Game warden runs into rock on a section line. Farmer in trouble

Pages

434 posts / 0 new
Last post
NodakAngler1's picture
NodakAngler1
Offline
Joined: 7/26/10

bacon Said:
 All I know is around here, if you wanted to drive 33 feet on either side of a section line trail, your truck would be wrecked within a mile. We have rocks. Granted not placed there, unless you want to sue the glacier that put them there. This sounds like a warden that thinks a $20 ticket is comparable to murder. Why go flying down a section line. Just wait at the trucks till the guys get back. 

This sounds like a warden, or a warden's administrator, who rather than accept responsibility decided to become the victim. Possibly a group reply by many to their representatives and to the N.D. G and F may help this farmer out.

John Browning=GENIUS
NDA Rocks!

Walleye Whisperer's picture
Walleye Whisperer
Offline
Joined: 12/7/09

 

Colt Said:

eyexer Said:

Colt Said:
I did learn one new thing in these 8 pages, there really is such an occupation as nuclear scientist.  I'll be damned, slap my ass and call me spanky.

you mean nuclear pharmacist?  nuclear gynocologist

Darn it.  Wasn't paying enough attention, I meant to type Nuclear Pharmacist.

You will be pleased to learn that this is no longer your fault.  Blame somebody else and file suit.

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

huntorride365 Said:This sounds like a warden, or a warden's administrator, who rather than accept responsibility decided to become the victim. Possibly a group reply by many to their representatives and to the N.D. G and F may help this farmer out.

I have a hunch...pollert cough

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

According to the interview this is being appealed to the NDSC 

Farnorth Said:

WellArmed Said:
I guess the judge or jury will decide whether the landowner is guilty.

Then we'll know for sure. 

He was convicted July 2, 2014.  Class B Misdemeanor.  $750 fine and $12,000 restitution.  Not sure what appeal rights he has or if he has any plans.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:

gst Said:
"trails" thru cropland are not considered established trails.

Who said anything about driving off the section line and through a standing crop?  Pretty sure it wasn't I.

Don't believe I said you were. Merely asked out of curiousity if those bitching about the farmer that "blocked" a 66 foot wide section line with a 3 foot by 4 foot rock would drive around a 200 foot slough over the 66 foot section line out into someone's planted field to get to where they wanted to go?
 
I would guess most would without thinking twice.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I sure hope your wrong about that.  I don't drive around even if there is a trail because I don't know if the farmer made the trail or someone with no manners made the trail.  If I knew the farmer did I would drive around.  
As far as standing crops thats a huge no no.  Some farmers sold access along the Pipestem.  They plant the access every year.  At first that angered me but then I thought perhaps it cost more in time and money to not seed that small strip.  Still I don't drive on it until it's again a very distinvuishable trail. 

gst Said:

Allen Said:

gst Said:
"trails" thru cropland are not considered established trails.

Who said anything about driving off the section line and through a standing crop?  Pretty sure it wasn't I.

Don't believe I said you were. Merely asked out of curiousity if those bitching about the farmer that "blocked" a 66 foot wide section line with a 3 foot by 4 foot rock would drive around a 200 foot slough over the 66 foot section line out into someone's planted field to get to where they wanted to go?
 
I would guess most would without thinking twice.

jokostel's picture
jokostel
Offline
Joined: 10/24/05

Pheasant 54 Said:
I wonder how many times the locals are going to ask this warden if he seen any rocks this fall when he is out checking people on the trails

Id just hand him a tub of Rocky Road ice cream... laugh my ass off and drive off...

I'm the devil's son..... call me young gun.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

jokostel Said:

Pheasant 54 Said:
I wonder how many times the locals are going to ask this warden if he seen any rocks this fall when he is out checking people on the trails

Id just hand him a tub of Rocky Road ice cream... laugh my ass off and drive off...

Ha!

Captain Ahab's picture
Captain Ahab
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/1/08

jokostel Said:

Pheasant 54 Said:
I wonder how many times the locals are going to ask this warden if he seen any rocks this fall when he is out checking people on the trails

Id just hand him a tub of Rocky Road ice cream... laugh my ass off and drive off...

Zing!!!

"Diligence is the mother of good luck."

"The constitution only gives people the right to pursue hapiness.  You have to catch it yourself."

"Well done is better than well said."

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

All by:  Benjamin Franklin.

