# Hunting Rights. Todays Forum



## fox412 (Mar 18, 2005)

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index. ... ction=news

I figured that this would come one day. I have sent a email to my rep voicing my opinion.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I don't understand why a landowner would want to sell the hunting rights to his property. Why not just lease them instead?

What if PETA or HSUS bought up all the hunting rights and basically shuts down hunting in ND?

I hope this selling of hunting rights from the surface estate is stopped for good this session!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

So flip the pancake over and see it it tastes the same on both sides:

Would Rep. Rod Froelich support the private sale of hunting rights to the NDGF for public use? Since he thinks willing buyer-seller agreements should prevail.  He had introduced the No Tresspass lawsuit against the state that was denied by the state supreme court. Seems like a conflict in the thought process.


----------



## Webfoot Posse (Aug 26, 2008)

dumb *****


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

The arguement of coal and oil rights are not applicable since wildlife is public domain and coal/oil are not. It's apple and oranges the way I see it.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Webfoot Posse said:


> dumb a$$es


While the full impact of your literary commentary might resonate with some, it leaves me clueless.

Thus, as humbeling as it is, I must utter....

Huhh?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Dick Monson said:


> So flip the pancake over and see it it tastes the same on both sides:
> 
> Would Rep. Rod Froelich support the private sale of hunting rights to the NDGF for public use? Since he thinks willing buyer-seller agreements should prevail.  He had introduced the No Tresspass lawsuit against the state that was denied by the state supreme court. Seems like a conflict in the thought process.


Dick, I like the way you think! :lol:

This Froelich guy doesn't make any sense, he wants a no tresspass law, yet he wants to sell the hunting rights to his property, and then if someone else buys his property, they will not have hunting rights, which are basic property rights..... :homer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Froelich is a maverick.....he is always the sponsor of the NO Tresspass bill or anything relating to anti-hunting.If anyone deserves an F when it comes to hunting bills,it's him. uke:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Froelich is a maverick.....he is always the sponsor of the NO Tresspass bill or anything relating to anti-hunting.If anyone deserves an F when it comes to hunting bills,it's him. uke:


Which district is he in?

What city?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-200 ... elich.html


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

My gut tells me that some of the commercial people are concerned with the drop in habitat and such that as they control more and more. People are going to wake up to this being bad overall for ND.

If that happens, I can see a initiated measure or Leg action taking place that would limit G/O to only lands that you own, thus making leasing illegal or use of rented Ag land as well.

This would allow them to purchase and control the hunting rights thus avoiding the law.

With the announcement today that Rick Berg is not running for Majority Leader and is planning on stepping down. The most likely person to obtain that position is very much pro hunter. Thus I believe that committee makeup and heavy handed tactics by some on those committees will lend itself to a much leveler playing field.


----------



## hammerhead (Dec 22, 2004)

So if a landowner sells the hunting rights to his land, would the buyer be entitled to the owners gratis tag?


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

As always, if you want to really know what is going on, follow the $ trail. Ain't greed a grand thing. :roll:

How fitting is it that my 2,000 post would be about how greed is hurting us.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The way the gratis regs are written you need to be the owner of the land or lease it for agricultural purposes. So at the present time the answer would be no.

Strange things have been known to happen in legislative committee meetings though.

Here is a link to the bill that the Legislative Council drafted after the study resolution process.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-200 ... BK0100.pdf
Interesting piece of legislation if it is submitted as written.

Ron

Rick Berg, as I am sure you know, will not be missed by sportsmen in the leadership role. And I will support Al Carlson in his bid for the position. Pardon the pun but he has always been a pretty straight shooter IMO.

I am sure it will be an interesting session again for sportsmen.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Isn't Carlson the one who wanted to change his vote on the bill to put a limit on NR hunters a couple sessions back?Claimed he voted wrong and it lost by 1 vote.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

No Ken that was Ron Iverson and he lost his re-election bid.

I could go on and on about what I think of Rod Froielch but will not, this is now it seems going to end up in court regardless. However, there are very few people in the Leg that are bigger supporters of commercial hunting than he is.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Froielch is a hero. A true fighter for personal property rights, Something hunters are against.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

angus 1 said:


> Froielch is a zero. A true fighter for personal property rights, Something hunters are against.


