North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
anyone else catch this....the county wants to close all non-posted land...This is right in the duck belt.

this fits hand & hand with FB's suit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
From the May 28, 2003 issue of the Benson County Farmers Press:

Benson County commissioners were intrigued by an amendment to a zoning ordinance in Nelson County which was passed by commissioners there. The amendment states:

"All lands in Nelson county, within the Agricultural District, shall be closed to all public hunting, of every kind and nature, unless the owner or tenant thereof shall post the land as 'Open to Public Hunting' and no one may hunt without specific written permission of the farmer/owner. The signs must be readable from the outside of the land, placed conspicuously and not more than every one-half mile (880 yards) apart on unfenced areas and at the gates on fenced areas."

Nelson County commissioners also changed the penalty section to make it a class B misdemeanor to hunt on land which has not been posted as "open to public hunting."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I've heard the state boys will not enforce the new county ordinance...this will create some conflict..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
This is about to become real messy. How many other counties will follow?

All of SW ND? It has traditionaly been the SW reps that introduce the no tresspass bills.

Stutsman County has often been defiant. The Stutsman county commissioners banned the USF&WS from buying WPA land for years because of swamp buster and Garrison Diversion. With the SA in their backyard - are they next?

Perry,
I find your comments interesting, but here in metro Twin Cities the township and city ordinances rule regarding hunting and discharge of firearms.

Many cities and townships limit, restrict, or forbid the discharge of firearms within their boundaries. This really can place a damper on the goose hunter and an occasional pheasant / turkey hunter.

NDJ,
May be the Nelson county commissioners and county deputies are looking for a new way to fill the county coffers. Speeding tickets @ $1 per mile over the limit does not bring in too much money on Hwy 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
PH

You're right about firearms discharge laws in metro fringe communities in the Twin Cities. (It does foul-up metro goose hunting.) However, I don't think the state has any laws that control firearms discharge. They leave that kind of control up to the cities and townships.

But, what I was referring to was zoning laws by local units of gov't that are in conflict with state laws. For example, Minnesota regulates the location of group homes, half-way houses, mobile homes, etc. The local units of gov't (the city you live in) can't make laws that are more restrictive than the state's with respect to certain regulated uses.

So, carrying this principle forward leads me to believe that if the state of North Dakota has trespass laws related to hunting activities, the counties, cities, and towns can't pass laws in conflict. That, of course, doesn't mean that a city can't ban hunting inside the city limits. They can certainly do that. But, that is different than the trespass laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Divergence from the subject at hand, but are you sure?

Seems to me that metro city councils often vote down medium density townhomes or high density units in their area. The subject of affordable housing across the metro is a heated topic - still it is locally controlled.

Look at the women trying to build the orphanage in the metro. She was tossed around like a ping-pong ball.

The state or other larger governing boards can attempt to withhold funds, matching grants, etc... to communities that do not follow the rules but I am very sceptical that this ever occurs.

Someone needs to look at the ND constitutionality of this county ruling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
I would think they can try - But only a county sheriff could arrest you or ticket you - I'm sure they think it will put teeth into their county judge & cases of landowners prosecuting a tresspasser ??? But if You had a good Lawyer & the Land was not posted - The State Law would over rule

It is just away for a case to be tried & then go on to the State Supreme Court.

I wonder if they voted on this (people of the county) ??? attempt to change / ignore State Law, in the County ??? Or is this an example of a few in the County (Can't be real hard to become a County Commishner in Nelson County) - trying to force their own agenda ???

- It is enough for me to never spend a nickel in Nelson County again until this is resolved.

I hope every hunter Resident & Non Resident - shows their disgust in things like this. But Noooo their will be plenty of NR's going there cause it's wet & lots of ducks.

Chalk this up to a weak Govenor & G&F Director & Confused Legislature & a real minority including G&O stiring the pot :eyeroll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
I would think that a county ordinance approach like the one described would be legal. For instance, states can make laws more restrictive than federal laws, but not laws that are less restrictive. I would think that counties can make ordinances more restrictive than state laws as well.

The problem would be with enforcement. If this is a county ordinance, than the county sheriff would have to enforce it, and it would probably be enforced just like any other trespass charge.

