# Terrorists



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Wow, I didn't realize that we had terrorists among us. I am all for anarchy and taking land by force about now. Isn't that how some of us justify Iraq. I think it is time for the same in ND. Read this article in the Forum today....the land is being held hostage, and it is up to us to free it. We will not be held by these terrorists, we should not bow to their tyranny.



> Board requires hunters sign petition
> The Forum
> Published Saturday, October 02, 2004
> 
> ...


[/code]


----------



## Benillibrother (Jan 26, 2003)

Lets see, a 10 bucks. How about this.... is there a place on their body that doesn't see daylight they could store their petition? Land owners around me and my self don't want to see this thing . Sounds just like extortion, another push for the no trespass law.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Wow! is that legal? I wonder if all the members feel the same way as their board? A board voting to require its members to participate in extorsion! I can't wait to sign that petition with a fictisious name maybe? We should all decide on the same name to use and then sign it, any ideas? John Hoeven perhaps?

tc


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Can anyone get their hand on the list of members?

let me know if you can.

TC


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I wonder how much of that 10 bucks would ever make it to property rights education...or is that the education, you just paid to get access to the land. I wonder if that is a lifetime membership for 10 bucks, or is it a per access feature. I would be more than happy to pay 10 bucks for a lifetime access to some good hunting land, but my guess is the lesson would be....thanks for the ten bucks, now we have enough signatures for a no trespass law, don't ever ask again unless you have 250 bucks a gun per day. :sniper:


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

You know what gets me. We support landowners through our efforts to help them maintain their subsidies programs. We vote for the people who bring the pork into our state...that is how it works, always has, always will, be it an Airforce Base staying open or better money for subsidies. Yet, instead of saying, "hey friend, thanks for being on our side, all we ever get lately is....what have you done for me lately?" I am not saying my vote or my tax money is worth land access, but I am saying that continued cooperation is worth something. You don't make friends by shutting the door in faces, fact of life. It comes down to a few people on a few boards of directors...you know, the guys who have the most land are the guys who run these boards....are making decisions(bad ones) that effect their whole group. I would think that after the Farm Bureau access program failure, they would have gotten the hint. I know 12 people who cancelled policy's with Nodak Mutual(farm bureau) insurance because of the scam they tried to run..the exact same scam the land pirates association is running now. You can call it a rose, but crap smells the same, no matter what the name.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

What a crock! some landowners are going to push until there is nobody left to push. that will be the death nail of the small communitites and their way of life. All they are doing is killing themselves in the long run. all they care about are the immediate rewards with no understanding of the long term consequences of their actions. now I am not saying that all landowners are like this. But just like hunters, a few bad apples can spoil the bunch. I dont know about the rest of you but I can survive just fine without hunting. Yes it would be a shame and I would be very dissappointed but my livihood does not depend on it and there is always fishing. on the other hand small communities depend on the freelance hunter and landowners depend on the sportsman to support farm friendly initiatives like the corporate farm initiative that we beat back with a proverbial stick and yes I was a resident when "we" shot that down. once again a select few are ruining it for the rest and I dont think the majority feel the way these so called 500 do. :eyeroll:


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Thats Sick. there making you pay mooney to a third party so you can hunt on other peoples land? Whatever hapened to just asking permition??


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hey as a freelance hunter I'm thinking of starting a petition! Its for repealing all subsadeas all legislation in ND aginst corp farming! Of course I'm kidding but we can all sit and bi#@* or we can organise and do something about it! Despite all ND has to offer If I can't hunt I will leave, whats the reason to stay? Wages that are up to 16% below the average no thanks! I know I will have the "right to hunt" in ND but that is like saying I have the right to walk on water it can't be done. Hunting as we know it has already changed a great deal and it will only end up in the hands of few if we let it.

TC


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

www.ndland.org

Here is the website for L.A.N.D. I have not been able to obtain the memberlist yet, give me time.

