New Private Land Ownership Bill Proposed in ND

[Brendan]

I can see it both ways.

On one side - it's private property. With that comes private property rights. Why should i have to post my land to keep someone off of it? And why is it so hard to get out and ask for permission?

Ot the other side - the landowner has every right to post it if he doesn't want people there, or ask you to leave. And it eliminates so much access in certain places that that lack of access becomes a huge impediment to hunting, and hunter recruitment, and thus the dollars that flows in for conservation...

I know here in the east it'd make a bad situation much worse when it comes to finding places to hunt.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Yes and politicians with pockets lined from them. Oil companies I am sure too.

I have never met a farmer who was not friendly and treated me with respect even if they said no. It's the loaded people living in the big towns or other states that are pricks.

Wow. As a farmer I’m appalled, for the life of me I cant see why a Landowner should be labeled in any fashion for not wanting to be burden with regulating trespass. If a house isn’t posted or have “x” amount of locks can you use it as your own?

I can’t image why the state is changing its laws after all the entitlement projections in this thread. So someone is a prick for not accommodating your requests...

 

[dirtytough]

Wow. As a farmer I’m appalled, for the life of me I cant see why a Landowner should be labeled in any fashion for not wanting to be burden with regulating trespass. If a house isn’t posted or have “x” amount of locks can you use it as your own?

I can’t image why the state is changing its laws after all the entitlement projections in this thread. So someone is a prick for not accommodating your requests...

I talked to a landowner that would rather it stay how it is. He says right now he has the right to allow trespassing or not allow it without any hoops to jump through. Instead they are going to take that right away from him. It really opened my eyes the way he explained it.

My problem with it is they are going to make it a PITA for both landowners and non landowners. Its going to cost the fish and game a ton of money. And its not improving anything.

 

[NDGuy]

So someone is a prick for not accommodating your requests...

No someone is a prick for treating people like garbage just for calling and asking to shoot some ducks on their land when they live 100 miles away.

 

[william schmaltz]

Wow. As a farmer I’m appalled, for the life of me I cant see why a Landowner should be labeled in any fashion for not wanting to be burden with regulating trespass. If a house isn’t posted or have “x” amount of locks can you use it as your own?

I can’t image why the state is changing its laws after all the entitlement projections in this thread. So someone is a prick for not accommodating your requests...

Please show me in this thread where a landowner has been labeled, people have shown entitlement to someone else’s land, or where anyone has called a landowner a “prick”? I’ve seen nothing but repeated respect for the landowner in all conversations on this matter. The conversation has mostly been about the negative effect of this law on hunter recruitment.

I own land. My parents own land. My extended family owns land. Lots of it. I can’t think of a single disrespectful moment associated with a hunter hunting any of that unposted land and I can’t think of any property owner locally who is appalled by the thought of this. I honestly cannot think of a single instance of someone complaining about hunter conflict associated with this open land policy. The state is not changing the laws. This is driven by the oil companies that have moved in and know nothing of our culture of looking out for our neighbors and “sharing the wealth”. Landowners and users alike respect the land and other people’s property here. These are small communities and everyone has an eye out for the next guy to make sure his neighbors land is respected and to make sure a fellow hunter isn’t painting a bad picture - this ain’t Texas (thank God).

The only thing appalling about the tone of this thread is your approach - and it is obviously not appreciated by this audience of people trying to protect a rich hunting heritage. Good day sir.

 

[KoolBreeze]

How are the liability laws there say if an uninvited hunter were to get injured on private property, is the landowner liable?

The law was changed in my state back in the mid-80s, all land is posted by default and you need written permission to hunt. Prior to that change, it was wide open and everyone I knew deer hunted with dogs. Hunters (including myself and my family) kept the roads hot mostly looking for dogs but you always had some idiots that got carried away and took shots near homes and such. Once the law was changed that stopped most of that. It also turned hunting leases into big business. Some hunters got left out in the cold for sure.

I don't live or hunt in ND, so it doesn't affect me, but I like the way it is here.

 

[Whisky]

I grew up in a posted state, I like it much better now that posted isn’t required. For the life of me I can see why you should have to go through the burden of saying this isn’t your land. If you want to open your land to the public then you should post it with a land access sign. The limited liability statues that go with access programs are a huge selling point also

ND century code protects landowners from people getting injured on their land.

 

[KJH]

Yep so post the land you don’t want people hunting, pretty simple and most landowners already do it and most follow it. You’ll have 99% of people respect it. Those that don’t won’t either way. Like others said, we in ND were all born and raised this way just like you were born and raised without it.

The whole issue for me is this isn’t an issue to begin with for most people I talk to. So why does it need to be changed? Small minority of people on both sides ruining it for all.

