# Land Access Law Going to Court



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Hunter access dispute raised
By Jeff Zent 
[email protected]
The Forum - 05/28/2003 
The North Dakota Farm Bureau is challenging a state law that gives hunters access to private property without permission.

State law holds that if private landowners don't post signs prohibiting access, hunters can legally assume they have permission to enter, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.

The Farm Bureau hopes to change that by financing a civil lawsuit filed Tuesday in state district court in Fort Yates, N.D.

"The Game and Fish Department has said publicly that all land is open to trespass unless posted. We believe the constitution of North Dakota would say otherwise," said Herb Manig, executive vice president of the state Farm Bureau.

The suit names Gov. John Hoeven and Game and Fish Director Dean Hildebrand as defendants.

The debate could rest with the North Dakota Supreme Court, Hoeven said.

"Really it's an issue for the attorney general to defend the existing state law," he said.

Hildebrand referred questions about the lawsuit to Stenehjem.

State Rep. Rodney Froelich, R-Selfridge, N.D., and his wife, Kathryn, filed the suit. The Froelichs own about 7,500 acres in Sioux County, the lawsuit says.

The Froelichs could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The Farm Bureau is paying the costs of the lawsuit through its newly formed Northern Plains Public Interest Firm.

The Farm Bureau created the legal defense foundation to help protect landowners' rights, Manig said.

State officials have erroneously interpreted the law and the Game and Fish Department wrongfully advises hunters, the suit says.

"A failure to post a notice warning the public against trespass is not an expression of consent to the intrusion &#8230;," the suit says.

The state's interpretation creates an "unconstitutional taking" of landowners' property, said Doug Goulding, a Devils Lake attorney hired by the legal defense foundation to represent the Froelichs.

Land access laws in South Dakota and Minnesota are much different.

In both of the neighboring states, hunters must get landowners' permission regardless if the property is posted, officials in both states said.

The Farm Bureau is taking the property rights debate to court because the Legislature failed to address the issue, said John Mittleider, the Farm Bureau's vice president of public policy.

"People have been urging us to do something," Manig said. "There's pressure to resolve this thing so we're taking steps to do it."

The debate is not just about hunters' access to private lands. Uncontrolled access could also undermine efforts to safeguard against bioterrorism, Manig said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is urging farmers to secure their property, but the state is making it difficult, he said.

Jim Weight of Jamestown has hunted in North Dakota for 48 years. And as long as he can remember, private land that isn't posted has been fair game for hunters.

The law shouldn't be changed now, said Weight, chairman of the United Sportsmen of North Dakota.

"Maybe all of us have just taken it for granted over the years that you're hunting on private land that just isn't posted," he said. "But I also believe that if the landowners don't want you on there, they'll tell you in one fashion or another."

Readers can reach Forum reporter Jeff Zent at (701) 241-5526


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Won't be long & ND will be just like all the rest. (States)

I should be happy I lived & got to participate in one of the most unique states for hunting. (& I am) But I can see a end - It maybe started around 10 years ago.

It will be interesting how hard Hoven & Hilldebrand & Stenehjem defend the current Laws :roll: :eyeroll:

The wolves are circling the weak & wounded - might be a better anology - what a sad legacy this administration is leaving. Give up & roll over in just a few short years. :******:

& call it compromise  :******:

& to say it's because of Bio Terroism :roll: :lol:  :lol:  I can't make up my mind on that Gem :roll:


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

WOW, if this lawsuit is successful, I believe there won't be any further debate on increasing non-resident hunter numbers in the State.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Farm Bureau knew they couldn't strong arm it through the legislature because it failed every previous time, so now they'll try the courts. "Unconstitual taking" is right out of Posse handbook. Werid. And the folks who filed the case can't be reached for comment? Set up deal.

The saddest part is the legislature could settled the hunting issues decisively, so there would be no doubt in anyone's mind. And they dropped the ball. It is going to be up to the people now. We have to take it in our hands.


----------



## MACBARN (Aug 1, 2002)

DICK, THOUGHT YOU COULD SPEND THE SUMMER FARMING.WELL YOU ARE WIGHT ON THE MARK. THIS COULD BE THE BIGGIST LAW SUIT IN ND HISTORY. THE FB IS GOING TO STICK IT TO US. THE SPORTSMANS ALLIANCE MAY HAVE TO GO IN TO ACTION AGAIN.THIS WILL TEST ND SPORTSMEN LIKE NOTHING ELSE. SANDY BARNES.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Selfridge is on the reservation isn't it ???

Does this have anything to do with their sovereignty ???

I think I'll have to jump on the Natives bandwagon & campaign for them to get back as much land & water rights, as possible - I think they would be more reasonable to deal with (access) than our State Government :roll: & Some of the greedy Farm Orgs. :******:


----------



## Doug Panchot (Mar 1, 2002)

Does anyone else hear ask permission first on land that isn't posted? I'm not defending FB here, but I always ask permission before I go one someone elses property. I have always done it and will continue to do that. This wouldn't change the way I do things, but it would for quite a few people. I don't like the way FB is going about this.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

I ask first--if I can figure out who owns it and then track them down. Sometimes when I do, I get the attitude "why are you bothering me? I didn't post it. YES, you can hunt it."


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

When we are scouting for geese we also attempt to speak with the farmer before setting up the next morning. Never know when the farmer is planning to plow or add anhydrous to "your goose field". More than once we have avoided this type of confrontation. Plus we have met some really good people along the way.

This rule will really impact freelance hunting. Especially for goose jumpers, and those upland game & puddle duck hunting.

Love it or hate it - ND road hunting will end.

Our afternoon scouting trips often are intermixed with some good hunting. Spotting upland game in a field or a bunch of mallards in a pothole will be more difficult to pursue immediately.