I'm a hunter. I'm for property rights.

This has nothing to do with property rights from a legal point of view. You can't make that claim.

Learn a little bit about property law before making that claim. Animals do not belong to a landowner. Therefore assignment of rights for something which you do not own as a property owner is invalid on it's face.

You are right Angus. Froelich is a zero.

Thanks


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Learn a little bit about property law before making that claim. Animals do not belong to a landowner. Therefore assignment of rights for something which you do not own as a property owner is invalid on it's face.


R Y A N, He is not assigning rights for something he does not own. Hunting is not a right it a privlage, he owns the land and is selling the privlage to hunt on that land.



> If that happens, I can see a initiated measure or Leg action taking place that would limit G/O to only lands that you own, thus making leasing illegal or use of rented Ag land as well.


Never happen Ron, I can't believe that someone who claims to be such as conservative can think so stupid when it comes to hunting issues


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O we have had this conversation before on the issue of commercial operations. No need to go down that road again. But Froielch is attempting to protect his family interests with this. Not property rights etc... just a smoke screen. Just like his attempt to get the courts to overturn ND Trespass laws. He knows that the Leg will not support his position and is making an early end run.

Oh and G/O hunting is a right in ND a few years back we passed an amendment to our state Constitution making it so!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> G/O we have had this conversation before on the issue of commercial operations. No need to go down that road again.


Ron, if you want to keep bringing it up I'll keep going down that road. When it comes to hunting issues you are no different than any of the others, wanting everything for nothing. Dick Monson brings up an interesting point and I can't see why a person would not be able to sell the rights to the games and fish as well as Ron Gilmore. We already have grassland easements, wetland easement, mineral rights why not hunting rights.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Property rights backers favor ND hunting sale ban
> 
> By DALE WETZEL
> Associated Press Writer
> ...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is the most important statement in all that.....

"Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, believes that groups who oppose hunting could buy up hunting rights to make it more difficult for sportsmen to find places to hunt."


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

G/O your statement "Hunting is not a right it a privlage," is not correct. The ND legislature several years ago amended the state constitution granting the right to hunt. That amendment has nothing to do with private property rights or tresspass, agreed.

The animals that are hunted are public property. Private land is private. This law is wrong because the public property is so integral to the transaction you are in essence selling the public property.

If hunting rights were to be seperated from property ownership is must be done with removal of all wild animals from that property and a high fence must be put up to prevent the public property from straying onto that land.

That way private property rights will not be infringing on public property rights.


----------



## Candiru (Aug 18, 2005)

Can someone tell me why all these good "property rights" folks aren't fighting for the property rights of retail stores to be open on Sunday morning? Just a pet peeve of mine.

I wonder whose property rights will take precident if the landowner wants to do something to improve agricultural production. But that improvement will damage the value of the hunting rights. Or, for example, if the hunting person baits deer and attracts a bunch. Then, after the season the landowner is stuck with a bunch of deer looking for food that would not normally be there. This isn't just for now but will involve landowners way down the road.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

The property rights group are in support of not seperating the hunting rights from the land according to the article. There are a few that can't see the forest for the trees but we have learned to expect that from Froelich and his boys.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I see it as a bad idea from both side as it is full of potential problems. One would have to be extremely carefull when buying hunting rights. What you actually buying is the right to access the property however you may have no control over what is done with the property itself. An example would be someone who buys hunting rights for a parcel of CRP. When the CRP contract ends and the parcel is turned back to ag production what do you have? Nothing. You went from a parcel that held game to one that MAY occasionally hold game. Now you have an investment made in useless hunting rights. Another example may be you buy the hunting rights on a parcel of woodlands. The property sells and the new owner decides to build a home or homes in the middle of it. Now you have an unhuntable property. Does your hunting rights give you the right to build stands or food plots? Possibly not. While the parties in the original transaction may have an amicable relationship, if ownership on either end changes that may not and often is no so. What if the hunting rights are later sold off to a slob hunter that could present a danger to the property owner or who further splits the land so the landowner is dealing with multiple unknown parties. Selling off hunting rights is a bad, bad, bad idea and a lot of landowners and hunters are likely to get screwed.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I think when all is said and done on this issue we are going to find out the real issue is financial liability. I am sure there are more than a few banks out there that would be reluctant to loan full value money on a piece of land if the rights were not included.