They are kinda out there  Here are their 2003 resolutions

2003 RESOLUTIONS

1. Whereas, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy and other similar wildlife/conservation organizations have been recipients of millions of taxpayer dollars through a variety of wildlife and conservation programs; and, Whereas, these organizations do NOT have oversight from representatives of taxpayers; therefore, 
LAND SUPPORTS Congressional action to disallow ANY transfer of funds for any government program to these organizations.

2. Whereas the CoverLocks program may require or strongly suggest that landowners plant trees to provide wildlife habitat; and,
Whereas, CoverLocks is supposed to be a short-term program; and,
Whereas, having trees on farmland may encourage the development of wetlands and thus reduce the farming productivity of the land; therefore,
LAND SUPPORTS the right of landowners to remove trees at the end of CoverLocks contract payments if the landowner so chooses.

3. Whereas, the 2003 Legislature decided NOT to pass legislation implementing a zone program for waterfowl licenses; and,
Whereas, Game & Fish has implemented such a program; and,
Whereas, now even people who own land in North Dakota, but live outside the state, are often not able to hunt on their own property; therefore,
LAND SUPPORTS the elimination of the zone program.

4. LAND SUPPORTS legislation that places the North Dakota Game and Fish Department under the Administrative Rules process of the North Dakota Legislature.

5. LAND OPPOSES the misuse of eminent domain for economic development.

Have a good one!


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Bob,
I think "Kinda out there" is an understatement. Read some of their earlier resolutions. I have a hard time believing that anyone would buy into this garbage. I got the impression they want to do what they want when they want. :bs:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Your right Bob, I read through their website and they contradict themselves. The reason they want the NDG&F under administrative law is they can't manipulate them now. They want less government involvement in their lives but more for the G&F. They claim the 5th amendment as their podium but don't belive subsidies count for payment. I don't belive they speak for the majority of ND landowners.

We need to stand together and not sign this petition. Maybe this group will realize we (hunters) are allies of the landowners and will support them more if we are treated better by them. Like I said many times before we need each other.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

My latest favorite subject, LAND. As I have posted before, how come the website states that private land owners should be able to do what they want with their land, but they oppose allowing a landowner to put a long term conservation easement on their own property? Second, in their latest petition, they have "The demand for the immediate repeal of Swampbuster." Third, if they support economic development in rural areas, why are they denying access if you do not sign the petition and donate $10? As Mott found out last year in the pheasant season, if you post it, they will not come.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Fireball I agree with every post you made in this thread are all the planets alligned??  :beer: Miracles never cease!


----------



## strand (Sep 29, 2004)

i believe montana and minnesota have laws like these. All private lands are closed to hunting unless permission is granted by the land owner. The idea itself isn't so bad because i believe it is common courtesy to ask permission for all lands, but having to pay ten extra dollars might be a bit ridiculous.

If this does happen i hope the plat maps become a little cheaper.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

strand when you say'' the idea itself isnt so bad'' that scares me. Let Minn. and Mont have their laws we prefer ours.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

FYI
LAND on HPC

By Richard Volk, LAND President

This is a letter to the Editor sent to North Dakota daily papers on March 14, 2003.

Dear Editor:

The Landowners Association of North Dakota (LAND) urges your readers to oppose Senate Bill 2048 - the "hunter pressure concept."

This measure limits the number of non-resident waterfowl hunters. LAND believes such legislation is detrimental to good relations between local hunters and landowners because it uses the force of government to control an income-producing activity for farmers and local communities.

When raising wildlife has economic benefit to the landowner, he is more likely to encourage wildlife production. Putting a cap on non-resident hunters alienates landowners. We believe a cap will result in landowners barring resident hunters from their property. (Over 900 landowners have signed pledges to that effect within the past two weeks.)