"The solution to any problem - work, love, money, whatever - is to go fishing, and the bigger the problem, the longer the trip should be."

Author: John Gierach

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope your wrong about that.  I don't drive around even if there is a trail because I don't know if the farmer made the trail or someone with no manners made the trail.  If I knew the farmer did I would drive around.  
As far as standing crops thats a huge no no.  Some farmers sold access along the Pipestem.  They plant the access every year.  At first that angered me but then I thought perhaps it cost more in time and money to not seed that small strip.  Still I don't drive on it until it's again a very distinvuishable trail. 

gst Said:

Allen Said:

gst Said:
"trails" thru cropland are not considered established trails.

Who said anything about driving off the section line and through a standing crop?  Pretty sure it wasn't I.

Don't believe I said you were. Merely asked out of curiousity if those bitching about the farmer that "blocked" a 66 foot wide section line with a 3 foot by 4 foot rock would drive around a 200 foot slough over the 66 foot section line out into someone's planted field to get to where they wanted to go?
 
I would guess most would without thinking twice.

The point I am making is simple. Think a little bit.
 
Most section lines in farm country are not 66 foot wide strips of unplanted land. A lot of  townships that have the funds maintain their section lines now and then and the farmer farms up to the edge of the maintained road which may only be 18 feet wide to keep weeds from growing. Technically in violation of state law, but common sense says it is not a problem and it is a widely accepted practice.
 
In some cases farmers have planted over section lines to smooth out what was once an almost unpassable trail with the understanding it will likely get drove down. Most of the farmers I know that have done this would not make a big deal out of someone driving down that section trail thru their crop until someone starts bitching about them and turning them in for tearing up a rougher than hell prairie trail they (the bitcher)  may drive on twice a year while out hunting .
 
In the situation I described most farmers would not say anything about driving around the edge of a slough in planted crop to get down a section line trail. Until someone starts bitching about the rock pile 200 yards down the section line they have to drive around.
 
I'm betting the PR guy for the NDG&F would rather this had been solved differently.

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

Here's some good information;

http://www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/2009/Letter/2009-L-01.pdf

gst, from that you will find;

Section Line Right-of-Way – Requisite Width

The right-of-way’s full 66-foot width—with 33 feet on each side of the section line

sometimes be unavailable. A section line may mark the boundary between counties.

townships, and states, one of which may have closed the section line over which it has

jurisdiction. The section line may contain obstructions, limiting passage. And, because of

federal land title considerations, the right-of-way may not have attached on one side of the

section line, so the question arises whether it attached on the non-federal side. Is the

66-foot width a prerequisite to the existence of any kind of right-of-way?

The issue has arisen in South Dakota, which has a similar right-of-way law.

Dakota township sought to construct a road along a north-south section line separating

sections 28 and 29.

section 29 to a railroad long before R.S. 2477’s enactment in 1866,

that section 29 was not part of the public domain in 1871 when the Territorial Legislature

accepted R.S. 2477 by declaring section lines “public highways.” Therefore, the

landowner asserted that the right-of-way did not attach on the section 29 side of the

section line.

the right-of-way was not perfected in section 29 it would not be a full 66-foot right-of-way,

and, therefore, a right-of-way could not attach in section 28.

argument and held that section 28 was subject to public travel.

indicates “that the Legislature intended that the public should not have the right to travel

over a highway owned by it merely because such highway is of less width than the

maximum width allowed . . . .

whether the right-of-way could be less than 66 feet where the section line marked the

North Dakota-South Dakota boundary. He concluded: “[T]he fact that one side of the
65Although the North Dakota Supreme Court has not addressed this situation, our law isand width.”66 Fences can be built on section lines, though they are67 When neighboring townships68 Landowners may6970 Local governments may permit construction of a fence parallel to a71 Similarly, wells and water lines on a section line right-of-way are not72These opinions are consistent with the state-law principle that when a public interest is at73 The public policy

section line lies in another state would not . . . prevent the public from claiming an

easement in the 33 feet south of the boundary line.”

 

likely no different. For example, a county was not required to remove an obstruction

because the public’s easement does not entitle it to an object-free section line for its

“complete length

subject to removal if the public needs the full 66 feet.

agreed to narrow the right-of-way between them, directing adjoining landowners to

maintain at least a 35-foot-wide roadway and later reducing the minimum width to 16 feet,

that did not terminate public access over the narrowed right-of-way.

even plant crops within the 66-foot easement; the public may still travel over the section

line and destroy the crops, though it must restrict travel to only what is needed.

