ND Private Land No Trespass Bill SB2315

NDGuy

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
127
This pretty much sums up my sentiments on the issue. Some of the groups pushing for the passage of SB2315 also lobby to sell all state trust lands and have prevented conservation organizations from purchasing and owning private land in the state of North Dakota. Unfortunately any sort of compromise on these issues doesn't appear to be feasible with the current political climate.
Here is the list of the big AG hitters:
Stockmen’s Association
NW Landowners Association
ND Ag Coalition
ND Association of Realtors (of which I’m a member)
ND Soybean Growers Association
ND Grazing Coalition,
ND Farm Bureau
ND Grain Growers Association
ND Corn Growers Association
ND Farmers Union.
 

Badlandcat

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Montana
Those that still trespass on posted lands will be dealt with more severely
As a landowner, this is what I want to see. I am sick and tired of turning in hunters for trespassing and the Game and Fish not doing anything about it. Example, caught some guys taking apart a locked gate from the inside of the pasture after they went thru two other gates with no hunting signs. turned them into the local warden and he asks if I seen them with guns? I told him no I didn't, but what the hell were they doing on my land without permission. He chose to not issue a ticket. So, I hope this bill will put some teeth into the trespass laws and get the Game and Fish to enforce them.
 

Labman

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
120
The biggest proponents of this bill were oil guys and ranchers that had to deal with the Dakota Pipeline BS. Understandable I just take issue that was a one off crisis and is now over with. The system works as is for most people.

I would take zero issue with all private land turning to "no tresspassing" if we had more than 7% public land available. But that isn't the case and I haven't seen jack sh%$ to convince me it's going to start reversing so I take it personally. They can call me entitled or whatever they want, it's my opinion and it does affect me and future generations of sportsmen and women.

I take any legislation prohibiting hunting rights and access issues seriously to heart. Because from what I have seen, everything is slowly starting to be whittled away until there will be nothing left.
Does the 7% figure I see all the time includes Indian Reservations? Take your average deer unit like 2G, it is listed on OnX as 1% public. That seems like a more realistic number. OnX calls E6 100% public, but it is all reservation, so really more like 0%. If it wasn’t for the Nat. Grasslands it would probably be around 1-2%.
 

lr123

Active member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
125
Having waterfowl hunted in ND with the most recent trip being last fall I really appreciate the opportunities it offers. Being from the Midwest I don't have access to much public land and what there is receives tremendous pressure. To give you an idea of how hard it is to gain access to property I can't even receive permission to train my dogs on multiple neighbors property let alone hunt. Last year as a group of 6 guys we probably spent upwards of $4,000 in ND alone between housing, food, fuel, and other miscellaneous things. Unfortunately this is 1% having a negative effect on the rest of us hunters.
 

Badlandcat

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Montana
unfortunately this bill was intended for private property rights, not hunting. So, now the landowners get the shaft. The lockout movement has started statewide, myself I am pulling my ranch out of PLOTTS and putting the signs back up and locking the gates.
 

TLowell02

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
204
Location
Sedan, NM
unfortunately this bill was intended for private property rights, not hunting. So, now the landowners get the shaft. The lockout movement has started statewide, myself I am pulling my ranch out of PLOTTS and putting the signs back up and locking the gates.
Why? What is wrong with the PLOTS program?
 

NDGuy

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
127
unfortunately this bill was intended for private property rights, not hunting.
Maybe at the start, but that is not what it turned into. It's funny because from the comments I have heard and read from landowners in the hearings, sounds like it's pretty personal for a lot of them being against hunters.

Especially this whole lockout business as a way to "get back at hunters".
 

NDGuy

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
127
Also I think most people who against the bill were just wondering why it needed to be done in the first place? What is wrong with the current system? Was the entire issue about people disregarding the law and entering unposted lands?