A late evening mallard hunt may be nearly impossible. 
scout, find birds, and hunt will turn into: 
scout, find birds, determine landowner, contact landowner, get permission, sunset ..

Once you do not have to post the land, the hunter will need to become very familiar with the landowners - who farms what and where *or hunters will need to buy plat books for the counties that you hunt.*

FB sell county plat map books??? :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Fetch...all of Souix county is on the Standing Rock Reservation.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Froehlich is also a big supporter of changing the UND nickname. I understood that because he lives on the res and has to represent his constituency. I have no idea what his motive is with this lawsuit but I hope he loses miserably.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

How many of you have your insurance through the Farm Bureau? Cancel it. Part of your premium goes to fighting and lobbying for things that are bad for the hunter!!!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I think a few people are overreacting here. I always ask permission, regardless of whether the land is posted or not. Save the arguments of not being able to find the landowner or the landowner getting angry with numerous people knocking on their door. All you have to do is do some homework to find the landowner. However, this means getting out scouting in April or May, and NOT September.

If I don't have my 2-acre lot posted in the suburbs, should a person be able to walk across my yard without asking? I don't think so since it is private property. I don't see how agricultural land is any different.

I actually think that changing the current trespass law should benefit North Dakota hunters, not hurt them. We residents live here twelve months a year. That means that we can get out, knock on doors, and start building relationships that non-residents simply can't. Therefore, instead of looking for the sky to fall, let's start building relationships with landowners!

BigDaddy


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bigdaddy...I disagree.And not because I don't ask or am to lazy to ask.
Some landowners actually have actually gotten mad at me because I asked.They said they don't want to be bothered by the phone ringing off the wall or constant pounding on their door.
So we should penalize them by making them put up signs saying it is OK so the guy down the road doesn't have to post to keep people out?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Yeah Yeah Yeah - I ask more often than not - But this is the biggest thing that makes ND Unique - & like others - I too have had many say thats why I don't post - I don't want all the phone calls & interuptions.

This is usually endorsed by NR's that cannot grasp the concept. But this has been Normal Here Forever- It is one step closer to commercial hunting becoming the norm. - It is hard now to find landowners - without bothering alot of rural people. & if this happens it will be impossible to find many & many who don't own the land, or have permission to not allow hunting will becme the norm. There is enough of that now (people saying no, or posting land that is not theirs.

I predict this will fail as much as past attempts & if you wants us to finally learn how to do the referal thing, this will be the one (Then watch the flood gates open for referal law changes.) The FB will find out just how much of a minority they are. :******:

It's sad to see the bad vibes & relations developing between rural & cities - & it does not have to be this way - we need each other to keep ND Special. But as fewer people get control of more & more land this is what you get.

I tell ya this Govenor & Director & Legislature is the weakest ever in ND History as far as G&F goes. :eyeroll:


----------



## Hatchie Dawg (Mar 22, 2003)

I live in a state with a very strict and aggressively enforced trespassing law. My experience with landowners here is that they get tired of dealing with who hunts and who doesn't. It becomes easier to just say no to everybody or to lease it and forget about it. Some land owners worry about liability etc. etc. Access to land around here is extremely hard to come by. There are alot of negatives that make it harder and harder to get on land when it is all posted by the state.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This would become a nightmare.There are many landowner snowbirds who fly south.They would be immpossible to locate.A no tresspass law will make it much easier for the commercial hunting business.They don't have to post anything,yet they know exactly where they lease land.If this happens the first thing I would do is get a current copy of the county atlas where I hunt.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Big Daddy,

Good point. If the law remains as is I should not worry about going in someone's back yard if the land is not posted and have a BBQ? What is the difference from that and open land? Why should we have to post for no hunting when the ones who don't care who hunts do not have to post anything. This would just reverse who has to post.

Econ.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Econ I will bet that your bar will be for sale within 18 months or 2 hunting seasons if this goes bad for the hunter. I really think you need to take the next class in econ.

To respond to Ken W comments on hunters talking to farmers. When I lived on the farm and would stop and talk to the neighbors about hunting they would complain about being bothered by hunters during buxy times. They understood that waterfowl would move and if there today gone the next. They also stated that if I did not want someone to hunt I would post it.

THe other reason that many back home that are landowners do not want this is the deer population. Many have predidation problems and encourage hunters to use the ground. This will just add to the current problem of a exploding deer population.

FB needs to be taken to task, we as hunters need to contact our farmer freinds and ask them to pressure FB to drop this issue. My instinct tells me that when the truth behind this push comes out FB will be damaged permanetly. Those of us that support hunter freindly senators and legislators need to contact them and remind them that taking money for campaign contributons from this organization may not reflect well when it comes time to vote next time.

This is pure and simple greed and politcs. We need to get as agressive and as dirty as they are and put the feet to the fire. I hope that this post and others like it end up on Ron Iversons desk as this can be laid right at his feet and I for one will be willing to strike the first match to bring the heet to bear.


----------



## Travis Schmidt (Mar 26, 2003)

I grew up on a ranch and am a sportsman so I can see this issue form both sides. I'm still not sure what side of the fence I'm on in regards to this issue, but I will add my two bits. First, there is more landowners in favor of the FB on this issue than you realize. Second, I believe all the ethical hunters ask permission before hunting someone else's land anyway and this won't effect them as much as they may think. The problem now is people every year are sneaking on land and ripping down posters. A no trespass law will help deter this behavior because this illegal activity will be easier to prove. This is one of the major reasons some landowners will side with the FB in this case. I do know Rod and his sons and I don't believe they are into any type of commercial hunting and I don't see them getting into it. I think he is just sick of playing "Sheriff" on his land. He has family and friends that hunt and most people, including my dad, just like to know who is on their land. This is a touchy issue. I see it more as a problem for waterfowlers, Rod lives in upland country. I guess if some landowners feel it is so important that they aren't bugged during hunting season, maybe they will post their land "open" to hunting. Just an idea. Don't forget, the land is private property, its common courtesy to ask and get to know the landowner-help him out and he'll provide you with a place to hunt. At least thats how it is where I'm from.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Many here have raised concerns that changing our trespass law will open the gates to commercial hunting. I seriously can't see how this will be my case. When I have talked with non-resident hunters, they have told me that North Dakot is an attractive place to hunt because they can hunt anywhere that doesn't have a "No Hunting" sign. Since we are local, I still think that changing the trespass law will put us at a huge advantage (if we are willing to work at building relationships with landowners).

