North Dakota
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Joined
·
33,467 Posts
We've made a trip to MN that last few years and can see SD from where we hunt... But I got nadda on ND.
We are up there for the early season and if the local birds haven't pushed out, we do well. This year we timed it wrong and missed the local birds and the northern birds hadn't moved in yet.
We are up there for the early season and if the local birds haven't pushed out, we do well. This year we timed it wrong and missed the local birds and the northern birds hadn't moved in yet.
Joined
·
3,885 Posts
We hunted out of Tuttle, ND for a few years until the landowner of the ranch we were staying on passed away.
It's about 30 miles NW of Medina but we did the majority of our hunting NE of Tuttle and never got down around Medina.
Anything in particular you're looking for info on?
It's about 30 miles NW of Medina but we did the majority of our hunting NE of Tuttle and never got down around Medina.
Anything in particular you're looking for info on?
I have hunted the area south and east and NE of there since 94 with a few years off here and there. Did not go last year. There is a big refuge south though most of the big ruges and duck concentrations are SE of there. Your big concern is going to be the new tresspass law that is just coming out of committee as of last Friday. Still some details, but ND will go to permission must be obtained before hunting. Used to be un posted and you could hunt. Just like MT was until 95 or so. This will change things in a huge way. Most of the good Mallard hunting is field hunting with scouting in the evening and hunting the next morning. The roost water that is accessible is shot off pretty quick. Landowner permission can be tough, one of the guys I hunt with has over 10000 acres and both the other guys we hunt on have 15+. Tough to find them if you don't have their number! IDK the good days might be over for freelancing.
Sounds like the vote on SB-2315 will be this tuesday, tomorrow. Very contested bill, similar to what went on with ag boards approval needed for any land bought by conservation orgs that passed a few years ago. WPA's and GPA's took a big hit on that one.
Naz was in the witness protection program or something of that nature last I heard
Joined
·
5,522 Posts
No but I could use some experience
Joined
·
43,378 Posts
I think the oil boom screwed it up, up to a few years ago it wasn't too hard to get permission.
Joined
·
43,378 Posts
We always hunted pot holes, usually hunt in the morning scout in the afternoon.
Oil boom did not help lately, But that affected mostly the west river and river grounds. The bill was pushed by pay hunting and outfitter interests. Pretty typical. We are losing the democratic model of hunting and conservation. Saw it happen in SD. Spent all weekend reliving good times with a buddy who was a partner in a farmhouse several of us owned just north of LEHR. We paid 5g for a place in '96 and hunted out of it for 10 years. The MN and WI crowd showed up heavy along with the guys with trailers and stickers on the side and overran the place. Nothing was ever posted before 2004 or so. Some of the biggest deer around were there as well if you could draw a tag. A bunch of WI guys got caught last couple of summer with hundreds of Walleye over the limit out by Foreman and did not do any favors for anybody. Slobs rarely consider the long term consequences of their actions. The real tragedy of this law is it will shut off some of the best walleye and perch fishing in the country.
![Tire Wheel Vehicle Motor vehicle Automotive tire]()
Check out Daves rig he is in NEB right now headed to ND through the blizzard on his way to Kodiak. I never hunted west river except for Phez so IDK.
It got pushed to AG committee they pushed it to today, They did not figure they had enough votes to pass, and heard the protests of the pipeline also had something to do with arguments. Here is an article on it. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/lo...410dad5.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1
They are supposed to vote today
They are supposed to vote today
Joined
·
66,381 Posts
Best I can tell they just finished amending the bill and havent voted yet
Stole this from another guy, but he explains it better.
It is an email from Bill Antonides, a retired SD wildlife biologist, warden, and outdoor writer for Dakota Country magazine. It was his reply to my query of how the no trespass law in SD has worked o
"I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible, the short answer being the trespass law in SD had a profound effect on fishing (and trapping) access, as our law refers to all three activities. I have to look up a couple of laws to see which came first, but we also have a vehicle trespass law. A person cannot drive on private land with any machine or device, including bicycles and horses, for any reason without permission from the landowner. Just keep this in mind as it substantially impacts fishermen.
