but increases pressure on limited public areas.

Pay hunting and guides have made this even worse here as they come harass locals hunting public when they are hunting private leased land near there, especially waterfowl hunting.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

From the ND GNF. This is a win if it stays this way.....The vote was......No 56 Yes 36

From NDGF bill tracking page. https://gf.nd.gov/legislation?field_..._value=&page=1

House divided the bill on the floor. The portion of the bill that remains states an individual may not remain on private property that is open to the public after being requested to leave the property; an individual may hunt on private property without obtaining permission unless the land is legally posted or the individual is asked to leave by the landowner; a trapper must receive written permission from the landowner to enter private land; a person may not act as a hunting guide or outfitter on private lands without first obtaining permission from the landowner. The portion of the bill that was removed included the 13 member land access committee which would have provided recommendations, including on electronic posting of land, to legislative management by Aug. 1, 2020. Passed house.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

More info from the NDsportsmens Etree

SB2315 was voted on by the House last week. The bill was split into two
parts by Rep. Ben Koppelman of West Fargo. Basically, Part A contained
language related to criminal trespass. This portion of the bill passed.
Part B contained mostly language related to hunting. This portion of the
bill failed. These members of the House voted against Part B and showed
their support for ND sportsmen. Please take a moment to send them a THANK
YOU.

Since the Senate and House passed different versions of the bill, it now
moves to a conference committee, where three members of each chamber will
attempt to reach a compromise on the different versions. The compromised
bill will then be voted on again.

Rep. Dennis Johnson appointed Cynthia Schreiber-Beck, Bill Tveit, and
Patrick Heinert to the Conference Committee. Sen. Wardner appointed Robert
Erbele (lead sponsor of 2315), Larry Luick, and ______. (sorry, I'm
looking for that name). It should be noted Schreiber-Beck and Tviet both
possess an ANTI-HUNTING attitude. Mr. Luick has voted against a trespass
law in the past, but he voted for 2315 on the Senate floor. Sen Erbele has
been no friend to sportsmen, but I am trying to keep an open mind about his
true intentions with this bill.

Going forward: Lloyd Jones (former Dir of NDGF and Delta Waterfowl) and
Keith Trego (former Dep Dir. of NDGF and current Dir of Natural Resources
Trust) will handle most of the negotiations with the committee. They are
both well-versed in the process and are respected by legislators. I have
personally spoken with Sen. Erbele and exchanged numerous emails with him
on this issue. It should be noted that there is NOT a public hearing
process for the Conf. Committee. We can only express our views via phone
or email.

Sportsmen discussions are occurring with the CC, who will be forthcoming
shortly with some version of SB2315. The intention and hope is that there
will be middle ground to include:

-all land will be considered posted, except for hunting. Hunting will
remain as is within current legislation and will remain so until changed by
future legislation.

-an Interim Committee will study and consider the potential of an
electronic posting database concept. Any implementation will only occur
with future legislation.

-guides and outfitters will be required to obtain written permission on all
lands.

-no Game and Fish funds will be used for any change to current land access
legislation.

HOWEVER, there are members of the Conference Committee, notably in the
House, that are very anti sportsmen. This means that the Committee could
come out with a very devastating bill that could be disastrous to
sportsmen. Stay tuned, things will be happening quickly and sportsmen
involvement may be needed on very short notice.

Thank you all for taking the time to get involved. We have a long ways to
go with this bill.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

As anticipated, the Pro-SB 2315 committee reinstated most of the things which the House GUTTED - after pressure from the people - when it split the bill.

You can find the final, amended version of SB 2315 at this link

The final version of SB 2315:

- Makes everything posted for fishing, scouting, shed-hunting, hiking, biking and all other non-hunting outdoor access (an attempt to fragment outdoorspeople based on pursuit so we cannot be a unified front in the future);

- After proponents were caught "sneaking" it into an appropriations bill, still keeps up the absurd hunting database study committee which will post all lands via the internet (still won't solve poaching, trespassing and criminal behavior, and still has significant proponent involvement and anti-hunting special interest representation);

- Implements the database impact language in 2019, even though the database and its changes to law HAS NOT PASSED or even been defined (what do you think that means about their end goals here and in 2021, as if it's a foregone conclusion - cart before the horse);

- Issues a complete re-write of Chapter 12.1 laws on criminal trespass, overturning decades of known, established and case-defined law (creates confusion and legal issues)

- Ultimately DOES NOTHING to help landowners or sportsmen: it doesn't prevent trespass, provides the same penalties, doesn't open communications, still requires posting, doesn't defray costs, and creates two years of uncertainty so that we can all wade back through this slippery-slope morass again; providing further and final proof that trespass was NEVER what this bill was about!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Senate just passed final bill. 29-17

Hopefully the House will defeat it. Will find out what it all means later.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Failed in the House today.....NO 48 Yes....44

Awesome. :beer: :beer:


----------