True, landowners get tired of folks asking permission, but that's normally because people are asking in the fall when the landowners are busy with harvest. That's simply not going to cut it anymore. I stopped last July to talk to a landowner near McClusky who had some good duck sloughs on his property. He wouldn't grant me access because he had already promised access to a group of West Virginia hunters who had knocked on his door in April. He didn't care that the hunters were residents or non-residents, and they didn't pay him, he just granted access to the first trustworthy person who asked. However, the West Virginia hunters were used to living in a place where a person got out early and kissed butt to gain access.

In my opinion, it all comes down to who has the burden to regulate access. A landowner should not have to expend energy to post his property to keep people off. If a person doesn't care who hunts their property and they are tired of people knocking on their door, why can't they simply hang a sign that reads, "Don't bother asking, just go ahead and hunt"?

Thoughts?

BigDaddy


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I strongly believe this would be the one of the stupidest things that ND could ever do.
This would take far more land access away from ND residents and our nonresident neighbors than 10,000 guides would let alone the 450 we have now.(which by the way, those 450 don't really take much land away from residents in the first place if you were to do a little homework.)

cootkiller


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I guess I have never asked to hunt unposted prairie potholes - range land.

At the same time every farmer that I have contacted regarding a next morning goose hunt has been very positive that we included him in our plans. A couple of times they have stated they did in fact plan to work the field, but would hold off until noon.

Have not personally seen a negative response to asking to hunt unposted land (grain fields).

Many if not most ND farmers that are not part of the commercial hunting group understand the ND way of posting / not posting their land each fall. To change this now will confuse many ... I would bet it would take years for many to fully realize that their land is now automatically closed to hunting.

Also ... ND is full of landowners that do not live near the land they farm or may even live in places such as AZ by mid October. These people are nearly impossible to reach. If they do not post their land - it is now accessible. The new law would close the door on many good opps.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Can the legal scholars in the group tell me about the basis of the lawsuit? Is it some type of constitutional challenge? A suffrage of individual rights? What part of the ND constitution are they looking at? I see the constitution supporting hunting: "ARTICLE XI- GENERAL PROVISIONS - Section 27. Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good." This would be a basis to go after P/W (G/O if you prefer....).

Also, can anybody tell me more about the historical foundations of this way of doing things? I know it has its origins in scandinavian law, with the idea that you can hike over other people's land without causing problems. Anyone know anything more?

Thanks M.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Travis, I agree, this will play differently for waterfowl than upland. In the prime SW area, this suit, if successful (more below), will have little effect for resident sportspersons - most everything is posted now anyhow. For upland, by and large good ground is going to hold birds Oct 10, Nov 10, Dec 10 ...... You either have the relationships and you've done your homework before your upland trip or you're doing a lot of homework rather than hunting on your trip.

It's different for waterfowl, and I'll echo the comments of others. Sometimes by the time you find the birds there isn't much time to react and they aren't necessarily going to be there the next day, say nothing about next month. Planning ahead and finding landowners for waterfowl hunting under short timeframes can be darn hard. Ever so much the more with distant and absentee landowners and landowners working in non-farming jobs, many of which don't give a rat's patute about someone hunting on their land. I've also experienced frustrated landowners when making a contact or request for access on unposted land. Not usually, but not uncommon either. I don't pretend to know what the ratio may be, but not every landowner is going to be thrilled with this suit or the need to seek access, especially during the busy harvest/fall's work periods.

Has GNDA, DLCC, DVCB or other close allies of FB this past session commented on this suit? Just because you opposed HPC or shared sentiments to some of the other FB agenda doesn't mean you will favor this suit. Most that opposed HPC wish for no restrictions - days, numbers or otherwise. The theory is that somehow we have a limitless resource and by making it easy for folks to come, we can keep growing and growing and growing this economic impact without other consequences. Nothing about switching the trespass law will make it easy for folks, especially nonresident waterfowlers, to hunt, and I would think that many of FB's allies during the session are also cringing over this suit. Can't see anything in this suit for main street. The g/o's yes, main street no.

And, let's not count unhatched chickens. If you'll recall, FB's record this past session wasn't exactly stellar. Yes, they joined forces and tubed 2048, but they also spent a bunch of time and money promoting failed efforts like the G&F comm'n, gratis tag transfer and corporate farming. I'll give them some credit - the timing of this suit is no mystery and is good. This has been run up the flag pole and failed miserably multiple times in the leg - no sense beating that dead horse. They were holding this thing until just after the session was complete, taking their chance with a new route (courts) knowing full well that depending on the result, nothing could be done legislatively to make adjustments for a couple of years. They were also very careful to pick their venue - out west - where the landowner rights sentiments run deeper. That said, they're asking for a dramatic change in current law and practice, and courts generally resist such radical changes. This ain't my schtick, so I can't really evaluate the merits, but I think they've got their work cut out for them.