Also, the recent law you refer to was the privatization of non-meandered waters. All surface (and underground) waters, by law and supreme court decisions over the past ~140 years, belong to the people. If a person could legally access any water, they could use it for commerce and for recreation such as fishing and fowling. The ownership of the land below the water did not greatly impact the use of the water over the land. Exceptions reserved for the exclusive use of the landowner include mining, milling, ag and domestic uses. A person could not, for example, pump water from a wetland to water his own livestock or irrigate his land if he did not own the land underneath the water. However, he could hunt, fish, trap and otherwise recreate if he legally accessed the water by means of section lines, improved highways, or water attached to but not owned by the “offended” landowner. (Navigability of the particular water also enters into the mix, but federal and state definitions are not the same and would unnecessarily complicate this particular discussion.)
SD decided to ignore territorial law (look up the Desert Land Act, which applies to ND), state law, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the good of the people as a whole and gave access (but not ownership) of the public water over private land exclusively to the landowner. In essence, our legislators determined that publicly owned water should be treated like privately owned land. This will happen in ND, but not immediately.
First, as you indicated, fishing and other recreational uses will be added to the new ND hunting trespass law. The new law is not simply a foot in the door; it throws it wide open and keeps it that way. What happened here will happen to you; shore fishermen will be immediately impacted, as they will be limited to fishing from a 66 foot wide swath of shoreline on roads that have easements for public access, which includes all section lines, improved or not. Fishermen will no longer be allowed to wander the shoreline in search of a good fishing spot. Again, we are referring to non-meandered waters (publicly owned waters over private lands). You will simultaneously see a large number of permanent road closures (vacations), all supposedly “for the safety of the public, but in reality designed to limit access to hunting, fishing, etc. Even on good roads, parking will be outlawed near water to prevent fishing, under the guise of allowing farm machinery to pass uninhibited.
Next, non-meandered water will be privatized, and this is where you will really see the impact on fishermen. Although SD requires marking of closed waters, it is not as simple as painting lines on a highway. It becomes even more confusing when numerous landowners own parcels of land under a lake, or the non-meandered portion of the water extends into the meandered portions (public water over public land). Some landowners may allow fishermen, while others don’t. A landowner who does not allow fishing must provide a clearly marked “no wake” travel lane to open waters. “Clearly marked” no trespass zones and travel lanes on dozens or even hundreds of waters? I’m sorry, but it is my opinion that anyone who values their hunting and fishing rights and a clean arrest record will or should stay off these lakes no matter how good the fishing.
In time, the requirement for marking will be dispensed with. Some landowners already claim it is too expensive to post dry land. They will find that the time and money required to mark waters which fluctuate between fluid and ice are vastly higher than hanging signs on posts along a road, and much less precise. The law will ultimately be changed so that users will be required to work from maps downloaded over the internet. Good luck with that.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but all sportsmen and women need to stick together, as what happens to one group will surely happen to the next. SD laws will be a blueprint for ND. In the long run, there are only a very few winners, those with land or the ability to pay for access. In my experience, payment can be in the form of extravagant amounts of cash or in political favors. Most members of the general public do not have the resources to provide either.
Finally, sportsmen should listen to valid complaints from landowners, and act on them. Do everything we can to reduce littler, avoid invading the landowners privacy near homes and outbuildings, don’t tear up wet roads and fields with our equipment, and in general treat the land how we’d treat our own.
Good luck, please keep me posted, and feel free to share my comments.