In light of what is going on with some of the larger banks , i feel the ripple effect is going to reach out a long ways


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob Kellam said:


> I think when all is said and done on this issue we are going to find out the real issue is financial liability. I am sure there are more than a few banks out there that would be reluctant to loan full value money on a piece of land if the rights were not included.
> 
> In light of what is going on with some of the larger banks , i feel the ripple effect is going to reach out a long ways


I disagree Bob, land is being already with easements from the wetlands and grassland, plus mineral rights have been sold off long ago.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

G/O without starting a bash session here is my opinion on this.

When you take customers hunting you are being paid for access to your land to hunt animals that are owned by the public, along with meals, lodging and such. No problem, access fees/tresspass fees are well within private property rights.

You do not have the exclusive rights to the animals that frequent your land but you do have the right to access to those animals.

So if you sell the hunting rights your are really selling the access to your land forever. Now what happens in Oct during pheasant season and the person that owns that access to your land refuses to grant you access to combine your corn? Also the person with the Hunting/access rights could deny you access to the land at any time. The way I see it is, if hunting/access is an entity unto it's self (as it must be to be sold) only one person or group can own it.

The act of hunting is persuing game with the intent to harvest it. Selling hunting rights is dependant on there being game on the land. It is immpossible to seperate the game from the act of hunting. Therefore since the game is public domain the transaction is not feasible.

The state does have a dog in this fight because the increase in lawsuits as well as the numerous changes that would have to be made in the state laws would be a burden on the state financially. Therefore restricting this practice would be beneficial to more people than allowing this practice to go on i.e. for the greater good.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Great post Swift! :beer:


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

> R Y A N, He is not assigning rights for something he does not own. Hunting is not a right it a privlage, he owns the land and is selling the privlage to hunt on that land.
> 
> 
> > I thought ND passed a constitutional amendment a few years ago making it a "right"?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Hunting and Fishing are rights here in ND.

ND State Constitution Article XI:

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.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf

huntin1


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

In my day job I deal with severed mineral rights every day. This is EXACTLY the same issue vis-a-vis rights of access.

What Swift posts is right but not complete. As an example, if a mineral owners wants to use the surface to build a mine or drill a well, under the Common Law, he may do so without compensation. He has what is called the dominant estate, while the surface owner has the subordinate estate.

While the mineral owner can get wherever he wants to go on the land, he can't deny access to the surface owner except in limited instances (such as for safety reasons). Further, if he uses more of the surface than is "reasonable", the surface owner can claim money damages for the unreasonable use.

Therefore in the example Swift uses, the hunting right owner ought to be allowed free and open access 24/7 for hunting related activities. While the agricultural owner can't deny access, he certainly COULD make any reasonable use of HIS rights, which would include harvesting his crop.

Where this could get sticky is if the farmer wants to combine the same week the hunter want to hunt deer. If either of them make unreasonable demands on the other, we could see litigation.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Skip, Thank you excellent post, I would imagine anyone selling hunting right would include many if's in the contract.

As Dick Monsom said what if the game and fish were to purchase hunting rights on land and it would become open to public hunting. The game and fish has a boat load of money and could do this. Instead of PLOTS which will fade away and die in the next few years this would be forever


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Skip the two things that stand apart from mineral rights and hunting rights atleast to me is.

1.minerals are stagnent they don't wander around the property to be found in a different location each day. Therefore the access to minerals do not change on a daily basis.

2. Minerals are not public property so selling the rights to minerals do not compare to selling the rights to animals.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I have to weigh-in on this and agree with the blatant point swift made; rocks are probably going to be in the same place the next day.....a deer, probably not.

Those that are saying animals and minerals are the same thing should go back to Elementary Science.

