North Dakota access is in jeapardy please help

[Lazy Ike]

The is also a bill to turn Fed. land along the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea over to the state where it could be transfered to private ownership. (HB 1428) Some of this is good quality public hunting land.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/n...ifRpGWu0nM#/68

[bobman]

please take the few minutes to send the email to the politicians and let them know

I am worried about the future if this passes. It is going to be a different world down the road. Farms are getting larger and people that live out of state are inheriting land that is being rented to these large farms. It will be very hard to get a hold of someone who is farming over 10,000 acres and working hard in Oct. to wrap up their harvest. They even farm land 20-30 miles away from where they live. People don't answer phones any more without knowing the number calling. Unlike SD ditches are not automatically open to hunting.

The people who I have permission to hunt from are not young. In fact one recently passed away. Without access to unposted land the future looks pretty murky as far as hunting opportunities go.

[Altillathedak]

Both of these bills are a big deal. Make your views known to the legislature.

[BRITTMAN]

It is a much bigger deal for ND waterfowl hunters. I would say 97% or more of decent private land pheasant cover is posted. Might be in-part because ND whitetail and ND pheasant cover are largely the same.

Still a bad trend for ND ... especially it's residents.

[A5 Sweet 16]

Really not trying to stoke any fires here. Just thinking about the situation after following it here & in the ND section. I've never hunted in ND. For hunters, the benefit of the current law is painfully obvious. I can see that for landowners who truly don't care whether people hunt their land, not having to answer the door/phone during Sunday lunch might be handy. But how many of those people are there...really? Don't most people probably want to at least know that there are people on their land with guns? I suppose if the answer is yes, they post their land. Doesn't seem like a big deal. But why should they have to go through the trouble? I'm sure glad I don't have to post my house as being off limits to others without permission. I mean....it's MY house. Laws are laws & we know how the legislative process works. And usually, that's a good thing. I have no idea if this is a case of somebody with an axe to grind trying to fix something that's not broken. But it seems to me that the people who should have the most say in this are the landowners. Hunters, specials interests, commercial outfits, etc. obviously deserve to be heard. But at the end of the day, it belongs to the landowner. If you want the law to remain as-is, I'd persuade landowners who feel the same way to make themselves heard. Either way, though, it's obviously one of those slippery slope situations.

[jackrabbit]

Really not trying to stoke any fires here. Just thinking about the situation after following it here & in the ND section. I've never hunted in ND. For hunters, the benefit of the current law is painfully obvious. I can see that for landowners who truly don't care whether people hunt their land, not having to answer the door/phone during Sunday lunch might be handy. But how many of those people are there...really? Don't most people probably want to at least know that there are people on their land with guns? I suppose if the answer is yes, they post their land. Doesn't seem like a big deal. But why should they have to go through the trouble? I'm sure glad I don't have to post my house as being off limits to others without permission. I mean....it's MY house. Laws are laws & we know how the legislative process works. And usually, that's a good thing. I have no idea if this is a case of somebody with an axe to grind trying to fix something that's not broken. But it seems to me that the people who should have the most say in this are the landowners. Hunters, specials interests, commercial outfits, etc. obviously deserve to be heard. But at the end of the day, it belongs to the landowner. If you want the law to remain as-is, I'd persuade landowners who feel the same way to make themselves heard. Either way, though, it's obviously one of those slippery slope situations.

I agree 100% with everything you stated. From your 3rd sentence to never having hunted ND, clear through the last sentence. As great as it is for sportsman, the landowners are the landowners.

[Jack L]

The is also a bill to turn Fed. land along the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea over to the state where it could be transfered to private ownership. (HB 1428) Some of this is good quality public hunting land.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/n...ifRpGWu0nM#/68

How is the state legislature going to turn Federal land over to the state? They don't have that authority.

[BRITTMAN]

It is about tradition and this tradition runs deep in ND. Those that have not hunted in ND would not understand. In fact unless you are a resident and grew up in ND, you may not truly understand. It is not difficult to post in legal post land to no hunting in ND. On enclosed fenced property one must only post on the gated access points. General ag land requires a sign every 880 acres (half mile). A square mile of land would only require eight signs. Many landowners that really want to keep people out or have leased their land use permanent metal signs.

Further it is illegal to hunt unharvested crops and it is illegal to hunt within 1/4 mile (440 yards) of occupied buildings (premises) with out permission of the landowner.



Regarding traditions this is no different with ditch hunting in SD. ND does not allow ditch hunting adjacent to posted land since the landowner actually owns the land to the middle of the road. The easement allows travel and utilities, but little else. Minnesota has an open trespass rule (posting mandatory to prevent access). The difference is ... in MN the rule only pertains to woodlands. Ag land is exempt and does not require posting to prevent access.

This is no different than the public waters definition in Minnesota (very pro fisherman / hunter):

Public waters are not determined exclusively by the proprietorship of the underlying, overlying, or surrounding land or by whether it is a body or stream or water that was navigable in fact or susceptible of being used as a highway for commerce at the time this state was admitted to the union.

Minnesota Statute 103G.005, Subdivision 15a
Public Waters Wetlands means:
All types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands as defined in United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), not included within the definition of public waters, that are ten (10) or more acres in size in unincorporated areas or 2.5 acres or more in incorporated areas.

The fight on what is public water and what is private water has been ongoing in many states also. Montana being the state getting most of the press.

[BRITTMAN]

How is the state legislature going to turn Federal land over to the state? They don't have that authority.

Fairly sure this is being set up to be ready for the Federal Government land sale / transfer ... if / when it occurs. This is an issue across the west.

[BRITTMAN]

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

http://www.trcp.org/

Capture.PNG