Burleigh County, ATVs, and the importance of private property rights.
Fix the broken windows and take that theory seriously.
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. — John Adams, in a letter to the Massachusetts militia on October 11, 1798
It is my opinion that as more Americans (and North Dakotans in particular) have reduced their connection to the land, their understanding of private property rights has diminished.
And also, in as nice a way as possible, we have a generation of parents who have passed this non-understanding to their wild and ill-behaved children in a big, destructive way.
Burleigh County has an ATV (OHV, side-by-side, etc.) problem.
Here’s the situation that led to several Burleigh County Commission meetings in which the public has been testifying.
Private landowners in Burleigh County have reported that ATVs (OHVs, ATVs, side-by-sides, dirt bikes) have been using rural ditches and the land next to them for recreational riding.
Landowners have claimed property damage and an emotional toll, along with associated costs, including rutting, erosion, trespass, and harassment.
ATV riders argue that ditch riding has been a long-standing practice in North Dakota, and that it’s allowed under state rules that provide access if riders recreate responsibly. (Key word: responsibly)
Landowners have gathered proof through photos and videos that show this current generation of riders, regardless of riders in previous decades, are some real a-holes, and they most certainly aren’t “recreating responsibly.”1
This problem has been building for years. In 2022, the issue was brought up for a vote on a county ordinance under a home-rule angle.
In March 2025, the state law changed (HB 1346) with strong bipartisan support, and amended NDCC 39-29-08(4) to allow counties to prohibit ATV use in areas they determined it was appropriate. Counties now had the power to ban riding in the ditches.2
Complaints in Burleigh County continued to grow, and the commission began discussing a countywide policy.
On February 17, 2026, a four-hour county commission meeting was held, during which ATV user groups and landowners testified. It was not pretty; the animosity between the two sides was clear.
On March 16, 2026, the county introduced a draft of an ordinance and a temporary moratorium resolution (Resolution 0020260). Burleigh County Sheriff Leben spoke to the commissioners and discussed working with ND Parks and Recreation on the matter. The moratorium would pause all ATV riding so the county could build a framework, which might include a complete ban along roads (uses home rule and the new state law to be more restrictive than the state), requiring a driver’s license instead of current 12-16 year age access, additional safety equipment and minimum engine sizes and machine width, and so on.
On March 2, 2026, a public hearing was scheduled, and the packed meeting was held on March 16, 2026 (this is the video I watched).
A variety of arguments against the ban that I have seen online and in these meetings via video include:
“We shouldn’t let a few bad apples spoil it for everyone.”
“When I was a kid I used to ride the ditches what’s the big deal.”
“It’s only a few property owners doing all the complaining.”3
“What, do you want kids sitting at home playing video games, or outside having fun?”
None of these is valid.
Emotional, sure. False dichotomy and poor logic, yes. But not valid.
I’m all for a trail system, I’m all for kids being outside doing fun activities that don’t involve trespass, I’m all for going directly to a landowner and asking permission and respecting the response, but when it comes down to it, between protecting recreation and private property rights, I’m for private property rights.
Please hear this: I am not against hunting. I am not against recreation on private land. But first, I am for private property rights. These do not have to be mutually exclusive, but will be if people behave like entitled jerks.4 Parents: if your child is disrespectful and you have no control over him and think handing him the keys to an ATV is somehow going to end well, never disciplining when issues arise, but instead joining in with him to fight the landowners and stand up for his disgusting behavior, you are the problem.
Property rights are the most important right to protect.
From them stem all other rights and moral behaviors of a true patriotic citizen. It is not your red MAGA cap or your lewd “FU liberal” stickers on your truck. 5 It’s respecting others and their property. If you cannot respect the property of another person, you cannot respect another person, and you cannot function in a nation that requires moral people, because you are immoral.
Because property rights are so key to freedom, you can see that those who fought the War of Independence died for property rights. The lack of respect for private property was a significant concern in the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
We have no right to recreate—especially on private property—given to us at all by the Founding Fathers. But we do have an obligation to respect and self-restrain. And no, the pursuit of happiness isn’t a blank check to be an a-hole.6
The Importance Of Property Rights
Ten years ago, North Dakota learned what it was like to have a riot on the prairie. The Dakota Access Pipeline protest introduced us to the problems we have with protecting landowners from those who desire to trespass, though I am sad to say that the legislature did very little because it is hard to stand for North Dakota landowners and against the in-and-out-of-state recreation and hunting lobby.7
I grew up on a farm in northeast North Dakota and I have watched my parents buy their farmland over and over and over and over, almost losing the farm save for taking out big loans JUST TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES so they could do it all again next year and go further into debt to basically lease their land, and never own it. I have also seen hunters get nasty online when you talk about property rights, saying that since farmers get money through government farm programs, the land is really the taxpayers’. It is at this point that I lead the conversation about the free public schooling their child receives, and how it is paid for by property taxes. I believe we are at sum zero.