It doesn't need to be changed...

 

[Whisky]

How are the liability laws there say if an uninvited hunter were to get injured on private property, is the landowner liable?

Not liable per ND century code

 

[NDGuy]

or where anyone has called a landowner a “prick”?

In his defense I did say that rich city guys or people not living in ND that own land usually are pricks when you call them asking for permission. Just like there are some hunters that are pricks too!

Like I said it’s one thing to say no, it’s another to yell at someone over the phone over asking about shooting a duck.

 

[Schism]

Like I said, I just feel private shouldn’t be required to be posted, we don’t have to agree and I understand everyone is used to it. Quick question, do you think it’ll be hard to obtain access or permission to properties traditionally never posted?

I would assume the land owners that don’t want people on their property already post, so why not just ask permission?

Many landowners in the migratory bird flyway don't care about birds, and want to be left alone. When I first moved to ND from MT I learned real quick that land that wasn't posted, wasn't posted for a reason. Two examples:

1. Knock on a door of a farmhouse to gain permission to goose hunt on an unposted wheat stubble field. The lady who answered the door "politely" told me, "We don't post our land for a reason! I don't have time to answer the door all day long. I'm frying chicken for church!"

2. Find a posted field loaded with geese. See the name on the sign and recognize it immediately as a friend of a friend. I called him up and ask to hunt the field. His response, "Hey man! Yeah I posted that field for some other friends and now I know why we don't post our land. You are the eleventh person to call me today about that field, I'm busy hauling soybeans and don't have time to answer the phone all day. If you see birds on any other land that has my name on it, go ahead and hunt cause we don't post our land."

The current bill the OP is referring to is being pushed by the ND Stockman's Assoc and some other ag groups such as ND Farm Bureau. I don't believe it's in the best interest of the majority of ND residents, sportsmen, or landowners. 2018 ND Game and Fish statistics cited 54 trespass violations in over 100,000 hunters. Sportsman trespassing is not a significant issue in ND.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I talked to a landowner that would rather it stay how it is. He says right now he has the right to allow trespassing or not allow it without any hoops to jump through. Instead they are going to take that right away from him. It really opened my eyes the way he explained it.

My problem with it is they are going to make it a PITA for both landowners and non landowners. Its going to cost the fish and game a ton of money. And its not improving anything.

We went from posted to non posted, it simplied things in the long run. The new ND sounds like a crap show. I have put a bunch of my land into state access program, it’s marked to hunt via the program, also offered reduced liability.

Please show me in this thread where a landowner has been labeled, people have shown entitlement to someone else’s land, or where anyone has called a landowner a “prick”? I’ve seen nothing but repeated respect for the landowner in all conversations on this matter. The conversation has mostly been about the negative effect of this law on hunter recruitment.

I own land. My parents own land. My extended family owns land. Lots of it. I can’t think of a single disrespectful moment associated with a hunter hunting any of that unposted land and I can’t think of any property owner locally who is appalled by the thought of this. I honestly cannot think of a single instance of someone complaining about hunter conflict associated with this open land policy. The state is not changing the laws. This is driven by the oil companies that have moved in and know nothing of our culture of looking out for our neighbors and “sharing the wealth”. Landowners and users alike respect the land and other people’s property here. These are small communities and everyone has an eye out for the next guy to make sure his neighbors land is respected and to make sure a fellow hunter isn’t painting a bad picture - this ain’t Texas (thank God).

The only thing appalling about the tone of this thread is your approach - and it is obviously not appreciated by this audience of people trying to protect a rich hunting heritage. Good day sir.

re-read where I quoted him.

News flash I’m not in Texas. I’m a 7th the generation rancher/farmer going back to Spanish land grant, But to humor you Texas is also non posted state, with over a million hunters. I put a couple sections into my states LAP, it’s marked, and program provides maps to all OLAP in the state. Greatest program ever.

Very simple underlining principle, private property is private property, why does the Landowner have to be burden to accommodate you? And when he denies that ability he is a prick according to your body’s statement.

 

[cuerro viejo]

No someone is a prick for treating people like garbage just for calling and asking to shoot some ducks on their land when they live 100 miles away.

Sounds like you are calling because it was posted already. Someone getting irrated for you calling is understandable, I use to get 10 calls a week during season on a posted wetlands before they changed the laws, so put yourself in thier shoes a little. No excuse for them to be over the top but still understandable to a point.

 

[NDGuy]

So put yourself in their shoes a little. No excuse for them to be over the top but still understandable to a point.

I do put myself in their shoes, which again my main points were that this bill will do nothing to help anyone. Most people that don’t want people hunting their stuff already post it. Those that don’t care don’t post. So it’s taking an existing process and creating more loops to it without any real added benefits.