As far as a wake up call, this suit is no different than every other piece of writing that's been on the wall for the past 3-4 years. For those sportspersons who haven't gotten involved because "it just hasn't affected me that much", I'll just respond again "yet." A trespass law change will be as big or bigger issue for deer hunters and predator hunters. These hunting issues will continue to boil and grind until the parties find a way to work together or one side prevails. If it turns into a knock-down, drag-out bar brawl and commercialization prevails, there will be precious few ND sportspersons who won't be comprehensively affected by the ultimate effects. I don't care if it takes this suit to wake some folks up, I just hope they finally do.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Ron Gilmore,

I would put my economics abilities up against yours anytime you want. :beer: This lawsuit may or may not be good for anyone. My point was it will only reverse who has to post his or her land. Now I must post if I do not want anyone to *tresspass* on my land? Why should I when it is mine and I paid for it? Should the government be allowed to tell me who can use my land??? I think not. I should have the respect of all hunters to have them ask and if I do not want them to bother me, then I should post it as open to anyone to hunt. That way, big brother is not dictating my who uses my land.

It seems no one understands why most are against caps. We do not want any freelancers denied access to our great state. We fully realize the G\O's have their own areas and do not benefit us alot. (although if you build a relationship with some you can benefit economically!!! ) Caps are not the answer to your "quality hunting experience" needs. All motels, bars and retail establishments rely mostly on freelancers and do not want restrictions on any of them, local, state residents or non-residents. All are welcome and mother nature will dictate how many visit which area each and every year.

P.S. 
Ron, what will you do the first time someone sets up a grill in your back yard because it is not posted???? let me know and I may join you for a round of econ 101


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Econ, I won't speak for others, but I think I know and understand why some oppose caps. They feel that we can indefinitely take in more and more hunters, under any wetland/habitat conditions, and that there will always be good hunting for all and there will be no overcrowding, that few if any will become frustrated and quit hunting or leave the state, that the pressure/competition won't lead to a stronger and larger trend towards buying/leasing and g/o's (ultimately reducing rural "traffic") and that no amount of hunters will cause birds to prematurely leave the state reducing hunting opportunities and hunting dollars for all. I just think those folks are fooling themselves and unwilling to look ahead and recognize the net result of the whole process. With every other state that has fully trended to commercialization, has mother nature ever reversed those effects? Reasonable caps are just one and a very important way of halting (not ending or reversing) commercialization.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Econ,
Lets speak economics.
Utility theory: A theory of demand that assumes that consumers choose things on the basis of their evaluation of the satisfaction to be derived from various combinations of goods, and of their effort to maximize that satisfaction.

I get more ecomomic benefit (satisfaction) from a hunt with my family and friends where I scouted the birds and asked permission more than I value "building a relationship with a G/O and benefitting economically"

You use the term economics to mean only money, but in its pure form(which you often advocate) economics has little to do with money. It involves personal satisfaction.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Econ the issue of access for many things is taken into account daily. Your attempt with the grill is apples and pears. Access or trespass laws that we currently have are based on the premise that you hold title to use of the land but that all land is under the ownership of the Goverment. You care goverend by laws as to use of this land. Case in point you cannot raise illegal plants for your benifit because you own the land. You cannot dump hazardous waste on it. There are many other examples that I can show.

To address the issue of impact on this state in terms of revenue to small business and reatil centers will shock you. The relationship with your guides willnot offset the walkin traffic loss no matter what. The glee in your post lend me to believe that you are jumping up and down saying they got it stuck to them Ha HA Ha HA . The thing you do not realize is that I cre about your business as well as the ones in Rugby or Manvel or Cogswell or any other small town, but your insistance on wearing blinders and taking a me only approach will doom this state if that attitude prevails.

Travis- Rod is not tired of playing sherriff he is playing the polictial game at its best. He is a good operator but has no qualms about doing things that benifit himself only when the moral thing to do is something else.

Case in point was the hunters help for hay last summer and fall this is the same guy that was crying we need help. Then when they get help what does he do, pulls this crap. I could go on and list many other things about Rod but will stop with that. Look a little deeper instead of defending him and his actions. PM me if you want more as I will be glad to lay it out for you.


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Ron,

Your examples of land use are excellent. And all of them require a search warrant for any police agency to go on the land and inspect for such wrong uses. Therefore they cannot tresspass on my constitutional rights. Why can hunters ect??? I think this court case will hurt business to some degree, but is it wrong for a land owner to expect you to ask him or her to hunt on their land if an "open for hunting" sign is not present? I certainally would not think so.

I would not agree on the fact you said the government owns all land. I would concede they control alot of its uses through zoning laws ect. I would have to have you elaborate on the government ownership issue.

I do not understand your glee statement. It seems juvenile in this debate.

I do not wear blinders on this or any other issue that pertains to my business. This issue is not black and white by any means. Some will win and some will lose, but in the end life will go on.  We live in a small state and any time we try to remain small or get smaller we hurt everyone in the state.

gg,

The Utility theory is correct. I gain satisfaction from deriving business from both freelancers and guides. It is the American way and I love it!!!!
And you are correct, economics has its personal satisfaction in many ways, one of which is to see a customer have a great time on his or her hunt. Another is for me to make a small profit on each experience and provide jobs for our community so others may enjoy their pursuits in life. Unfortunately, without money moving around, nothing would get better.

Econ.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

So Econ your a Free Enterprise - Supply & Demand type all the way Huh ???


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Econ:



> I would put my economics abilities up against yours anytime you want.