My parents’ situation is not uncommon for farmers, particularly those who barely made it through the 1970s and 1980s. Not only were taxes an expense, but they had lawful responsibilities for maintaining their property, dealing with county weed and water boards, federal programs, and the like.
Unlike what the Founders envisioned, owning property is like being the citizenry’s milking cow. You get milked for all you got so the community can enjoy free public education, roads and infrastructure, fire and emergency services, parks and recreation, county and city government operations, and—wait for it—law enforcement and courts.
Property taxes are generally a direct funding mechanism for local communities rather than state-level programs. When you disrespect those who own property, you might as well gouge out your own heart before complaining that you can’t feel your toes.
In light of this, in which just one missed payment or a bad year of health expenses or crop failures has the potential to strip property owners of what they rightfully possess, I will always, first and foremost, stand with the rights of property owners above any other interest. 8
I expect elected officials and law enforcement to do the same, particularly since property taxes often help fund them. Their first concern ought to be protecting property rights.
Look at the list of what property taxes fund. Without property taxes, the government and the public will have to find a lot of other milking cow teats to suckle at. Therefore, the decision-making flowchart of community leaders must always start with how it affects property owners. That is your starting point from which all other decisions are made, because it is a key component of how this nation began. Property is what we all exist on, do business on, and grow on.
The protection of private property and the rights of property owners was one of the central concerns of the Founders’ understanding of human liberty and what a civil government is all about. Not recreation. Property ownership.
The sacred right to property ownership dates back to the Magna Carta. We tend to think of property rights as the government not being able to seize it, but there is more to it than that, even though the Constitution deals with government, not what fellow citizens do to landowners.
James Madison saw property rights as nearly identical to personal rights, and that protecting property rights was necessary to incentivize hard work and innovation. Property rights were seen as both a moral entitlement and a necessity for prosperity. Alexander Hamilton emphasized the need to protect private property from legislative overreach and the tyranny of the majority. Thanks to John Locke, property was treated as a core natural right by the men who founded this nation. Consider the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, in which owning property was considered an inherent natural right. Secured property held by individuals was the guardian of all the other rights.
Owning property gives us independence from others’ control (which is why I want property taxes to disappear; they negate this).
Property gives us the means to exercise other freedoms. Private property is where we have the presses, the buildings, the facilities, the ability to speak freely, share our ideas, worship and express religious beliefs, assemble with others, and even due process. Property isn’t just land; it’s our vehicle, our possessions. Without it, we have no resources to defend ourselves, no income, and so on.
Property provides a clear legal and moral boundary that restrains not just the government but also others around us from interfering with our lives or overreaching. No trespassing is the ultimate demand for free people.
We all expect these property rights to function for ourselves. It was astonishing, then, to watch the testimony of recreational groups and individuals who somehow seemed to think they could access someone else’s private property when there is no way they’d allow it on their property from anyone else in these broad terms.
It is also astonishing to me that it took so long to drop the hammer and say no to ATVs tearing up private property after all this time and these complaints.
Why Taking “Small” Property Crime Seriously Is The Most Important Thing To Do
I was watching a rerun of a cold-case show, where a young sheriff in a southern state ran on the promise to reduce serious crime by targeting property and nuisance crimes.
This seemed counterintuitive to people who thought the sheriff should have focused on “big” crimes like drugs and assaults. Who cares about trespassing, vandalism, petty theft, or bad neighbors who don’t control their dogs? Those were minor issues, nothing serious.
The sheriff persisted, and the result was a significant reduction in violent and drug-related crimes, with citizens quickly coming around to support his efforts. He became popular because he radically improved the quality of life for more people than he would have if he had focused only on “serious” crimes.
Why? It’s those “small” property crimes that frustrate people, that aggravate, and in some cases, explode into unfortunate violence after someone snaps. It’s these “small” crimes that affect more people than drug violence. It’s those small property crimes that are the seed or foundation for worse crimes down the road. Big crime and criminals often start small.
When law enforcement doesn’t take property crime seriously, thinking only drugs, assaults, and other crimes really matter, they will be behind the curve in overall crime prevention. Not only does targeting these foundational, smaller crimes make people happier and feel better about where they live, but you tend to find that by targeting them, you come across people with open warrants, or stop people (such as teenagers learning their parents don’t care if they harass property owners) from developing into worse criminals if they were allowed to go unpunished over time.