 

This office has issued opinions recognizing that the right-of-way does not depend upon

availability of the full 66 feet. The fact that some narrowing occurs does not terminate

public travel on what remains. This office has stated: “[T]he Supreme Court specifically

rejected an argument requiring free and unrestricted access across the entire 66 feet of

the easement . . . .”

section line provided the fence does not “effectively deprive” the public of its ability to travel

the section line.

necessarily illegal; they require removal “only if and to the extent they effectively deprive

the pubic of the ability to travel on the section line.”

 

stake an interpretation that favors the public is preferred. “’A narrow construction should

not be permitted to undermine the public policy sought to be served.”

here is freedom to travel section lines, and access questions should be resolved favoring

access to whatever portion of the section line is available.

federal law, that is, grants serving a national purpose—such as R.S. 2477—should be

liberally construed in favor of their purposes.

trust held for the public’s benefit.

the trust’s full benefit—the entire 66 feet—this should not result in depriving the beneficiary

of the entire trust.

74 A similar principle applies in75 Further, the section line right-of-way is a76 If the trust’s beneficiary, the public, is unable to enjoy

56—may57 A South58 A landowner objected. He argued that the government had granted59 and so he argued60 The court agreed.61 Having won this point he then asserted that because62 The court rejected this63 It stated that nothing64 And the South Dakota Attorney General considered

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

Also from AG Opinion 63-156 dated April 19, 1963
http://www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/1963/63-156.pdf


Section 24-06-28 of the North Dakota Century Code provides as

follows:

OBSTRUCTION OF SECTION LINES PROHIBITED - EXCEPTION.

No person shall place or cause to be placed any permanent obstruction or stones or rubbish within thirty-three feet of any section line, unless he first shall secure permission in writing from the board of county commissioners or the board of township
supervisors, as the case may be. Such permission shall be
granted only where the topography of the land along such
section line is such that in the opinion of the board of county
commissioners or board of township supervisors, as the case may
be, the construction of a road on the section line is impracticable. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit construction of fences along or across section lines not open for travel but such fences shall be subject to removal as provided in section 24-06-30."

doubleee's picture
doubleee
Offline
Joined: 8/18/12

 I am sure glad the states attorney did her job and got this scumbag!  Not like there are more important things going on in this state than an idiot Game Warden not paying attention. Next thing you will here is the someone suing someone for hitting a large bolder in their front yard that had been placed there for decoration.  This is just a dumb, tax payers dollars used to bring justice to the state of ND.  Great Job! 

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

If everyone else can travel the section line without incident then it shouldn't be considered obstructed.  If the game warden cannot drive on the trail like everyone else it's his fault.  There seems to be little common sense.

Chargers's picture
Chargers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/7/09

this is what the whole story boils down too for me as well.

Longshot Said:
If everyone else can travel the section line without incident then it shouldn't be considered obstructed.  If the game warden cannot drive on the trail like everyone else it's his fault.  There seems to be little common sense.
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07


 

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 I won't jump all over the game warden over this , In fact I feel bad for him.  He's  only human and humans do make mistakes, I think he is getting beat up pretty bad over his.       No idea who he is but there is one thing in common between game wardens and sportsmen and that's the respect for conservation, wildlife  and the great outdoors.  Those are good traits in any person ,    I can't think of any other reason why anyone would want to be a game warden.     I'm sure he would rather see it handled in other ways just as much as we we do but that's out of his hands.  I blame it on the state for the way it was handled.     Total slap in the face for the farmer in this case,  I wish there was a way to put common sense back in some of our state agencies.  

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

According to the interview the hunters said the game warden felt stupid and admitted his mess up. It was when the super showed up pissed off that things really went crazy. I don't think the guy who hit the rock wanted any of this and I kinda feel bad for the guy also. 

geothermal Said:
 I won't jump all over the game warden over this , In fact I feel bad for him.  He's  only human and humans do make mistakes, I think he is getting beat up pretty bad over his.       No idea who he is but there is one thing in common between game wardens and sportsmen and that's the respect for conservation, wildlife  and the great outdoors.  Those are good traits in any person ,    I can't think of any other reason why anyone would want to be a game warden.     I'm sure he would rather see it handled in other ways just as much as we we do but that's out of his hands.  I blame it on the state for the way it was handled.     Total slap in the face for the farmer in this case,  I wish there was a way to put common sense back in some of our state agencies.  