For a self-professed expert, care to elaborate on your economic credentials??? Why don't you enlighten us, please list your relevant education degrees, publications, and economic affiliations.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

econ, if you do not think the Gov. owns all land I think you should talk to Jim Carlson. At one time he owned most of Grahms Island in Devils Lake. the gov. came in and kicked him out. took his house for a game warden to live in and turned his back yard into a marina and camp ground. They gave him "fair market price" which was a freeking joke. So if the Gov. wants your land they will take it for whatever reason they want and there is not a damn thing you or anyone else will be able to do. As far as the no trespass law is concerned that will be another knife in the back of freelance hunters. I know many farmers who are a bit "odd" and do not like to be bothered by folks asking to hunt so they do not post their land. In fact, the vast majority of farmers I have talked to who do not post their land do it because they do not want to be bothered. instead of posted signs you will be reading "dont bother asking." One more thing, if my back yard was 300 acres you could camp out. So do not campare a farmers back yard with mine. Apples and oranges


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Out of state Bioman,

I did not say I was an expert anywhere I can remember. I simply stated I would put my economics against Ron's anytime. You are the only one who feels he is an expert on everything.

jimboy,

nice try on the apples and oranges. property rights are property rights as now written. so in ND we have no tresspass laws unless posted, period. so I can use anything if not posted as it currently is. I know nothing of Mr. Carlson's plight and I would want to see and hear both sides before commenting.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Econ,

So what your telling me is that as a person who lives in a large city in ND the next time I hear someone from small town ND say "Times are really tough and I have to drive 50 miles to get groceries or I can't get a prescription filled. Our school systems don't have enough people to support them." I should tell them "That's the american way and I love it" 
"Some will be hurt but life goes on"

According to your economic theory I should buy all of my food and alcohol in Fargo and not in the small towns that I hunt in because it wouldn't be the american way.

We are in serious trouble if everyone follows your version of the American Way


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

gg,

Wow! Where did that come from???? Are you reading something other than what I posted. I actually agreed with you and pointed out another form of satisfaction than yours. Put your glasses back on and re-read.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Econ, What both sides. they came, they saw and they took. You speak like a true bureaucrat. they took it so they could set up a marina and campground. I am sure coot must know something about this. Besides we all know where your coming from. The Bank!!! :withstupid:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Since Graham's Island is a ND State Park, they did not give the house to a game warden to live in. Game Wardens don't live in state parks, Park Ranger's do. Big difference, ND does not have a DNR. State Parks are entirely separate agency then game and fish. ND Game and Fish Department Game Wardens supply their own houses to live in. Just a clarification, I don't know what happened with this landowner and this parcel, but don't blame Game and Fish, it is a piece of Park property.


----------



## ND Gander (Jul 9, 2002)

I would sure like to know what planet some of you live in, In fact I would like to come there and visit sometime :lol: . In this world we have a struggling state with a rural lifestyle that is vanishing like Dan B. hair 8) . We have landowners that watched the legislative session and felt left out of most of the hunting discussion, even if their generosity will make or brake the future of hunting in ND. Many of my fellow landowner friends that watch and read this site use the selfish definition to explain some of this sites FREElance hunters as folks that expect to hunt for FREE, think asking is a chore, expect access anywhere, anytime. In this world we have only 2 states in the US that are open hunting states (ND and Maine). What amazes me is how often folks like Fletch describe the waterfowl nirvana (aka: Canadian provinces) as FREElance heaven&#8230;. Isn't Canada automatically posted? If Canada is so great whats the big deal. This has nothing to do with motels, gas stations, guides, c-stores, etc. This was an action taken by a very large farm and ranch organization that felt it was an issue that needed to be dealt with. Many of you might be right, this could hurt the hospitality industry, but tell me how this helps G/O? Many of the guides (waterfowl) I know are FREElance hunters. Fletch, Tell me who is more selfish. Landowners who shouldn't have to post their land, who OWN that land, and are generally very accommodating to FREElance hunters, or sportsmen that: A. wanted to limit the number of competing nonresident hunters so they can more enjoy their outdoor experience, B. sportsmen that want to basically kill the G/O industry because some compete for hunting locations, C. sportsmen that are more concerned about THEIR hunting land access and competition than habitat protection, D. sportsmen that think CRP should be open to hunting because the landowner entered a contract to limit the erosion of precious land (the same land that produces bulk wildlife, E. sportsmen that enjoy the economic opportunities of urban living but want to recreate in rural ND for FREE, and work to limit the ability of rural residents to earn additional economic opportunities from visitors. Think about this and some of you might understand the backlash from landowners. I think some of you are really uncomfortable with this issue because the regular "bash the guides and hospitality greed lovers argument" doesn't work. There is no money side to this (god forbid any one succeed in ND). The root of this case is landowner rights. So if you want to continue this thread get to the root of the real issue and lets hear some of you show your true colors and bash landowners for sticking up for their rights. I would bet if this law only applied to nonresidents most of the regulars on this site would be celebrating this as a great and vitally necessary piece of Law that has been sorely missing from the great state of North Dakota. :evil:


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

so does this mean every time a deer s!!!s on a pile of hay the land owner is on his own? no more gratis tags,elk tags for the farmers just because they have elk on their land.no more trapping of yotes and fox on "private land" from state paid programs. fair is fair


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Here's my myopic theory of what this would do to the NR freelancers:

1. Some will continue to come and freelance by gaining permission to hunt.

2. Some will purchase or lease land.

3. Some will decide to pay a guide to ensure that they have guaranteed access without having to go to the trouble of gaining permission from the landowner.

4. Some will say screw it and either stay home or go someplace else.

Might be good for the landowners as the guides seek to lease more land but I don't see how it would increase business in the small towns.

Also, isn't the law in MN that if it is non-posted, non-ag land it is free access?

And, remember the old saying about economists--if you lined up all the economists in the world end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

It's Fetch ND Blander :roll:

I would trade the No Trespass Law for their No Leasing of land by anyone - (& reEnforce The Public trust doctrine of wildlife) Guides & outfitters would have to compete Fairly with everyone - RIGHT!!! - But I think the New guy in charge of watching over the Guides & Outfitters will do a Good Job & be fair & you won't be able to BS him (at least not for long)

I never thought I'd say that - But Yes Canada is so much better & easier to hunt that if this would make ND the same - YES!!! lets Lets draw up the papers - Hows that for Compromise ???

But without that Law NO WAY I will fight the No Trespass & even could turn Radically Rebellous (Like the good folks who started this country) Things like the Boston Tea Party come to mind) Funny how they were once admired as heros - Now days most would call them Terrorists :roll:

How is Gander by the way ???