You simply can not put the two together and call them the same.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

MSG Rude said:


> I have to weigh-in on this and agree with the blatant point swift made; rocks are probably going to be in the same place the next day.....a deer, probably not.
> 
> Those that are saying animals and minerals are the same thing should go back to Elementary Science.
> 
> You simply can not put the two together and call them the same.


You are selling the right to hunt on that land only, in hunting I don't think you are guarenteed success everytime. It would be know different than leasing such property. Maybe a perpetual lease would make more sense?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

g/o said:


> MSG Rude said:
> 
> 
> > I have to weigh-in on this and agree with the blatant point swift made; rocks are probably going to be in the same place the next day.....a deer, probably not.
> ...


I added the BOLD to clarify that I see the difference now. I couldn't see that with all the tree's infront of the forrest.  Thanks!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

g/o said:


> Skip, Thank you excellent post, I would imagine anyone selling hunting right would include many if's in the contract.
> 
> As Dick Monsom said what if the game and fish were to purchase hunting rights on land and it would become open to public hunting. The game and fish has a boat load of money and could do this. Instead of PLOTS which will fade away and die in the next few years this would be forever


Dicks idea as usaul seems like a good one what would be the downside?


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I've gotta agree with Bob on the financing point. I am seeing more and more of this on residential properties. Financers are looking closely at encumberances on any property loans. While various rights have been sold in the past, financers have learned of the liabilities of such transactions.

I have to wonder if financing would even be available for hunting rights. Undoubtedly at the very least it would have to be some type of secured loan. Given that the holder of the hunting rights has no control of the land itself, value or equity would be extremely hard to establish and in fact could be very volitile. The value of the hunting rights could go from X dollars to zero overnight with a change of the land use.

If I were a farmer and hunter looking to purchase some land, if rights of some form or another are sold from that land I will not be willing to pay market price for it. I'm not going to pay for the whole pie when I only get a piece. While selling of rights may look promising up front. I can't imagine that it would work out long term.

Sure, it's gonna work out for a few but in the majority of cases I forsee nothing but problems for one party or the other.

I have a problem with selling off rights to start with. How can one person sell off a portion of something that will last many times longer than that person himself. Land ownership is only temporary. No person can own a parcel of land forever. Doesn't selling off rights violate the rights of future owners 100 years or 1000 years from now?


----------



## Starky (Mar 15, 2006)

Who in their right mind would buy a piece of property that has the hunting rights sold to someone else. It sounds like an easy buck for someone who has land and doesn't hunt but in the long run I think they are going to be stuck with a piece of property that nobody wants.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

swift said:


> Skip the two things that stand apart from mineral rights and hunting rights atleast to me is.
> 
> 1.minerals are stagnent they don't wander around the property to be found in a different location each day. Therefore the access to minerals do not change on a daily basis.
> 
> ...


Game animals are not "public property" in the sense you mean. If they were the state would owe farmers for lost crops and car owners for vehicle-deer collisions.

The state has the right to MANAGE wildlife populations; they can decide how long and when the seasons are, and how many deer you can shoot and with what weapons and so on.

Saying that we have a "right" to hunt other people's land because the state constitution gives us the right to hunt is equivalent to saying that since the US constitution provides for free and clear "freedom of speech", I can come to your house uninvited, and talk to you and your family about my theory of dinosaurs (thin at one end, MUCH thicker in the middle, and thin again at the other end- you gotta love Monty Python) at 2:00 in the morning.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Skip, your first post expaining dominate and subordinate estate was excellent. But this last post is a reach. First the state does pay farmers for depredation. And the US constitution states the wild animals on US land is owned by the people and not by an estate. It is reasonable to think that the forefathers were so disenchanted with the aristocrats owning all the hunting in England that they made it a priority in the New World constitution. Also, most every post has said North Dakotan's have the right to hunt as is amended in the state constitution. But that does not give the right to tresspass. So I don't know where your last paragraph came from.

To me it boils down to this, Hunting cannont reasonably take place without game to be hunted. The act of hunting is persuing game animals. By the very definition of hunting you cannot remove the animal from the hunt. Since the US constitution states the animals are owned by the people they cannot be sold. Therefore it is unconstitutional to sell hunting of wild game.