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

longshot, was aware of what you posted. Simply suggesting regardless of what the law may legally allow or not and charges that could be filed, this was a stupid deal and those that bitch about about a farmer that dumps a rock on the edge of his field to be drawn an quartered would likely not take the time to stop and consider what their bitching really accomplishes.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

Keep in mind that what triggered action by  the State was a casualty loss.  In those situations, it is the JOB of the representatives of the taxpayers to make sure that any responsible parties are pursued for payment.  I think that's what they did here.  The object that caused the damage was, technically, placed there illegally (that's what the judge said).

Somebody up the chain could have stopped it.  MAYBE.  If they did, what would be the justification for doing that?  What about the next time something similar happens?

Let's look at something similar on a civil basis.  Farmers and ranchers who leave hay bales in the ROW incur some liability.  I'm not 100% sure if they would be held liable prior to the required removal date if somebody crashed into one.  I'm almost certain, however, that they would get pursued by a plaintiff trying to collect damages.  I am 100% certain they would have no defense if the bales are still out there after the date when they need to be removed (Nov 1???).  At that point, the State/County/Township might even have some liability if they allow them to remain. 

Springers's picture
Springers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/12/07

no time to dig back right now.  but, didn't his fella claim he offered to cover the damages to the warden's vehicle?  

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

When hall monitors grow up.

Farnorth Said:
Keep in mind that what triggered action by  the State was a casualty loss.  In those situations, it is the JOB of the representatives of the taxpayers to make sure that any responsible parties are pursued for payment.  I think that's what they did here.  The object that caused the damage was, technically, placed there illegally (that's what the judge said).

Somebody up the chain could have stopped it.  MAYBE.  If they did, what would be the justification for doing that?  What about the next time something similar happens?

Work all year to build relationships with farmers and ranchers............................ruin that in one stupid move and use the "rule book" to justify it.....................................................

Priceless.

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 Yes,   That's where things really went south if it happened in the order that he wrote it. 

 

Springers Said:
no time to dig back right now.  but, didn't his fella claim he offered to cover the damages to the warden's vehicle?  

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

gst Said:
When hall monitors grow up.

Farnorth Said:
Keep in mind that what triggered action by  the State was a casualty loss.  In those situations, it is the JOB of the representatives of the taxpayers to make sure that any responsible parties are pursued for payment.  I think that's what they did here.  The object that caused the damage was, technically, placed there illegally (that's what the judge said).

Somebody up the chain could have stopped it.  MAYBE.  If they did, what would be the justification for doing that?  What about the next time something similar happens?

Work all year to build relationships with farmers and ranchers............................ruin that in one stupid move and use the "rule book" to justify it.....................................................

Priceless.

So, if you suffered monetary damages and there was a responsible party who could successfully be pursued for payment, would you eat the cost yourself?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Farnorth Said:

gst Said:
When hall monitors grow up.

Farnorth Said:
Keep in mind that what triggered action by  the State was a casualty loss.  In those situations, it is the JOB of the representatives of the taxpayers to make sure that any responsible parties are pursued for payment.  I think that's what they did here.  The object that caused the damage was, technically, placed there illegally (that's what the judge said).

Somebody up the chain could have stopped it.  MAYBE.  If they did, what would be the justification for doing that?  What about the next time something similar happens?

Work all year to build relationships with farmers and ranchers............................ruin that in one stupid move and use the "rule book" to justify it.....................................................

Priceless.

So, if you suffered monetary damages and there was a responsible party who could successfully be pursued for payment, would you eat the cost yourself?

If I  ran into a 3 foot by 4 foot rock because I wasn';t paying attention to where I was driving in an trail area that by all modern math estimates gave me at least 62 feet to miss said rock Because I was watching what was going on in the field beside the trail instead of watching where I was driving............................yes I would eat the cost of my own stupidity. .

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

This thread reminds me of a little lymerick that waaaaaay back in 3rd grade got a friend of mine in a bunch of trouble for singing when the hall monitor turned him in and the teacher filed "charges" with the principal.

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

He hit a rock and broke his c..k and pissed all over his crew.

His mom was not impressed.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

I missed the part where people called for the farmer to be drawn and quartered. I agree, that is extreme.