While were at it if this happened - How about along with Plots books we have books updated yearly, to show who the legal owner of all land is ??? & their Address & phone #'s or else it will be considered open to public hunting :lol:  :roll: Lets make our unique Laws better not better for a few :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

ND Gander

The issue of FB involement is far deeper than landowner rights. So are those that filed the lawsuit, most hunters I know make efforts to seek prmission from landowners and griwing up on a farm and having great waterfowl sites to hunt on our land I am well aware of the respect most nonguided hunters have for property and the landowner.

Please do not confuse this lawsuits intent as being for the landowners rights. It goes deeper than that. FB is looking to grow it's member base, if they can entice hunters to join to have access to land it makes them more marketable. They have been on the wrong side of many issues as Dan and others pointed out in the recent past and are on this.

You point out that the word free in freelance gives people the impression that we want free hunting. In my case it means that I chose where I hunt by scouting and getting permission to hunt without the aid of a guide. I am not a shooter, I am a hunter bagging birds is my goal but is not required to have a great hunting outing.

We are not such a populated state that tresspass law changes are needed, it will not stop those that currently disregard posting signs nor will it change those that drive off trails deerhunting etc..

What it will do is restrict the amount of deer that will be harvested, it will increase the amount of car and deer accidents and many other issues.

I have been on both sides of this issue and truly understand it but do not misunderstand FB's true intent. They have yet to produce the survey of there members that would provide that its member base truly want this change.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Muzzy, you are correct however I never blamed the game and fish. It was the government. It is a state park now. anyway I just wanted to point out that at any time the government can come and take your land. And use power words like annex and eminent domain.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Gander, hey, debating and disagreeing on these issues is one thing. Using someone's folliclely-challenged scalp as a metaphor is just plain nasty!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I posted a couple of times earlier in this message string, and I still do not understand how having to ask permission for access should in any way benefit guides, outfitters, and non-resident hunters. All it means is that we need to ask permission from landowners. If I am missing something, please enlighten me.

ND Gander raises some excellent points. I'd advise everybody to re-read his post from the perspective of a landowner. Many hunters expect to hunt private land for free and without asking permission. I've always considered hunting private land to be a privilege, not a right. Most landowners simply want some level of compensation for that privilege. Some want cash, but most simply want a handshake and a hearty "thank you." For them, thanks is enough, but for others it's not. That's where economics comes in. It's up to each of us to decide whether the cost (i.e. asking permission, saying "thanks", or even paying cash) is worth the benefit (being granted acess and having a quality hunting experience).

In states with trespass laws, there has always been "commercial" hunting, but most of the commerce has been done with goodwill and building relationships. If we lose connections with landowners, don't be surprised if the commerce turns into cash.

BigDaddy


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

In Minnesota:

+) *Brush and woodlands (wood lots, forest, etc) are open to hunting unless posted closed*. Mostly effects Northern half of the state. 
Good since you have many landowners / land holders that do not live near their wooded property.

Note: that one of the larger paper mill companies in MN (they own a lot of their own land) has decided to lease certain parts of their holdings rather than leave everything open to hunting. Certainly their call, but disappointing none the less.

+) *Ag land (including CRP) is automatically closed to hunting unless you have permission.*


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> If I am missing something, please enlighten me.


Because it is Legal & has always been this way & many like it this way. It makes ND special & gives alot more opportunity to everyone - Including Landowners- that hunt.

Why is it so hard to post your land or just certain parts ??? Why must it be all or nothing ???

& yes I would allow you to tresspass on my yard if it made you feel better :roll: But I don't see that as apples to apples

Why not do it like Canada & have no leasing of Land ??? Remember the game belongs to everyone -

Most in Canada allow hunting - welcome you - want you to help keep the birds out of their crops - they see hunters as helping them - & it is so uncrowded & easy to find the owners - I think CRP has actually hurt - because so many now don't live on the farm or even in the state -

Renters have become to norm & most landowners let the renter decide if they post or not. But try & find them if they do


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Big Daddy-you didn't say what county you're from so maybe your situation is different. In Barnes about 2/3s of the land is farmed absentee, the farmer does not live there. Most of this 2/3s is owned by retired folks, widows, and heirs of estates, as well as out of state buyers, all gone from the land. With a "no tresspass" law these people will be very difficult to find.

This plays right into the hands of the commercial hunting people as the harder "free" hunting is, the more paying clients will be forced into commercial hunting outfits. It is the reverse of market saturation, which is what Farm Bureau and the commercial crowd were screaming for last week. (Changed their minds kind of fast didn't they?) No caps is market saturation, which accomplishes the same thing for the commercial crowd.

If you read Feathers of the Prarie it states that the current tresspass law was put into effect 100 years ago for that exact reason, absentee landowners, and the diffuculty of finding them.

With the pending case, I wonder where Patty Lewis of the hospitality industry stands-Greater ND Asc. too. Hummm. The dead fish are floating to the top now.


----------



## ND Gander (Jul 9, 2002)

My point earlier was to give some of you the perception many farm and ranchers are developing regarding some of the sportsmen in this state. One must remember the first shots fired in the war was from groups like the Sportsmens alliance. Fetch, I would suggest you do your homework. I just got off the phone with Manitoba wildlife and visited with a nice gal named Jodell Robson with the Department of Wildlife and Conservation (204-534-7204). She confirmed to me that leasing land for hunting was perfectly legal in Manitoba. The only requirement was the landowner is to report income to the Province as earned income. It is Illegal for non-Canadians to guide in Canada. So, your waterfowl nirvana (Manitoba) is: automatically posted, has fewer landowners per square mile than ND, allows leasing of land (some areas are very leased), doesent limit nonresidents, nonresident license fees are cheap, considering the exchange, and is increasingly being bought up by Americans. One thing Manitoba does well is providing plat-atlas maps, of sections with landowners names on each parcel of land. This is also available here (North Dakota) by purchasing an atlas map from companies like Midland Atlas Co. (605-432-5534), or locally from Dun Rite Enterprise (701) 776-6755 (Rugby). These maps are priceless and make finding landowners very easy. Most of these atlas maps also list names and phone numbers of the listed landowners. In some cases others are farming the land, but with a little work you can track them down. I wouldn't go hunting with out one. But of course the maps are not FREE, so some may feel this is too much to ask for. Maybe NDGF can take some money from their 20 million $ surplus and provide free maps to sportsmen. :eyeroll:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Gander,

Try Alberta and Sask - the provinces where most americanns go. Manitoba is OK, but limited compared to the other two. Here's some contact info: http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/contact/index.html.