We’ve seen in recent years what happens when leadership in various cities across the nation refuses to punish criminals and refuses to take “small” property crime seriously. The crime worsens both in rate and severity.
There are a few ways to approach property crimes.
Situational Crime Prevention: This is the idea of opportunity theory. People without self-control, morals, or any restraint will use the opportunity to commit a crime whenever it presents itself. They might justify it (“Who leaves their door unlocked, unless they wanted to get robbed?”), but crime is crime. The idea here is to reduce the opportunity through measures like locks and surveillance, reduce the reward for the crime, reduce provocation, and remove any excuses (e.g., the door was unlocked). Unfortunately, the burden is on the one who would be the victim. It is up to them to make it hard to be victimized. This is what happens to landowners. In our backwards legal system, the burden is on them to inform people to stay off their land and to invest in fencing, cameras, etc.
Place-Based Policing: Mixing situational crime prevention with specific places where serious crimes are occurring has notable results. Studies have shown that increased police presence in areas with known issues further lowers property crime rates, even when all situational crime prevention factors are in place.9 By being proactive instead of reactive, i.e., focusing on areas with known issues instead of just reacting to complaints after the incidents have happened, crime is reduced in the long run. For example, the sheriff could assign a deputy to the road when the kids are riding ATVs and keep him there at random for an extended time, so the kids knew they had a chance of being called out, which would keep them from harassing landowners.
Broken-Window Enforcement. We’ve all heard of broken windows theory, the idea that vigorous enforcement of minor and property-related offenses helps reduce serious crime across the board. What this does is signal to the community what is normal and accepted. It also disrupts potential repeat (and escalating) offenders early, before they level up to more serious crime, putting real punishment in place early to dissuade them. Additionally, it makes public spaces safer and more stable while encouraging people to own, invest in, and improve their private property, knowing it will be protected. People know that if they are harassed, they won’t, for example, have to be paraded in front of the county at a televised meeting and mocked online for standing up for private property rights. Instead, law and leadership will respond immediately and firmly in favor of their Constitutional rights as property owners.
When the public sees that both property and violent crimes are taken seriously, there are real benefits.
The perceived risk is such that opportunistic offenders are stopped before they start, and repeat offenders back off. Police disruption early on prevents crime hot spots from forming.
When you deter property crimes, you reduce the likelihood of the serious and violent crimes that can come from that (confrontations that turn violent, setting up drug operations in an area no one seems to care about, etc.)
Public trust and cooperation grow, and the community is less divisive. (Though this ATV situation has been allowed to simmer far too long.)
All of this seems super obvious, but our laws and practices don’t follow it. Property crimes, particularly if they aren’t felonies but “only” misdemeanors, nuisances, or only require small fines, are easily dismissed by police and, sadly, by citizens.10 Some adults in these meetings almost seemed proud to dismiss the property damage as nothing to get worked up about.
That’s a mistake, and that’s where Burleigh County, good citizenship, the founding of our nation, private property rights, stupid entitled kids that mirror their parents, a decades-old protest and failed property legislature, and terrible parenting all collide.
The Case For Burleigh County Property Owners (Hint: They Are In The Right)
I firmly stand with the property owners and do not care if anyone is allowed to ride their ATV in a ditch ever again. You can call me Karen or something worse a thousand times over, and I do not relent.
These landowners are investing in and maintaining their property for the betterment of us all. They are following state and county ordinances and paying property taxes, yet their property rights are not being protected. They are paying the state what the state demands, but are not receiving the rule-of-law protection the state has promised in return.
The state and county are taking the fruit of the property (taxes) but not providing benefits. They are stealing from property owners, and, in that sense, they are absolutely infringing on their property rights. It’s taxation without representation because they collect taxes on time but do not protect property owners’ rights in a timely manner. Additionally, they are giving the affected property owners’ complaints the same weight as those of people seeking access to their property, even though the latter have no right to do so once a property owner says no.
It gets worse: they are imposing additional costs on property owners (cameras, fencing, mental stress, public shaming). They have removed the incentive for property owners to purchase, maintain, and grow their property. They have fostered division in the community by allowing this to drag on and become more heated.
What’s even worse is that many of these riders are teenagers. The first restraint is parents, then the law. But instead of having parents who lay down the law and demand good behavior from their progeny, we have parents siding with the kids against the landowners.