 

Springers's picture
Springers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/12/07

Lol. #guywhomakesfunny

7mmMag's picture
7mmMag
Offline
Joined: 9/28/05

 You know if I hit that rock with my pickup it wouldn't even cross my mind to sue the farmer

AdrenalineAddict's picture
AdrenalineAddict
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/24/08

He might have learned how to drive from that old prick of a warden that patrolled the badlands 20 some years ago, he would stick his badge in the window and spin a cookie around your vehicle raising a dust cloud that could be seen for miles like he was capturing you in a dust coral, all while you were stopped on the side of the road eating a sandwich and drinking a coke.

"Believe you can and you're halfway there."

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Ha ha - who was that? Lothspeich or whatever his name was is the guy that checked us on occasion (mid 80s). He seemed even keeled.

 

AdrenalineAddict's picture
AdrenalineAddict
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/24/08

Can't recall the name.  Hmm!! actually I will never forget it, just don't care to name him by name as he may have ripened in the last twenty years and I don't want him spinning cookies around my home in the middle of the night.

"Believe you can and you're halfway there."

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 

AdrenalineAddict Said:
Can't recall the name.  Hmm!! actually I will never forget it, just don't care to name him by name as he may have ripened in the last twenty years and I don't want him spinning cookies around my home in the middle of the night.

the image i have of the warden spinning cookies made me lol

 Adn

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

gst Said:

Farnorth Said:

So, if you suffered monetary damages and there was a responsible party who could successfully be pursued for payment, would you eat the cost yourself?

If I  ran into a 3 foot by 4 foot rock because I wasn';t paying attention to where I was driving in an trail area that by all modern math estimates gave me at least 62 feet to miss said rock Because I was watching what was going on in the field beside the trail instead of watching where I was driving............................yes I would eat the cost of my own stupidity. .

You dodged the question.

In this case the YOU is the State of North Dakota (not the Game Warden).

So again, if YOU suffer damage to your property and somebody else is LEGALLY LIABLE, do you eat the cost because you're such a great guy or do you pursue the party that is legally responsible?

BTW, any answer other than pursue it is a lie.

If it was you driving down a section line (not yours) and hit a rock that was placed there by the landowner and you totaled out your brand new $60,000 pickup you wouldn't turn in an insurance claim?  BS.  Keep in mind that turning in a claim could very well result in your insurance carrier going after the landowner for payment.  That is if your insurance carrier is any good.  So, pretty much the same thing.

SHORTHAIRSRUS's picture
SHORTHAIRSRUS
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/24/04

Insurance doesn't "EAT" things ---- they go after the responsible party--- they weigh the legal fees/collection costs vs. eating and then proceed.   Wouldn't the farmer's insurance kick in ?? They all have protocol.   I am not a lawyer ---somebody who is can chime in --- if the rock placement was 55% at fault and the game warden was 45% then by state law the one who is at fault is the one with the higher percentage --- correct me if I am wrong.

Stay thirsty my friends

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

SHORTHAIRSRUS Said:
Insurance doesn't "EAT" things ---- they go after the responsible party--- they weigh the legal fees/collection costs vs. eating and then proceed.   Wouldn't the farmer's insurance kick in ?? They all have protocol.   I am not a lawyer ---somebody who is can chime in --- if the rock placement was 55% at fault and the game warden was 45% then by state law the one who is at fault is the one with the higher percentage --- correct me if I am wrong.

One then has to wonder if the farmer's request for a civil complaint vs. criminal would've ultimately been adjudicated by his own insurance co. against the state for improperly treating a criminal action as a civil action.

I don't disagree that there should be a more "common sense" way to handle this, unfortunately one has to understand that every situation like this potentially sets a legal precedent.  One well meaning landowner who's made an honest MISTAKE has to be treated in the same manner as someone who continually challenges authority by doing stuff like this on purpose with intent to harm/damage other's property.  

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



NodakAngler1's picture
NodakAngler1
Offline
Joined: 7/26/10

guywhofishes Said:
Ha ha - who was that? Lothspeich or whatever his name was is the guy that checked us on occasion (mid 80s). He seemed even keeled.

AdrenalineAddict Said:
Can't recall the name.  Hmm!! actually I will never forget it, just don't care to name him by name as he may have ripened in the last twenty years and I don't want him spinning cookies around my home in the middle of the night.

I would have to say guy has him named.

John Browning=GENIUS
NDA Rocks!