I am not an attorney but I do have common sense, which isn't too common anymore. Hey NJ am I making any sense here?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This is still one of the best explanations of the Public Trust Doctrine I have read

For The Good of The People

Ed Owens, Chair, Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management

PO Box 14245, Tumwater, WA 98511-4245, July 2001

Regardless of how we trace its ancestry the Public Trust Doctrine - the principle of common law directing who owns and manages natural resources - is deeply rooted in our culture and history. Some historians have argued that hunting of game, fishing and wildlife management responsibility components of the doctrine have their origins in English common law dating back to the Saxon invasion of England in about 450 AD and maintained after the Norman Conquest in 1066.[1] It is clearly evident that elements of the doctrine related to fish, shorelines and water have come to us from codified dictates enacted by the Roman Emperor Justinian in about 530 A.D.[2]

The English monarchy added strength and recognition to the public trust doctrine with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Changes in English common law enacted in 1641, and additional modifications enacted by Colonial Ordinance in 1647,[3] reinforced the public trust doctrine concept that government has an affirmative duty to administer, protect, manage and conserve fish and wildlife; hence, government cannot relinquish its obligations to a popular vote to establish administrative management, protection, and conservation practices for renewable wildlife and marine resources. In other words, ballot measures cannot supersede governmental (sovereign) rule.

With a history spanning upwards of fifteen centuries, or potentially more, it would be impossible to cite every publication, historical record or litigation associated with the public trust doctrine. Fortunately, such a bibliography is not necessary to illustrate the constantly evolving history of the doctrine as it applies to wildlife management responsibilities. As it seems to be the case with many important issues in America, litigation, and the occasional Act of Congress, have played roles in defining the responsibilities of government under the public trust doctrine. A profile of some of the Acts of Congress and Supreme Court rulings that have defined the public trust doctrine include:

v In 1842 the Supreme Court ruled that the Magna Carta had settled the question of who owns fish and wildlife and that King Charles II did not have the authority to give away the "dominion and property" of lands in colonial America. The court further ruled that since the American Revolution the people held public trust responsibilities for fish and wildlife except for rights specified in the U.S. Constitution.

v In 1892, the Supreme Court declared that the "Sovereign Lands" of a state are held in trust by the State for all present and future generations, and that such land may not be sold for development incompatible with uses covered by the Public Trust Doctrine.[4]

v In 1896, the Supreme Court declared that the states' property right in game was to be exercised as a trust for the benefit of the people of the state.[5] Up until this ruling the 10th Amendment of the Constitution only appeared to give states jurisdiction over wildlife. This court case is considered by many to be the core ruling of states' public trust authority over wildlife but it is somewhat controversial because it does so in terms of ownership.

v The Lacey Act of 1900 utilized the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce to initiate federal involvement in wildlife conservation by prohibiting transportation across state lines of wildlife killed in violation of state laws.[6] Since 1900 the Lacey Act has been amended numerous times as federal and state government public trust authorities have been further refined.

v It took about seven years (1913-20), two Acts of Congress (the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918) and two Supreme Court rulings (the first ruled the 1913 Act unconstitutional and the second upheld the 1918 Act) before the role of Congressional Treaty Powers were sorted out as related to migratory birds and the public trust doctrine concept applied to the management of migratory birds.[7] The 1918 Act and subsequent Supreme Court ruling gave the federal government a strong basis for leading the conservation and management of migratory birds resulting in the application of the public trust doctrine in many treaties for the protection of migratory birds.

v In 1976 the Supreme Court decreed that federal authority may be superior to that of the states in some wildlife management situations but the extent of the authority remains unclear.[8] This relatively undefined aspect of the ongoing public trust doctrine debate is an area likely to draw additional consideration by the courts over time because of the broader states rights versus federal powers (and related issues) debates.