These are the “small” nuisance crimes that are going to cause someone to snap, and violence will happen. Some day, a kid is going to ride on the wrong property and get a final meeting with a shotgun. And that’s going to be on the parents and any legal wiggle room that was left open.
I have been on trips to the Black Hills and spent days riding ATVs, and yes, it is a blast. But we also did that on state-owned land, with permission and marked trails. We paid to stay in campgrounds and get access to some of these points. At no time did I think we had the right to traipse across private property. This is obvious to me.
I fear we have too many people in North Dakota who are uneducated about what the founding of this nation was all about, what personal liberty requires in terms of the social contract, and are too removed from a connection to the land, neither growing up on a farm nor having family on a farm, and therefore, having no respect for the landowner.
They do not treasure what it is to own a piece of the earth; they just want to grind it under their tires and flip the bird at anyone who says they can’t.
We Have Forgotten Self-Restraint Is Required, And Therefore, Deserve More Laws
I refer you to John Adams’ quote at the start of this article.
The reason we have too many laws is because we are a people who lack self control and morals, preferring to point the finger at our leaders instead of ourselves. We blame the President, we blame Congress, we blame the legislature, but the fact is, it’s the parents, it’s the individual.
It starts in the home.
It’s unfortunate that a few bad apples have spoiled the fun of riding an ATV in a ditch, but spoiled it they have. The parents and kids involved would not restrain themselves, and therefore, liberty has to be replaced with laws.
This is what happens when you let disrespect for other people and their property be normalized and justified. It starts when your kids see you endorse bad behavior, when they hear you bash landowners in conversation at home. It starts when immoral and unreligious people don’t realize they’re immoral and unreligious, and instead think they are good, patriotic citizens fighting for their rights.
There’s a fine balance between small government and personal liberty.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1819
The Founders repeatedly tied the idea of liberty to personal self-restraint.11
Being an American citizen and a patriot is not being selfish, but selfless. The government doesn’t have to restrain you, because you restrain yourself and your desires. No patriot plugged into the core of the founding of this nation wants lots of laws and rules, but that is what they’ll get more of if they cannot exercise self-control and self-restraint in themselves and teach it to their own children.
Yes, parents, I’m calling you out.
If you raised defiant, rebellious, mocking kids—and you did, if they are the ones behaving like this on those ATVs, disrespecting landowners—it’s on you. You are to blame. It is not the landowners who are at fault. You are.
Unfortunately, we are now a culture that is full of people who don’t realize they are immoral, ungovernable, selfish, and cannot behave respectfully without punishment and laws. If people will not self-regulate to respect the rights of their fellow citizens who make up the community, then pain must be used to force them to do so.
Train up your child in the way he should go. Otherwise, I hope he gets a felony trespass.
Pro tip: if you want to go on someone’s land, have the cojones to go up to the door and ask if you may, rather than behaving like a childish twit on social media and mocking anyone who asks you to respect private property rights.
Based on what I’ve seen in online discussions as well as the Burleigh County Commission meeting, the landowners have made the following claims:
They own the land to the middle of the road, including the ditch (true).
The riders have not asked for permission to ride on private property in the ditch. They have assumed right of access.
The riders are destroying the ditch by creating ruts, particularly in the mud.
Some riders are on video, captured by the landowner, spinning circles in mud and water at the end of their driveway, completely digging up and destroying the ditch and side of the driveway.
The riders so severely rutted an approach that crossed a ditch that the farmers who rented from the landowner couldn’t get their farm equipment into the field.
Property owners who have put up signs and fencing have been targeted for harassment by these riders, including revving engines at the property line to spit rocks back and trying to spook expensive barrel-racing horses.
Some riders have been actively mocking the landowners who have clearly stated they do not want them on their property.
Some riders have driven up driveways, out of the ditch, and torn up lawns while scaring the children who live there.
“The governing bodies of political subdivisions may adopt rules to regulate use of off-highway vehicles in areas under their jurisdiction. The governing body of a city or county may, by ordinance, regulate, restrict, and prohibit the use of off-highway vehicles operated in the city limits or within the county in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the city or county.”
Consider the man with the smirky, shit-eating grin who kept coming up to the podium during a Burleigh County hearing on the matter, trying to ascertain how many complaints the county had received, and if they were just the same people complaining over and over, as if quantity had anything to do with the veracity of legitimate criminal complaints.