The current system works for most since A TON of landowners/farmers didn't care two shits about someone shooting ducks or pheasants on their land. Whether they did it because they embrace hunting or if they don't want to be pestered that was their own choice. You have rights and can make a choice, just like idiots that break the law and disregard them can do.

The only thing I can see the bill improving is making it clear cut when someone is trespassing because there is no need for worry on whether signage was visible etc. The portion of the bill that did pass to my understanding improved the ability to prosecute trespassers. The 2nd amended bill involving have a color scale on signage would have been a complete f&$#show. You are out of your mind if you think that the combination of computer illiterates on both sides of the issue would be able to keep the app/database up to date. Talk about grey area and potential for lawsuits.

I think most would rather have black and white no trespass over the expensive database BS.
 

smalls

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
1,872
Location
red river of the north
Also I think most people who against the bill were just wondering why it needed to be done in the first place? What is wrong with the current system? Was the entire issue about people disregarding the law and entering unposted lands?
NDGuy, here is what landowners hear every time sportsmen tell them the types of things you posted above,"hey, your property rights just aren't that big of a deal and your over reacting".

I want public lands to be public... but I also think we need to respect private lands as private. I've seen the sportsmen of the state marginalize the enforcement issues associated with trespassing, which exist and are not reflected in the popular statistics being thrown around. If all of these landowners worried so little about the game on their lands there wouldn't be near the "No Trespassing" signs that there are today. The only good reason for the law as it stands is because it is convenient for hunters.

The stubbornness of sportsmen to accept change (which I'd categorize as an ethically responsible change) has empowered some of these groups to engage and enrage their memberships. I'd wager that ND Stockmen's and Farm Bureau's memberships have gone up during the course of this debate and it is giving the fringe/fanatical side of their contingency a louder voice. We are feeding into their identity politics and that threatens a lot more than just our access to private lands.
 

Labman

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
120
Why? What is wrong with the PLOTS program?
So, some landowners feel that since they didn’t get their way that the only recourse is to take it out on hunters and “lock them out” They even started a Facebook page which now has a whopping 500 likes. This is pretty much what happens every time the issue comes up and gets defeated. With the internet and social media it seems to get more attention. When the deer are in the haystacks and they want them thinned out I hope the sportsmen reciprocate.
 

sschultz

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
112
Location
SKOL
unfortunately this bill was intended for private property rights, not hunting. So, now the landowners get the shaft. The lockout movement has started statewide, myself I am pulling my ranch out of PLOTTS and putting the signs back up and locking the gates.
Sounds like I'm mad I'm taking my toys and leaving
 

NDGuy

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
127
NDGuy, here is what landowners hear every time sportsmen tell them the types of things you posted above,"hey, your property rights just aren't that big of a deal and your over reacting".

I want public lands to be public... but I also think we need to respect private lands as private. I've seen the sportsmen of the state marginalize the enforcement issues associated with trespassing, which exist and are not reflected in the popular statistics being thrown around. If all of these landowners worried so little about the game on their lands there wouldn't be near the "No Trespassing" signs that there are today. The only good reason for the law as it stands is because it is convenient for hunters.

The stubbornness of sportsmen to accept change (which I'd categorize as an ethically responsible change) has empowered some of these groups to engage and enrage their memberships. I'd wager that ND Stockmen's and Farm Bureau's memberships have gone up during the course of this debate and it is giving the fringe/fanatical side of their contingency a louder voice. We are feeding into their identity politics and that threatens a lot more than just our access to private lands.
Again outside of the convenience of not having to put up signs, what does the bill change? Landowners still have their rights and can post their property, the entire issue seems to stem from feeling like they shouldn't have to post their land. I would be 100% fine with a portion of my license going towards purchasing and planting signs for landowners that want them.
 

pointingdogsrule

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
2,528
Location
northeast Iowa
Just came from North Dakota and talked to a county engineer. Something I did not realize: you can drive (walk,) a section line in the state. It is legal as long as it's a section line. Wierd.
 

smalls

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
1,872
Location
red river of the north
Again outside of the convenience of not having to put up signs, what does the bill change? Landowners still have their rights and can post their property, the entire issue seems to stem from feeling like they shouldn't have to post their land. I would be 100% fine with a portion of my license going towards purchasing and planting signs for landowners that want them.
I'll agree 2315 was a crummy bill (I am 100% opposed to any database) and the sponsor politicians were quite underhanded in how they moved it around the session.