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

huntorride365 Said:

guywhofishes Said:
Ha ha - who was that? Lothspeich or whatever his name was is the guy that checked us on occasion (mid 80s). He seemed even keeled.

AdrenalineAddict Said:
Can't recall the name.  Hmm!! actually I will never forget it, just don't care to name him by name as he may have ripened in the last twenty years and I don't want him spinning cookies around my home in the middle of the night.

I would have to say guy has him named.

Hmmm... He was (and likely still is) pretty "energetic" as I recall. But if I remember correctly he was semi-active in the same local archery scene as us, so we knew him. So maybe for that reason he cut back on the offense when he engaged with us in the field, due to his familiarity with us.

In any event we appreciated his enthusiasm when it came to patrolling the actions of those bastages from out east who came to hunt our local deer!

(I was going to college in Dickinson at the time)

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Farnorth Said:

gst Said:

Farnorth Said:

So, if you suffered monetary damages and there was a responsible party who could successfully be pursued for payment, would you eat the cost yourself?

If I  ran into a 3 foot by 4 foot rock because I wasn';t paying attention to where I was driving in an trail area that by all modern math estimates gave me at least 62 feet to miss said rock Because I was watching what was going on in the field beside the trail instead of watching where I was driving............................yes I would eat the cost of my own stupidity. .

You dodged the question.

In this case the YOU is the State of North Dakota (not the Game Warden).

So again, if YOU suffer damage to your property and somebody else is LEGALLY LIABLE, do you eat the cost because you're such a great guy or do you pursue the party that is legally responsible?

BTW, any answer other than pursue it is a lie.

If it was you driving down a section line (not yours) and hit a rock that was placed there by the landowner and you totaled out your brand new $60,000 pickup you wouldn't turn in an insurance claim?  BS.  Keep in mind that turning in a claim could very well result in your insurance carrier going after the landowner for payment.  That is if your insurance carrier is any good.  So, pretty much the same thing.

I didnl;t dodge jack shit.

You asked me if I would go after someone else for recovering damages it there was a way and I explained pretty plainly that if I had my head up my ass and caused the damage I would not.

I did not say I would not turn it into MY insurance company and eat the cost of an increased premium, I made it clear I would not hold whom ever placed the rock on the side of a section line of the trail that I had 60 some feet to miss responsible.

A BIG DIFFERENCE that is not that hard to understand  if you are not a whiney jack ass that blames everyone else looking to cover your own stupidity.

Remember here dumbass the warden admitted right away that it was HIS fault for not looking where he was going and admitted to feeling pretty "dumb" for veering off the trail and hitting a rock.

Here is a question for you farnorth, do you take responsibiltiy for your own stupid actions even if there is someone else to blame?

BTW, any answer other than no is a lie.

People that think every situation like this is black and white and that common sense should not and can not enter into these type things were likely the hall monitor in grade school

Dick McFiddleton's picture
Dick McFiddleton
Offline
Joined: 4/9/14

 Gst why yell at everyone?  U r not on trial here... 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

ChetSpilunkey Said:
 Gst why yell at everyone?  U r not on trial here... 

silence! or you will be drawn and quartered.

 

big stick's picture
big stick
Offline
Joined: 2/17/02

submit the bill [fine] to the local wildlife club, non profit right?

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

 Ol' gst is definitely getting crabbier with age

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

Captain Ahab's picture
Captain Ahab
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/1/08

 

Horsager Said:
 
SHORTHAIRSRUS Said:
Insurance doesn't "EAT" things ---- they go after the responsible party--- they weigh the legal fees/collection costs vs. eating and then proceed.   Wouldn't the farmer's insurance kick in ?? They all have protocol.   I am not a lawyer ---somebody who is can chime in --- if the rock placement was 55% at fault and the game warden was 45% then by state law the one who is at fault is the one with the higher percentage --- correct me if I am wrong.

One then has to wonder if the farmer's request for a civil complaint vs. criminal would've ultimately been adjudicated by his own insurance co. against the state for improperly treating a criminal action as a civil action.

I don't disagree that there should be a more "common sense" way to handle this, unfortunately one has to understand that every situation like this potentially sets a legal precedent.  One well meaning landowner who's made an honest MISTAKE has to be treated in the same manner as someone who continually challenges authority by doing stuff like this on purpose with intent to harm/damage other's property.  

Bingo!

"Diligence is the mother of good luck."