This numb-nuts citizen apparently thinks crime prosecution and policing are only valid after a quota is hit. How many times does it take for a woman to get smacked around at home before it’s a real crime? How many times can a car be broken into before it qualifies for investigation? How many times can someone spray paint your garage door before a LEO shows up to file a report? I wonder how many times a brick through that dude’s front window, or someone tearing up his front yard, would be considered a crime? If he is targeted repeatedly with a property crime, are the police allowed to take it less seriously since the complaints keep coming from the same guy? What a moron. The problem is real, whether it affects 5 property owners or 50. These landowners are experiencing a real problem, and he’s diddling around with an abacus.
If you buy an ATV and only own a tiny in-town piece of property with a concrete driveway to use it on, and have no ability or plans to take it to proper trail systems, you may have made a bad purchase decision. Sorry. If you have the money to purchase such a machine, you have the money to transport it to the trail and recreation systems the state has created for those machines.
These state-provided trails include the Pembina Gorge State Recreation Area, the Roughrider OHV Trail, Turtle Mountain State Recreation Area, Kimball Bottoms OHV Area (“The Desert,” just south of Bismarck), Little Missouri National Grasslands OHV area, and other local spots and tracks, like the Missouri Valley Fairgrounds.
I have a red hat. I am MAGA, the real MAGA, not the Groyper MAGA. I voted for Donald Trump. I’m conservative. And I also consider myself a good, patriotic citizen in addition to that list, because yes, being a good, patriotic citizen is not connected to those political symbols and behaviors. Being a good citizen isn’t putting on a red hat, trolling the left on Facebook, waving a Gadsden flag, or listening to Toby Keith. It comes with self-restraint and careful thought.
If you have no respect for property owners in light of your own personal enjoyment needs, you’re no better than the people who burned down Minneapolis. You are advocating for the idea that you can screw other people’s private property rights when you want something, but by golly, people had better not mess with your property. If we were given the addresses of the people who think they and their children have the right to trespass on private property, I wonder how they’d feel if their homes, yards, or cars were damaged. This is no different from the far-left praising the George Floyd riots for burning down private property, but then getting upset when someone broke into their car.
Initially, in the Declaration, instead of “the pursuit of happiness,” the wording was to be “property.” It was changed to broaden the revolution’s appeal to people who weren’t property owners, encourage a broader understanding of human potential and flourishing, and to avoid endorsing slavery in any way, but the reality is that the founders very much understood property rights as key. John Locke wrote about natural rights as the rights of “life, liberty, and estate,” and his influence on the Founders is undeniable.
Everyone wants access to private land to have their fun, but very few volunteer to pay some of the property taxes when they come due. No one wants the government to control too much land. This is an impasse. Get rid of property taxes, and then we can talk.
I have found that most property owners can be reasonable if they are looped in, not lied to, not manhandled, and not coerced or threatened. If you show them respect and promise to respect their property, most people are decent. Unfortunately, too many people start with the assumption that they have the right to others’ property, and everything is combative and defensive right from the start. For example, these parents could have approached a landowner, spoken with them, and asked for permission. If the landowner said no, they should be respectful and honor that. But it’s possible the landowner might say yes (with guidelines), and you would form a good relationship and potential future access to the property.
There are some top-shelf d-bag property owners who ruin the lives of anyone who has to live next to them (e.g., piles of junk, not mowing or dealing with weeds, not keeping their animals on their property). City nuisance ordinances are designed to force people to be good property owners, yet another case of people who aren’t self-restrained will be restrained by force.
Ronald V. Clarke, “Situational Crime Prevention,” Crime and Justice 19 (1995): 91–150, https://doi.org/10.1086/449230.
In North Dakota, trespassing can be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Penalties range from 30 to 360 days in jail and $1,500-3,000 in fines for Class A or B misdemeanors, and up to 5 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000 for a Class C felony. In 2021, North Dakota law allowed electronic posting of land, but it was intended primarily for hunting. Law enforcement can issue a noncriminal offense citation and a fine to first-time trespassers on posted land, but further prosecution may still occur. Repeat trespassing and trespassing with the intent to commit a crime (such as vandalism of the property, including the ditch) can elevate the charges. Landowners are to post signs, use permanent fencing, verbally notify individuals to leave, or use electronic posting, while individuals who want to go on private property have only one legal way to do it: get permission from the owner or tenant. (Please note I am not offering you legal advice; you can look these details up yourself.)
We have the laws, but they are not being enforced, and the laws put the burden on the landowner to notify and prove trespass, which is difficult to do. Therefore, people have learned they don’t have to take them seriously.
See Federalist Paper #51, where Madison talks about human nature and government. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary…” Our limited system with its checks and balances assumes that citizens will exercise self-control and self-restraint.
In Washington’s Farewell Address, he warns that religion and morality are necessary to political prosperity because they restrain us from violating others’ rights.