For most counties, I would think that the businesses that depend on hunter traffic (both resident and non-resident hunters) would fight this like crazy. Therefore, I doubt whether the real good hunting areas would pass similar ordinances.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Here are some tidbits which relate to Federal preemption of state law, but the same general principal will apply to State preemption of local law: Federal preemption of state law may occur if: (1) Congress explicitly preempts state law; (2) Congress impliedly preempts state law by indicating an intent to occupy an entire field of regulation; or (3) state law actually conflicts with federal law. Conflict pre-emption occurs where compliance with both federal and state laws is a physical impossibility or where state law 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. State law is not preempted merely because it differs from federal law; rather, inquiry is whether state law stands as obstacle to accomplishment and execution of full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Under this standard, the Nelson County ordinance should fail, because the two different presumptions about the trespass status of unposted ground conflict with one another (accessible w/o permission under state law, accessible only with permission (written, no less) under ordinance). As to an unposted piece of ground, compliance with both is a physical impossibility or at least an obstacle to accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives: you either need express permission or you don't.

BD, don't know where you hunt, but I wouldn't call Nelson a "slouch" hunting county. Because of relative water conditions and late summer storms, it offered some of the state's best waterfowling last year, and regularly does, depending on how much of a pounding it takes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
I think that all nelson county will do if this actually happens is lose a LOT of money for local businesses, and thus the businesses will fight back against the county to change it back to the way it were. look at how much people already complain about all the posted land, they arnt going to be where there is no open hunting grounds. Just like fetch says...."It is enough for me to never spend a nickel in Nelson County again until this is resolved." I absolutely agree with that statement and how many other people will follow the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Dan, thanks for the clarification. This whole mess is going to give a few folks some well deserved black eyes in their public relations. Not a very well thought out course of action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Dick:
You may be right that Nelson counties actions may not be very well thought out, however lets not forget the many actions and statements that have also not been well thought out to create this runaway train. I believe We have yet to see the backlash that will result from these actions and statements. :eek: I have many freinds that are farmers and I can assure everyone they are not at all happy about eveyones attempts to regulate THEIR property. There are alot of blackeyes in the state of North Dakota, Its time some people realize they are sporting one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I think this is the direction many on this board has taken us. If the resident of ND should have preferances in hunting in ND. Why not residents of a county over genral ND residence? This is one way to make it. Now guys traveling from the East to hunt in the west may have the difficulties of gaining access that some NR have. Paying for access is going to get more popular as these activities take place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
If this effort boils down to Nelson County landowners wanting to give preferential treatment to Nelson County residents, I will be really disappointed. If this is the case, then residents from the valley will be banned from the southwest, and similar backlashes will result in other parts of the state. This sort of intrastate bickering does nobody any good.

We sit and wonder, then, why so many landowners only grant access to non-residents (yes, I have seen the "Non-resident hunters only" signs in Sheridan County). Could it be that they are sick and tired of North Dakotans fighting among themselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I think it boils down to everyone's personal agenda.Some might have a bad taste in their mouth on issues while others could care less.I saw the "nonresident's only" signs long before the session.

It could be something as simple as guys from fargo, twin cities, local, etc. who hunts someones land and he does something to piss the landowner and suddenly a large population is lumped together.Reasons for this could highly vary.Next time you see one of these signs, stop and ask.I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
BigDaddy said:
Could it be that they are sick and tired of North Dakotans fighting among themselves?
Not to open up a huge can of worms,but am I wrong to say that all of the "problems" or issues or whatever you want to call it started when outside economic interests moved in? I wasn't here in the 70s, but arrived early in the 80s and that's the only path I can trace back that started all of this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,287 Posts
CityHunter said:
Not to open up a huge can of worms,but am I wrong to say that all of the "problems" or issues or whatever you want to call it started when outside economic interests moved in? I wasn't here in the 70s, but arrived early in the 80s and that's the only path I can trace back that started all of this.
I wouldn't forget about the big drop in grain prices either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,191 Posts
There ya go!!!! That is really what this is all about. M-O-N-E-Y!!! If the farmers were making what they made back then on a bushel of wheat we wouldn't even have anything to talk about. How boring would that be!! :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Chris hit it on the head when he talked about grain prices. If farmers were getting $6/bu for their wheat, I doubt whether we would be having many of these conversations. If landowners can't make it raising wheat or selling cattle, many figure that they can make it raising pheasants for people that are willing to pay for the privilege of shooting them. I disdain the commercialization of hunting, but it's supply and demand in a free market economy.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top