Interesting test of the law in ND......

[Dean Parisian]

Jan 25 2009 12:00AM

In the North Dakota legislature a bill is currently being considered that would prevent property owners from selling hunting rights to their property to other individuals. Since the 2007 legislature there has been a temporary ban of this practice in place, and this permanent ban has just passed the House by a vote of 69 - 21.

Many in North Dakota seem to think this ban is a good thing in that it will, in their opinion, keep land open to ?common man? hunters who can't afford to buy hunting rights for themselves. But the North Dakota Policy Council notes that the ability of the ?common man? to hunt is not a good enough reason to impugn property rights.

Proponents have several rationales for restricting the property rights of landowners in this manner. For instance, USA Today reported in September that Rep. Chuck Damschen, who supports the ban, stated, �A permanent sale of the right to hunt a parcel of land �affects every future landowner of that particular piece of property from then on. It really strips your ownership rights.��

He is right, of course, that selling the hunting rights to a parcel of land would affect future owners of the land, but how is this different from any other easement? And how exactly does the voluntary sale of an easement strip ownership rights? It seems that in a sort of Orwellian twist, banning citizens from using their property in ways they might deem beneficial, such as selling the hunting rights, is now called �protecting ownership rights�.

In fact, even if HB 1045 becomes law, the state will still allow the leasing of hunting rights and the Game and Fish Department�s PLOTS program will continue to be lawful. It is true that leases are temporary in nature, but they can run for many years, so couldn�t this cause the same problems for future owners of land? The answer should be apparent. Diligently checking the title before purchasing land is all that is necessary to prevent problems.

Proponents allege additional problems with the sale of hunting rights, however. Damschen continues, ?If I'm a farmer, and I've got a crop out there, and all of a sudden somebody comes and says, ?I've got hunting access rights, I'm going to be out in your grain field.? The problem there is obvious.�

Assuming this is a serious problem that can not be resolved between adults, isn�t this why we have courts? It is impossible to know for certain how a court would resolve this issue, but assigning primacy to either agricultural activities or hunting activities and adopting a liability standard solves the problem. The practice of severing mineral rights in western North Dakota, which is and will remain legal, can be an example of how this might work.

I'm not sure that severing ownership of mineral rights from the ownership of the land was ever a good idea, but as far as hunting rights go it seems to me that if a property owner wants to sell such rights permanently to another individual or organization that is his/her right as the owner of the property. And if future potential owners of that problem are concerned about such things they must simply do their due diligence in ensuring that the property they want to purchase is free of such encumbrances before purchasing it.

North Dakota is a state with a vibrant outdoor sports culture, but property rights are property rights. We cannot set a precedent whereby the rights of an individual are trampled by the wants of the majority.

Dean Parisian
Chippewa Partners
Team Muleys Pro Staff
http://chippewapartners.blogspot.com

 

[huntindude]

As a property owner I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to sell hunting rights permanently, what a great way to devalue your land in a huge mannor. leasing makes 1000 times more sense.

Still if a landowner is that stupid it should be their right to be stupid, I can't see making it illegal as the right thing to do.

 

[overton]

Well as much as I hate to say it I agree with dude on this one.


Ransom

 

[BomberBlackies]

Dittos with the Dude on this one.

 

[Deadred7o7]

Sad to say it but...lol

+1 Dude


Kyle
"If it moves shoot it again"

 

[202typical]

Dude you da man

 

[piper]

In many states with the vast majority of land being privately owned, the citizens have a slightly different take on property rights, thats probably why you see the ban. I can see where the permanance of hunting rights could make future acquisitions of property by conservation orgs or for public lands a problem, groups like RMEF, or the nature conservancy do buy outs all the time, one greedy hunting rights owner could ruin the ability to hunt publicly owned wildlife for many people, water rights are mess so are mineral rights, we don't need any more rights laws clogging up the courts, they have made the right decision, it doesn't hurt any one to just have the leases.

 

[NeMont]

Piper,

While can't imagine a landowner selling the hunting rights permanently to somebody can you explain why as a landowner somebody shouldn't have that right?

If mineral rights can be sold, and even fossil right then why not hunting rights? What makes hunting rights any less important then other rights?

I that is a pretty slipperly slope to start on. Maybe next the people of Nodak should include an "Only leasing to ND Resident clause as well". That way the "common man" could further cut out his competition from out of state.

I would be surprised if this is would be held as constitutional if it was ever tested. It seems like a taking.

Nemont

 

[piper]

I don't know, the whole concept is strange, imagine buying property and then having people trespassing and hunting on it any time they want, its like two separate ownerships, I don't see where you property rights fanatics are coming from, so you own the property, then lease it for as long as you own it, fine, I don't see where hunting rights have to be separately owned from the property, talk about a can of worms

 

[brownie]

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT, BUT I AGREE WITH H-DUDE. Private property is private property , and the landowner should be able to do what they want with their hunting rights. The only thing that seperates us from third world countries is our ability to own property.
Thanks, Doug.

 

[BigFin]

I agree with most here. Property rights are sacred, and if there is a willing buyer and seller, get out of the way and let capitalism run its course.

I do see a lot of future struggles for the guy who buys these rights. What if populations or conditions dictate a long-term season reduction, or reduced bag limits, or draw only tags, or .......

Suddenly, this owner of the hunting right will be screaming that he needs to be compensated for the loss of value in the rights he holds. Since the landowner does not own the wildlife, what the buyer of the hunting right owns is an access right, and the right to restrict access of others.

If anything, ND should focus on clarifying that the buyers of these rights take the rights subject to the state's responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.

Another case of big brother thinking he knows what is best for everyone.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[piper]

property rights are sacred, thats a joke, do you want me to give you a list of the things I can't do on my two acres in the county? yea I knew about many of them when I bought the land, and some restictions were made after the fact, but thats the way it is, there is new laws being made all the time either by majority rule,ie democracy, or by the county commissioners,ie the republic. Corner jumping is illegal here in wyoming, the property owners own the air space above their property, maybe they could sell the oxygen rights and make some more hard earned money that way?