I guess I'll pick up the arguement because I can.

As a landowner of excellent hunting land in Alberta, I could not differ more from your opinion of landowner rights regarding hunting. I don't own the game animals that come and go, and neither do I expect to profit from them temporarily gracing my landscape. The game animals aren't mine, even though I sacrifice tillable acres, and sometimes bushels per acres, for or beacuse of them. I can and do call YOUR position greedy. By what right do you feel that YOU can charge for access to soemthing that doesn't even belong to you?

M.
[/i]


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

It is not in Sask. Or Alberta

I have never been to Manitoba to hunt ??? But I am positive about Sask. & Alberta. I was thinking about going to Manitoba someday - But now that you have told me that - I will avoid it & the hassles it brings :-?

But I am getting very close to Nivania in Sask. 

I'l let you know after this year

Last year was close & I went to one of the busier areas (Quill Lakes) Cause like ND it has been written about so much, it too has become a nightmare to local hunters & they avoid that area. :roll:

I prefer to Hunt Not just Shoot - commercial shooting & using a guide or outfitter that has leased up most of the better places is WRONG :eyeroll: & is not for real Hunters.

But don't worry there are plenty of shooters from all over the USA to capitalize on. Especially the ones with criminal backgrounds & DWI's that are considered Felonies in Canada - so they come here :roll: :eyeroll:

I will always hunt ducks in ND on public or private lands - that I can - more so later after the shooters get thru (& if ND keeps the 1st week for Residents) But for Hunting SOB's ND has lost it's appeal to me.

I'm sure you will always have a Few that get lucky & pay to get the few places left to hunt them. But without Scouting & making contact with the landowner & learning how to do it & become successful at it - Why would folks want to buy it all laid out for them ??? :huh: Especially knowing how it has screwed up so much for so many that live there year round. :eyeroll: Plus constantly be trying to make things harder for real hunters & better for shooters is completely disgusting, to someone who knows the difference. 

Be proud of yourself - Your winning & pushing more & more of us out of ND - that have always spent alot of $$$ on what we love. Get it like Texas & many other popular pay to hunt States & see how many leave (let alone consider coming back to ND) :roll: :lost:

In fact I plan to spend 2 weeks up there & with the exchange rates, it is a bargain & I love seeing new areas & expirencing real people. You can have the crowds & the night life - I'll take real hunting anytime oke:


----------



## ND Gander (Jul 9, 2002)

I do not charge for access, nor do I support fee hunting. I do support landowner rights and understand that 90% + of wildlife is raised on private land. The point is landowners deserve some respect and should be able to charge if that is what they feel is correct on thier land. Travel SW ND and see how many greedy, rich farm and ranchers there are. This area is as poor as it gets, and if some rancher wants to charge $25 per gun to hunt upland birds so be it. For some it is simply survival, not greed as you see it.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Gander, Why the cheap shot about the maps. It has been my perspective that things tend to get nasty when they have no other argument left. Also, you should remember that $25.00 per gun in SW ND is the exception and usually it is closer to $100.00 per gun.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Respect - always. Charge - I assume it is their legal "right" in ND, but it is not a noble ethic, and it conflicts with the former.

What saddens me is that a some landowners are more interested in the $$ than the respect - more often condescending SOB hunters are welcomed due to $$, even though these folks lack respect for the land, the people, the heritage, the earth. While you may say you can't feed your kids with respect, I'll say that you can't raise your kids without having self-respect. Is $25 the going rate to allow someone onto your land, even if he gives you no respect? I thought it was closer to $200. "A man's gotta know what he's worth."

M.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I live in Burleigh County, but I normally hunt ducks in Sheridan and Kidder Counties. I have purchased the maps that Gander discussed, and I can tell you that I have never had a problem tracking down a landowner to ask permission. I have also never been asked for money to hunt private land. Would I pay for access? It all comes down to benefit & cost, as I discussed in my earlier post.

Maybe it's different in other parts of the state, and I fully understand the problem of finding absentee landowners. However, this problem should be solved by simply starting your scouting sooner.

I am an avid sportsmen, but I own no hunting land in the state. Therefore, I am not going to tell landowners how to control access to their property. Wild animals, as some have observed, are a public resources. However, private property is a private resource.

Can I go on private property without permission to hike? NO!
Can I go on private property without permission to camp?NO!
Can I go on private property without permission to fish? NO!

Then why should I be able to go on private property without permission to hunt?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Big daddy,

Hiking? Heck, ND law allows you to drive your vehicle through a farmer's standing crop if you are travelling down a section line (16 ft either side??) that doesn't have a road. However, you can run into trouble if you do it for spite.



> - ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS -
> I.
> It is my opinion that the public?s right to travel a section line
> right of way coexists with the property rights of landowners holding
> ...


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

My point is that this exemption to access private property without permission only applies to hunting. If I understand the law right, I would technically need permission to go on somebody's land to take a walk, but I wouldn't if I was walking with a gun during hunting season. This seems odd to me, and I understand why a landowner would find it odd too.