"The constitution only gives people the right to pursue hapiness.  You have to catch it yourself."

"Well done is better than well said."

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

All by:  Benjamin Franklin.

"The solution to any problem - work, love, money, whatever - is to go fishing, and the bigger the problem, the longer the trip should be."

Author: John Gierach

Captain Ahab's picture
Captain Ahab
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/1/08

 

Captain Ahab Said:
 
Horsager Said:
 
SHORTHAIRSRUS Said:
Insurance doesn't "EAT" things ---- they go after the responsible party--- they weigh the legal fees/collection costs vs. eating and then proceed.   Wouldn't the farmer's insurance kick in ?? They all have protocol.   I am not a lawyer ---somebody who is can chime in --- if the rock placement was 55% at fault and the game warden was 45% then by state law the one who is at fault is the one with the higher percentage --- correct me if I am wrong.

One then has to wonder if the farmer's request for a civil complaint vs. criminal would've ultimately been adjudicated by his own insurance co. against the state for improperly treating a criminal action as a civil action.

I don't disagree that there should be a more "common sense" way to handle this, unfortunately one has to understand that every situation like this potentially sets a legal precedent.  One well meaning landowner who's made an honest MISTAKE has to be treated in the same manner as someone who continually challenges authority by doing stuff like this on purpose with intent to harm/damage other's property.  

Bingo!

Unfortunately.

"Diligence is the mother of good luck."

"The constitution only gives people the right to pursue hapiness.  You have to catch it yourself."

"Well done is better than well said."

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

All by:  Benjamin Franklin.

"The solution to any problem - work, love, money, whatever - is to go fishing, and the bigger the problem, the longer the trip should be."

Author: John Gierach

ND Ice Pirate's picture
ND Ice Pirate
Offline
Joined: 12/27/13

Is it still an honest mistake if the landowner told his relatives, who then told the gamewarden, that he put the rock there for his neighbor to hit? Why aren't people getting a police report before making assumptions? It should be an open public record after the filing of charges.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Wags86 Said:
 Ol' gst is definitely getting crabbier with age

It has always been a pet peeve when people try to find some way to blame someone else for their stupidity.

We were raised that if you did something stupid you accepted the consequences and didn;t try to make someone else pay for them.

There would have been a way to recover the cost of the damage to the vehicle without dragging this guy to court and stepping on whatever relationship building the G&F has engaged in over the past few years.

This story IS making it's way around the coffee shops already.

But hey ex hall monitors like farnorth demand that justice be served and the letter of the law be followed.

Dick McFiddleton's picture
Dick McFiddleton
Offline
Joined: 4/9/14

Well im sure you will do what u can to put down hunters because of this fiasco.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

PippyMcPipperson Said:
Well im sure you will do what u can to put down hunters because of this fiasco.

Only ones that are whiney jackasses trying to blame their own stupidity on someone else.

Try not to let it hurt your feelings there dick pippy.

ND Ice Pirate Said:
Is it still an honest mistake if the landowner told his relatives, who then told the gamewarden, that he put the rock there for his neighbor to hit? Why aren't people getting a police report before making assumptions? It should be an open public record after the filing of charges.

I heard from some one that told somebody that they heard something from someone else that heard this happened............................

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

gst Said:

.

I didnl;t dodge jack shit.

You asked me if I would go after someone else for recovering damages it there was a way and I explained pretty plainly that if I had my head up my ass and caused the damage I would not.

I did not say I would not turn it into MY insurance company and eat the cost of an increased premium, I made it clear I would not hold whom ever placed the rock on the side of a section line of the trail that I had 60 some feet to miss responsible.

A BIG DIFFERENCE that is not that hard to understand  if you are not a whiney jack ass that blames everyone else looking to cover your own stupidity.

Remember here dumbass the warden admitted right away that it was HIS fault for not looking where he was going and admitted to feeling pretty "dumb" for veering off the trail and hitting a rock.

Here is a question for you farnorth, do you take responsibiltiy for your own stupid actions even if there is someone else to blame?

BTW, any answer other than no is a lie.

People that think every situation like this is black and white and that common sense should not and can not enter into these type things were likely the hall monitor in grade school

You didn't answer the question that was asked.  You changed it to make a point.  I don't think I actually called you a name did I?  I wanted to.  We're done here necause you obviously don't get it..

BTW, the Warden didn't decide what action the STATE took in this case.  It was out of his hands.

Pages