For the first hundred, or so, years of America's history public trust doctrine litigation and legislation generally tended to focus on providing for the public use of waterways for commerce, navigation, and fisheries; a consequence of the mandates established by Emperor Justinian. Court rulings at both the federal and state levels - and legislation including the relatively recent federal Endangered Species, Marine Mammal and Environmental Protection Acts - over the last 150 years, or so, added hunting. In recent years courts have added swimming, recreational boating, and preservation of lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat values as codified elements of the public trust doctrine.

For example, A 1983 California Supreme Court ruling held that the State has an "affirmative duty to take the public trust into account" in making decisions affecting public trust resources, and also the duty of continuing supervision over these resources which allows and may require modification of such decisions.[9] More recently, the definition of the doctrine has been further refined by the California courts as providing the public the right to use water resources for: navigation, fisheries, commerce, environmental preservation and recreation; as ecological units for scientific study; as open space; as environments which provide food and habitats for birds and marine life; and as environments which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area."[10]

A Court in New York State declared that, "[T]he entire ecological system supporting the waterways is an integral part of them and must necessarily be included within the purview of the trust." The Court was calling for protective measures against actions that would degrade the trust resource, the waterway.[11] Another court in the State of Iowa noted that the Public Trust Doctrine has, "emerged from the watery depths [of navigable waters] to embrace the dry sand area of a beach, rural parklands, a historic battlefield, wildlife, archeological remains, and even a downtown area."[12]

The New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County upheld the Long Island Pine Barrens Act ("Act") against a takings challenge by highlighting the public trust doctrine. The decision was handed down on April 22, 1998, Earth Day. Briefly stated, the Act is a comprehensive planning law that established in a 100,000 acre area of Long Island a 50,000 acre protected preserve surrounded by a 50,000 acre managed growth area. Justice William L. Underwood's decision includes an analysis of the common law and he concludes that, "Contrary to popular misconception, the Common Law did speak on the subject of environmental regulation."[13]

Each of these cases, and others just like them, point to the inescapable conclusion that management of our natural resources is the administrative responsibility of government (the sovereign) and that government cannot turn that responsibility over to someone else. In recent years, in the twenty-four states that permit ballot initiatives, the animal rights movement has ignored management of our natural resources on the premise of science and law and bought their way to the ballot with measures seeking to establish their political agenda by changing how natural resources are administered. As a consequence of this activity there are now a number of states where public trust doctrine lawsuits seek to overturn these politically motivated initiatives.[14]

Wildlife management has historically been, and continues to be, a difficult and often contentious arena. Contrary to the political hype of the animal rights movement there are no "magic bullets." To drive wildlife management on the premise of political agenda - on the premise of ballot box biology - when at least fifteen hundred years of history, science, litigation and experience has demonstrated that government (the sovereign) must make such decisions so that they reflect the balanced needs of society and the resource is simply wrong

Footnotes: 
[1] Historical records for the Saxon and Norman periods in English history supporting the concept that hunting of game and wildlife management responsibilities are components of the public trust doctrine are limited. Significant documentation in support of the public trust doctrine does not make itself clearly evident in English law until 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta. While interpretations vary, the premise that Saxon and Norman kings "owned" all that they ruled is the basis most commonly cited to justify the premise that hunting of game and wildlife management responsibilities are elements of the historical record associated with the public trust doctrine.

[2] Slade, David C. Esq. "The Public Trust Doctrine: A Gift From A Roman Emperor," 12211 Roundtree Lane, Bowie, Maryland, 20715, phone: (301) 464-3900. (Note: Some sources attribute the date to 533 A.D.)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892).

[5] Greer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896).

[6] Lacey Act of 1900 -- 16 USC §§701, 3371-3378 and 18 USC §42.

[7] Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 39 Stat. 1702, T.S. No. 628; 16 USC §703 and Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

[8] Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976) regarding the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. 16 USC §1331.

[9] National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 C3rd 419.

[10] __________, California Public Trust (Excerpt from California's Rivers, A Public Trust Report - Executive Summary, prepared for the California State Lands Commission in 1993, page vi.).

[11] Bray, Paul M., "An Introduction to the Public Trust Doctrine," Government Law Center, Albany Law School, 80 New Scotland Ave., Albany, New York 12208.

[12] Ibid.