----------



## erica (May 17, 2003)

I dont really see the corallation between this case and access to hunting ground. It seems to me all this is about is the property owners right to control the ingress and regress from thier property. It seems to me the same principle applies if the property is in downtown fargo or in a rural setting in ND. Private property is just that private and the property owner surely has the right to know who is out there and when. It would seem that Mr.Froelich and the FB are standing up for one of the most basic rights preserved by our U.S. Constitution, the right to own and control private property. A right that should be respected by all of us.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Pretty simple don't want anyone on your Land (for what ever reason) :roll: post it


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Pretty simple, want to not be bothered, post your land as open to anyone who wants to hunt.  Pretty simple, want to be on some land, buy it , rent it or ask permission.  All of the above are pretty simple


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

But only one is the Law


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

This whole issue is very perplexing. If anybody remembers last year, Amunstad of FB issues his "out of the box" statement inviting all sportspersons to join his org so that they can readily gain access to FB members land. Of course it goes without saying that would have been a major boondoogle for sportspersons. Flash forward a year, FB forms a legal group and sues effectively initiating a maelstorm and drawing a line in the sand against both res and NRs alike (nothing like alienating those people you were trying to attract as members). Obviously, I am missing something here, but do their members really agree with this type of leadership? Somebody who is in the know please explain further (Dick or Ron please translate). I just can't believe a majority of their members would readily support and implement a boycott of their economic base, especially as they watch their rural communities and main streets dry up. I guess the so-called economic development and alleged new money aren't that big of deal after all.


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I for one am SICk and TIRED of listening to this jack from cally that chose to leave here for monetary reasons.
Bio,
If you ever want me and the likes of me to take you seriously, MOVE BACk. Until then, Take a hike. 
You don't know the situation here and until your back here, don't ever pretend that you know how things are here.

I have gainded respect for Chris Hustad and to some extent I have finally recognized Fetch as a human being, which took ALOT!!!!!!.
This state is on the map, it's marked, the prime spot according to everybody, and I love it! You should too.
Oh by the way, 
BIOMAN
Love you man!

cootkiller


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

cootkiller There is a good conversation on this subject and then you start personal attacks. Please try to be more mature.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

see you forgot your smilies


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Everyone post their zip codes. Cootkiller will then respond and let us know who is eligible to post on this topic. :homer:


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> Oh by the way,
> BIOMAN
> Love you man!


CK, since you don't know me, that is really creepy :wink: But hey, I will be near the Lake Region this fall, maybe sharing a hunting blind will give you the opportunity to get to know me better. You never know, you may even like me 8)


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I am waiting for the survey that they used to undertake this action, but it is my understanding that they are doing this not as FB but as a legal aid foundation for it's members. I wonder if they would underwrite the action to outlaw guides in the state with the same funds? I think a case could be made that it is restricting economics in certain regions of the state.

Regardless we still have other issues to stay on top of. Remember to e-mail the Gov on caps send that same message to the elected officals in your district, do not let this issue take away from others we have going.

Dan you may have been slighted and upset with me on an eairlier post but understand this I am behind caps and what was done. Your effort and those of Chris and others that testified in Bismarck where not wasted nor did I intend to sound like a monday morning QB.


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

I have stated this before and not found all that much support. I believe that sportsman groups should take a strategic track and BUILD relationships based on SHARED interests of the landowners, sportsman, and business of North Dakota.

To me an action that reflects this intent would be to MORE aggressively seek ways to enroll lands in programs like PLOTS. I know the state has a plan to increase but from my point of view a much higher ercentage of all NEW revenues should be targeted for securing access and habitat. Every time a CRP contract is entered into the State should be their with $ incentives to ensure access for sportsmen. This helps all involved and reduces the need for outfitters to lease up land, reduces crowding, ensures the long term benefit to the resource, helps business. And maybe the biggest thing is it fights the big perception that North Dakota resident sportsman are only interested in thir own personal situation and screw others. - not saying that last line is fact but you must admit it is a shared perception.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The best thing Farm Bureau could do for Farm Bureau is install term limits on it's leadership now. This organization they fronted to sue is a 501 c3 funded by "donations". Like there is a ground swell. It would be interesting to know who the directors are. Clones?

David, Farm Bureau isn't looking for peace or compromise with sportsmen. They are kicking the dog to raise memberships with farmers that feel disenfranchised from the mainstream. 20 years ago FB sponsered signs that read "No Hunting Until Wheat Hits $5", as if sportsmen had anything to do with the price of wheat. As soon as wheat DID hit $5, they changed their posters to " No Hunting Until Swampbuster Is Repealed", and when swampbuster was no longer an issue, they changed their posters yet again to "No Hunting Until Hunting Issues are Reseloved To Landowner Satisfaction". Makes you dizzy trying to remember which idiots are protesting what. If the access issue was resolved today, there would be a new poster tonight protesting the phase of the moon, and of course Farm Bureau would attack hunters for it. This seems to be a nation wide stratagy on their part, as other states are going thru the same convotuted mess as we are. If memory serves, a few years back the state pres in SD got pinched for selling gratis deer licenses to nonresidents, and when brought up on charges, he, (guess what), threatened a "landowner backlash" that would close hunting to resident hunters there. Don't know about you fellows but it is wearing thin for me.

In the 2001 election North Dakotans passed Constituational Measure 1- guarenteeing the right of the states *RESIDENTS* to hunt, fish, and trap. The vote was 206,443 *YES* and 61,531 NO. Pretty simple to do it again. Pretty damn simple.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Read the fargo foolum this am....Maybe the FB and Nodak Mutual should concentrate their efforts on other things...like the largest fine ever levied against an insurance company in the history of ND!!!!! If they would quit all this other foolishness, maybe they wouldn't have to pay out so many fines, their leaders could concentrate on these pesky little things we call "LAWS".


----------