I think what needs to change is the current philosophy about who is responsible in determining access. Currently, a landowner/tenant has the active role in order to prevent someone from entering their ground by purchasing and placing signage. The current system is already an ambiguous issue with rules relating to signing/dating as well as the differences between how LE sees trespass and how G&F sees trespass. We already have a system that makes it very difficult to prosecute someone for trespass violations if they are determined to fight them. I don't see it as unreasonable to place that burden, to secure access, on the person seeking access. You use the word convenience, which is a great term to involve in this discussion because the sole objective to resisting change is to continue granting the greatest convenience to sportsmen. You say you want stiffer trespass penalties... a change to a system that makes trespass a black and white issue will do more to help the enforcement on trespass citations more than anything else we can do. It's a tough pill to swallow as it will certainly make activities like waterfowling more difficult, but I think its the right thing to do.
 

Schism

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
192
Location
ND
I'll agree 2315 was a crummy bill (I am 100% opposed to any database) and the sponsor politicians were quite underhanded in how they moved it around the session.
The above quote is what persuaded me from either supporting the bill or remaining neutral, to actively engaging against the bill. When politicians and special interest groups utilize shady political tactics and make back room deals my senses go up and I become skeptical. If SB2315 (or similar bill) is the right thing to do then I would hope the legislators would be more transparent and sell the bill to the ND citizens via honest means.

The reasons given as to why the bill was needed continually changed and the bar was often moved for what the proponents of the bill would accept. The only hammer in the House version of SB2315 placed all responsibility for compromise on the sportsmen and didn't require any give by the landowners. Finally, after watching hours of legislative floor debate, the only legislators using derogatory and divisive language were those in support of SB2315. Examples include chiding hunters for conservation and wetland easements, threatening to block access to all private land and making sure there are no mule deer remaining on public lands, and calling hunters who follow the current law, "illegitimate."

All the sportsmen I know respect private property rights and value their relationships with private landowners. I believe a compromise can be achieved but need to let emotions settle and take a break from the issue for a bit. A multi-million dollar online database is a joke and I don't support one in any way, shape, or form. We need better representation, but deserve the representation we have since we voted for the clowns. Vote them out or expect more of the same next session.
 

NDGuy

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
127
Finally, after watching hours of legislative floor debate, the only legislators using derogatory and divisive language were those in support of SB2315. Examples include chiding hunters for conservation and wetland easements, threatening to block access to all private land and making sure there are no mule deer remaining on public lands, and calling hunters who follow the current law, "illegitimate."
Exactly this just go read the comments on the ND Lockout FB page.
I'll agree 2315 was a crummy bill (I am 100% opposed to any database) and the sponsor politicians were quite underhanded in how they moved it around the session.

I think what needs to change is the current philosophy about who is responsible in determining access. Currently, a landowner/tenant has the active role in order to prevent someone from entering their ground by purchasing and placing signage. The current system is already an ambiguous issue with rules relating to signing/dating as well as the differences between how LE sees trespass and how G&F sees trespass. We already have a system that makes it very difficult to prosecute someone for trespass violations if they are determined to fight them. I don't see it as unreasonable to place that burden, to secure access, on the person seeking access.
There are ways to tighten up laws concerning punishment without just flipping the switch. That was my whole point, and I would love to see the stats on this actually being a major problem vs a few extremely pissed off parties. I know a lot of people involved in the AG industry and I have never heard of someone complaining about the issues presented in this bill. I'd bet the numbers aren't there and it's a few people with a LOT of money pushing this.
 
Top