[13] W.J.F Realty Corporation and Reed Rubin v. the State of New York

[14] Boynton, Stephen S., Washington, DC Counsel, National Trappers Association, "Public Trust Doctrine Legal Cases Challenge Wildlife Ballot Initiatives That Ban Use of Leghold Traps," National Trappers Association, P.O. Box 550, New Martinsville, WV 26155


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bob, great info! Brings to mind 2 questions and an unrelated 3rd one.

3rd one first: If Rep. Froelich wants to uphold willing seller-willing buyer, how did he vote when Ebberts wanted to sell their ranch to the state?

Other 2:


> v In 1892, the Supreme Court declared that the "Sovereign Lands" of a state are held in trust by the State for all present and future generations, and that such land may not be sold for development incompatible with uses covered by the Public Trust Doctrine.[4]


 So what the hell happened to our state school lands that have been sold off left and right? There was a bill a session or 2 ago to sell the whole works! And when Eberts was finally purchased by the forest service the ND legislature wanted a like amount of Federal acreage sold off in the badlands.



> A Court in New York State declared that, "[T]he entire ecological system supporting the waterways is an integral part of them and must necessarily be included within the purview of the trust."


 So wouldn't or shouldn't that apply to field drainage, since everything but the kitchen sink is flushed down these water courses?

I think the law is like a lump of clay. Whoever squeezes hardest gets the shape they want.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> 3rd one first: If Rep. Froelich wants to uphold willing seller-willing buyer, how did he vote when Ebberts wanted to sell their ranch to the state?


SECOND READING OF SENATE BILL
SB 2145: A BILL for an Act to provide for acquisition of certain land by the parks and recreation department; to provide an appropriation; to provide a continuing appropriation; to provide for a legislative council study; and to provide for reports to the legislative council.

ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 21 YEAS, 70 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 3 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.
YEAS: Aarsvold; Belter; Berg; Carlson; Conrad; Dietrich; Ekstrom; Glassheim; Grande; Hanson; Kasper; Kelsh, S.; Kretschmar; Kroeber; Maragos; Metcalf; Nicholas; Nottestad; Potter; Svedjan; Zaiser

*NAYS*: Amerman; Bellew; Bernstein; Boe; Boehning; Boucher; Brandenburg; Brusegaard; Carlisle; Charging; Clark; Damschen; DeKrey; Delmore; Delzer; Devlin; Dosch; Drovdal; *Froelich*; Froseth; Galvin; Gulleson; Haas; Hawken; Headland; Herbel; Hunskor; Iverson; Johnson, D.; Johnson, N.; Keiser; Kelsch, R.; Kempenich; Kerzman; Kingsbury; Klemin; Koppelman; Kreidt; Martinson; Meier, L.; Meyer, S.; Monson; Mueller; Nelson; Norland; Onstad; Owens; Pietsch; Porter; Price; Rennerfeldt; Ruby; Sandvig; Schmidt; Sitte; Skarphol; Solberg; Thoreson; Thorpe; Timm; Uglem; Vigesaa; Wald; Wall; Weiler; Weisz; Wieland; Williams; Wrangham; Speaker Klein

ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Horter; Kaldor; Pollert
Engrossed SB 2145 lost.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> 3rd one first: If Rep. Froelich wants to uphold willing seller-willing buyer, how did he vote when Ebberts wanted to sell their ranch to the state


Apples, Oranges, Bob. We are talking two different things here. :lol:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

What are the two different things? Property rights only goes for the benefit of the greedy and not for the property owners that want to expand public access for the masses?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> > 3rd one first: If Rep. Froelich wants to uphold willing seller-willing buyer, how did he vote when Ebberts wanted to sell their ranch to the state
> 
> 
> Apples, Oranges, Bob. We are talking two different things here. :lol:


 Total :bs: I love that attitude.It's only good if it's my way. :koolaid:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

Wow I ended up being your 1800th jab :lol: I'm honored!!! Just having a little fun with ya!!

