Selected Articles from the LAND Newsletter
HUNTER ACCESS LAWSUIT
By Chuck Damschen, LAND Past President, as submitted to Fargo Forum
Dear Editor:
I write in reference to the May 9, 2004, Forum editorial addressing the “hunter access lawsuit” and related issues. As an ex-officio director and past president of the Landowners Association of North Dakota (LAND), I would like to offer another perspective.
Perhaps Judge Hagerty’s decision has legal merit, but the lawsuit brought by Rep. Froelich certainly addresses the concerns of many landowners in North Dakota.
The importance of protecting property and property owners’ rights is evidenced by the priority with which it is addressed by the writers of the ND Constitution. Article 1, entitled DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, states in Section 1: “All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.”
Section 16 of Article 1 states in part; “ Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having been first made to, or paid into court for the owner…”
The recently adopted amendment which your editorial cites makes no reference to the repeal of these declared rights nor does it address where hunting will take place. Had this been the intent of the amendment you can rest assured that LAND would have actively opposed its ratification.
Ownership of property implies a number of rights, one of which is certainly control of access, whether it be on urban or rural lands. If the courts won’t confirm this and a small group of usurping zealots insist on questioning the issue, perhaps the Legislature will address it. If so, the climate may be much more favorable for an “all lands posted” law, given the attitudes of some sidewalk outdoorsmen who testified on out-of-state license limits last session.