Landowners have a vested interest in making their property as productive as possible. We spend money in rural communities and help keep those communities viable all year round. Privately owned land generates revenue for local government through its productivity and taxes. Landowners raise over 90 percent of the wildlife in North Dakota which makes abundant hunting possible.

A basic tenet of property ownership is that a landowner has control of his property, including the right to limit or allow hunting. Many LAND members enjoy hunting and welcome fellow sportsmen who respect our rights. However, hunters have never had the right to control other people's property. LAND believes special interest groups should not have the right to control a landowner's ability to generate legal revenue.

Instead of spending weeks at the Legislature to restrict other's incomes, local sportsmen would be better off to use that time to develop personal relationships with local landowners.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is the latest Rant.

Get landowners, hunters together
By KENNETH KROEPLIN, Hope 
In the fall, one's thoughts turn to hunting, whether it be ducks, geese, pheasants or deer.

As a farmer, former state legislator and director of the Landowners Association of North Dakota, I have given a lot of thought to the animosity between farmers and hunters. I remember that, when I was a kid, hunting conditions were different. A "no hunting" sign in my area was extremely rare. In the 1950s and '60s, I think it is safe to say, most North Dakotans had a direct link to farms.

As the years have gone by -- due to demographics, through no fault of their own -- following generations have lost that connection and understanding of farming. Profit margins in farming are tight. The price of wheat today is less than it was in the mid-1970s. In the meantime, the cost of producing an acre of wheat has risen to more than $150 an acre. To make a profit, every acre has to produce a crop.

In the mid-1980s, I remember not being concerned about Swampbuster because Congress was talking about the Everglades, in Florida, and cattail sloughs in North Dakota. It was not the intention of Congress to regulate nuisance spots on farmland. After passage of Swampbuster, Type I and Type II wetlands became part of a farmer's vocabulary.

To put things into perspective, these nuisance spots are small depressions -- possibly no larger than your house or a yard in town -- that can pool water in the spring or after a heavy rain. With common sense and cooperation, there are ways to control runoff. Dry dams on small contributories would be a good place to start.

As a landowner, my attitude toward hunting started to change when environmental groups and wildlife organizations, with the cooperation of the state (No Net Loss) and federal government (Swampbuster), started legislating away my property rights. Property rights to a landowner are as essential as the right to keep and bear arms is to a hunter. At one time, I even posted all my land in protest.

Some years ago, the Legislature repealed No Net Loss with no ill effects.

I extend my hand to hunters and wildlife organizations and ask their help in requesting common-sense changes in Swampbuster. The other board members of LAND and I welcome any concerned group or individual for a tour of Type I and Type II wetlands to demonstrate and explain our position. By working together and respecting each other, we can make improvements and start to repair relations between hunters and farmers.

(The writer, a director of LAND, is a former Democratic state legislator. LAND members are asking hunters for their signature on a petition against Swampbuster in exchange for access. -- Editor)


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Mr. Kellam, thanks for keeping us up to date on these.

A side note, when hunting tuesday afternoon we came across a large wooden sign at the front of a farmers home that read: *"NO ASKING TO HUNT"* He also had his land posted tighter than I have ever seen with signs every 100 yards or so, on every telephone poll, and at the front of every tree row.

I wish I was inside his head to know exactly what he is thinking, but in hindsite I wish I would have knocked on his door. :rollin:


----------



## BigDDL (Sep 29, 2004)

After reading the posts on this site for a couple of weeks I thought I would ask a question that has been nagging me for a while. 
I grew up on the east coast where all land was off limits without permission and I guess i just got used to it that way. My question is would you be willing to trade the right to hunt non-posted land if the law were changed so that someone caught hunting without permission would NOT lose their hunting privileges for the required year. Rather, the charge would be only simple trespass with a small fine. (This would not include safety zone violations which would remain a year's suspension)

I believe the suspension is just a little harsh for what is often an "honest mistake". 
By the way, has anyone yet encountered a landowner asking them to sign the LAND petition?


----------