I know ND has rules in the Century Code that protect ND landowners from the evil federal/state government interference in land purchases. The ruling commission is also a stacked deck. I will admit it is a Jekyll and Hyde situation many times. The question remains; have the laws accomplished their intent of keeping the family farm a family farm and expanding the opportunities to create young farmers? Guess i really don't know other than to say that the number of farms in ND continues to decline every year, however, this years numbers may be different when they are tallied.

Give me a call next time your in town we can do the verbal arm wrestle thing at Peppers again 

Sorry for the subject hijack.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Sorry Ken, and Swift if you don't understand the difference. As someone who has bought and sold land I am familiar with grassland and wetland easements. Selling hunting rights to property would be similar to those easements. You see guy's I could sell Bob a parcil of land and keep the hunting rights, Eberts were selling land. Froelich disagreed and so many others, Pssst, Kenny and Swift where did I say I agreed with him????????????????????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Apples, Oranges, Bob. We are talking two different things here.


I guess when you posted this in regards to Bob's question about how Froelich voted you were defending him.



> You see guy's I could sell Bob a parcil of land and keep the hunting rights,


No you can't sir. There is a two year moratorium on that. And hopefully the legislature uses their heads and extends it forever.

G/O I haven't heard your rebuttle to my arguement why hunting rights cannot be seperated from the land. I'm curious how you interpet the public doctrine arguement. Your one statement above about a long term lease is the best alternative arguement I've heard so far.

I ask, not to start a fight, I think you have a good head on your shoulders and want to know how you see it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> No you can't sir. There is a two year moratorium on that. And hopefully the legislature uses their heads and extends it forever.


All I have been doing is discussing this and looking at it from another point of view. Yes I'm familiar with the moratorium and we will see what the legislature deciedes.

I'm not going to get into your public trust doctrine on who owns the wildlife. Try that argument with someone else, no offense. So for argument instead of hunting rights say it's a access bill.

Swift with an open mind look at this from a different point of view. In this state selling land to non profits is not acceptable to some. Whether you or disagree is your choice, but it a fact of life here. Here is how I look at this and that maybe if this would be a law and could be tweaked to a perpetual lease much like a wetlands or grassland easement. It would make it easier for groups to purchase tracts to be used for hunting. The game and fish has a boat load of money they could lease a bunch. DU,PF and other groups that are unable to own land could lease land for public hunting also. Of course the commercial and those stinking rich people would also lease it also. But, what is the difference? What would change ? Already the wealthy individuals are buying the prime stuff, and the game game fish or wildlife groups can't get any. Maybe just maybe this would not be so bad after all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I know ND has rules in the Century Code that protect ND landowners from the evil federal/state government interference in land purchases.


Bob, I wish the feds had the guts to challenge that in court. It would go down in flames as unconstitutional. It's going to take a very rich landowner to tell North Dakota to shove it and take them to court. Why should someone loose $100 an acre just to keep all the other farmers happy by giving them unfair purchase advantage? 
I hear farmers complain that the government pays to much and they can't compete. Then a couple breaths later they are really happy because some rich guy pays twice what the land is worth for hunting. Talk about a double standard.
What gets me is all these short sighted people are going to want to sell their land some day. Do you think they would like to choose $500 and acre or $700 an acre? It would be a good start if they could think beyond the current moment. We try teach out children that, but few in our legislature understand.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

G/O the scenario you wrote above is/can happen now without the law to sell pieces of your private property rights. I agree that perpetual leases or hundred year leases are fine but selling a property right just doesn't seem to be a legitimate option.

Straying from the public doctrine arguement for awhile. How would the county tax assessors dole out the taxes. Now that the hunting rights are considered a commodity to be bought and sold there would have to be a tax assessment on that commodity. Or do the taxes stay with the physical land and the hunting rights owner escapes any taxes on his investment? How about liability issues? Is the landowner responsible to have a safe enviornment for the buyer of the hunting rights?

The last thing I would want to see is the G&F or DU, et.al. buying hunting rights. This would lead to even deeper rifts between landowners and sportsman. Leases are the way to go because the landowner can have an out in the lease and if things aren't working out he can terminate the lease. If the rights to hunt are sold and things go wrong too bad the landowner is SOL.


----------