All this does is require more work by the landowner, hunters, and game and fish to essentially do the same thing we already do with no trespassing posters.

Even if it’s marked red (no hunting) or yellow (possible hunting with permission) people will still call and ask to hunt regardless. What is the real benefit here? The reality is that it makes the entire process more of a hastle.

If they are actually concerned about private property just make it all restricted access by default and work with landowners to mark land open to hunting similar to what Montana does with Block Mgmt.

 

[nodakian]

I don’t have anything profound to add, but as a resident I might as well add my two cents.

I don’t think petro interests are involved much on this since they primarily lease mineral rights. Not much land ownership. In fact, non famIly/ag corporations are very limited in their ability to own land.

I can see both sides. I’m not sure what serious problem someone is trying to solve via legislation. Probably a small interest group, silmilar to those pushing to end our Sunday shopping law. This looks like a solution looking for a problem.

In general, common law (court law) expects all landowners to actively defend their property from encroachment. That’s why we have laws about prescriptive rights and adverse possession, for instance. We build and maintain fences; it’s no big deal to add a No Trespassing sign every half mile, even around a stubble field.

It’s simple now. I say leave it alone and cut the legislative session short by a day or two.

 

[nodakian]

MT was like ND (for birds only, if I remember right) until the late 1990s when it changed to default no trespassing. I don’t know if it made a huge difference to most large owners in eastern MT, but it sure became a hassle for the rest of us for the same reasons mentioned here. It reduced hunting opportunities and concentrated hunters onto small pieces of public land. I gave up bird hunting after that.

Also, some landowners that leased state for ag thought the law required their permission to hunt the leased land. I damn near got in a fight with a guy who tried to run me off my public ground honey hole because of this.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I do put myself in their shoes, which again my main points were that this bill will do nothing to help anyone. Most people that don’t want people hunting their stuff already post it. Those that don’t care don’t post. So it’s taking an existing process and creating more loops to it without any real added benefits.

All this does is require more work by the landowner, hunters, and game and fish to essentially do the same thing we already do with no trespassing posters.

Even if it’s marked red (no hunting) or yellow (possible hunting with permission) people will still call and ask to hunt regardless. What is the real benefit here? The reality is that it makes the entire process more of a hastle.

If they are actually concerned about private property just make it all restricted access by default and work with landowners to mark land open to hunting similar to what Montana does with Block Mgmt.

I don’t disagree, why I said originally it sounded like a sh show. Why mentioned I grew up posted and now it’s an unposted state. I really like our LAP which is just like Block management. Everything is marked and maps provided online, also Incentive to improve land in wildlife favor. I also don’t get blown up with calls and I don’t have the stress of liability. Other hunters also police it pretty well since its walkin access only also.

 

[Oregon]

I have only one thing to add about this subject.
I have never met a nicer bunch of folks than farmers in NoDak.
If the land wasn’t posted, I learned quickly not to chase down landowner for permission. As mentioned above, those folks are BUSY during the first few weeks of October.
I’ve heard that before “that’s the reason I don’t post”.
On a few different occasions, after stopping by the farmhouse of a chunk of posted after watching a last light grind, I’ve been invited into the home for dinner!
Folks in the South claim their hospitality is unmatched.
Nothing compares to the fine folks of the upper Midwest. I could live there in a heartbeat if they had an Ocean and winter wasn’t 7 months long! Haha

 

[KJH]

Many landowners in the migratory bird flyway don't care about birds, and want to be left alone. When I first moved to ND from MT I learned real quick that land that wasn't posted, wasn't posted for a reason. Two examples:

1. Knock on a door of a farmhouse to gain permission to goose hunt on an unposted wheat stubble field. The lady who answered the door "politely" told me, "We don't post our land for a reason! I don't have time to answer the door all day long. I'm frying chicken for church!"

2. Find a posted field loaded with geese. See the name on the sign and recognize it immediately as a friend of a friend. I called him up and ask to hunt the field. His response, "Hey man! Yeah I posted that field for some other friends and now I know why we don't post our land. You are the eleventh person to call me today about that field, I'm busy hauling soybeans and don't have time to answer the phone all day. If you see birds on any other land that has my name on it, go ahead and hunt cause we don't post our land."

I've had very similar experiences. The few times I've stopped to ask permission on unposted land, they basically said "we don't want people coming onto our place to ask, so we don't post it. Just hunt it." or "Go ahead and hunt anything with my name on it for anything except deer or pheasants on opening day".

 

[KJH]

If there is any law to try get changed on ND, it should be that you can grab a case of beer or a bottle of bourbon at a grocery store or gas station without having to walk outside and then back inside a separate area and pay again!