Bill Antonides "
It is an email from Bill Antonides, a retired SD wildlife biologist, warden, and outdoor writer for Dakota Country magazine. It was his reply to my query of how the no trespass law in SD has worked o
"I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible, the short answer being the trespass law in SD had a profound effect on fishing (and trapping) access, as our law refers to all three activities. I have to look up a couple of laws to see which came first, but we also have a vehicle trespass law. A person cannot drive on private land with any machine or device, including bicycles and horses, for any reason without permission from the landowner. Just keep this in mind as it substantially impacts fishermen.
Also, the recent law you refer to was the privatization of non-meandered waters. All surface (and underground) waters, by law and supreme court decisions over the past ~140 years, belong to the people. If a person could legally access any water, they could use it for commerce and for recreation such as fishing and fowling. The ownership of the land below the water did not greatly impact the use of the water over the land. Exceptions reserved for the exclusive use of the landowner include mining, milling, ag and domestic uses. A person could not, for example, pump water from a wetland to water his own livestock or irrigate his land if he did not own the land underneath the water. However, he could hunt, fish, trap and otherwise recreate if he legally accessed the water by means of section lines, improved highways, or water attached to but not owned by the “offended” landowner. (Navigability of the particular water also enters into the mix, but federal and state definitions are not the same and would unnecessarily complicate this particular discussion.)
SD decided to ignore territorial law (look up the Desert Land Act, which applies to ND), state law, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the good of the people as a whole and gave access (but not ownership) of the public water over private land exclusively to the landowner. In essence, our legislators determined that publicly owned water should be treated like privately owned land. This will happen in ND, but not immediately.
First, as you indicated, fishing and other recreational uses will be added to the new ND hunting trespass law. The new law is not simply a foot in the door; it throws it wide open and keeps it that way. What happened here will happen to you; shore fishermen will be immediately impacted, as they will be limited to fishing from a 66 foot wide swath of shoreline on roads that have easements for public access, which includes all section lines, improved or not. Fishermen will no longer be allowed to wander the shoreline in search of a good fishing spot. Again, we are referring to non-meandered waters (publicly owned waters over private lands). You will simultaneously see a large number of permanent road closures (vacations), all supposedly “for the safety of the public, but in reality designed to limit access to hunting, fishing, etc. Even on good roads, parking will be outlawed near water to prevent fishing, under the guise of allowing farm machinery to pass uninhibited.
Next, non-meandered water will be privatized, and this is where you will really see the impact on fishermen. Although SD requires marking of closed waters, it is not as simple as painting lines on a highway. It becomes even more confusing when numerous landowners own parcels of land under a lake, or the non-meandered portion of the water extends into the meandered portions (public water over public land). Some landowners may allow fishermen, while others don’t. A landowner who does not allow fishing must provide a clearly marked “no wake” travel lane to open waters. “Clearly marked” no trespass zones and travel lanes on dozens or even hundreds of waters? I’m sorry, but it is my opinion that anyone who values their hunting and fishing rights and a clean arrest record will or should stay off these lakes no matter how good the fishing.
In time, the requirement for marking will be dispensed with. Some landowners already claim it is too expensive to post dry land. They will find that the time and money required to mark waters which fluctuate between fluid and ice are vastly higher than hanging signs on posts along a road, and much less precise. The law will ultimately be changed so that users will be required to work from maps downloaded over the internet. Good luck with that.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but all sportsmen and women need to stick together, as what happens to one group will surely happen to the next. SD laws will be a blueprint for ND. In the long run, there are only a very few winners, those with land or the ability to pay for access. In my experience, payment can be in the form of extravagant amounts of cash or in political favors. Most members of the general public do not have the resources to provide either.
Finally, sportsmen should listen to valid complaints from landowners, and act on them. Do everything we can to reduce littler, avoid invading the landowners privacy near homes and outbuildings, don’t tear up wet roads and fields with our equipment, and in general treat the land how we’d treat our own.
Good luck, please keep me posted, and feel free to share my comments.
Bill Antonides "
Joined
·
43,378 Posts
Doesn't sound promising :banging:
Joined
·
93,230 Posts
Fail
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
