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

Pages

434 posts / 0 new
Last post
Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

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.  

My educated guess would be that the farmer's insurance has an exception for instances where his actions are illegal.  So, in a civil action, his insurance would not only provide him with legal representation, they would have paid for any damages net of the deductible.

Some insurance carriers might have covered him in this instance because it doesn't necessarily fit what they typically write these exceptions for.  It's so uncommon that I'm not sure how we could ever know for sure.

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

 

Farnorth 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.  

My educated guess would be that the farmer's insurance has an exception for instances where his actions are illegal.  So, in a civil action, his insurance would not only provide him with legal representation, they would have paid for any damages net of the deductible.

Some insurance carriers might have covered him in this instance because it doesn't necessarily fit what they typically write these exceptions for.  It's so uncommon that I'm not sure how we could ever know for sure.

We're on the same page in that if the state had pursued this civilly, his Ins. Co. would likely have had the case dismissed due to this being a criminal vs. civil matter.

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



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

Just for the record, let's understand what would likely happen here if the circumstances were similar and it was a private individual who hit the rock.

1.  You are driving down the section line and hit the same rock that was PLACED there.
2.  You turn it in to your insurance agent because you have full coverage.
3.  The company discovers in the adjustment process that, under State Law, the rock was placed their illegally (intent doesn't really matter).
4.  Your insurance company would be likely to initiate an action against the person who placed the rock there to recover the damages.
5.  The farmers insurance carrier can then either defend the action or deny coverage because of their policy language.
6.  The initial carrier can then decide how far they want to pursue the action and if they want to file a complaint which could bolster their chances of winning in court.

That's basically what happened here

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

gst Said:
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.

Please explain how that could happen.  For the record, I wish there was a way for that to happen.  I guess what I'd like to hear is how do you recover the damage to the vehicle in this instance without then absolving future "rock/obstruction placers" of any wrongdoing?  I think we both know that there are folks out there who, if they knew this guy was let off, would place all sorts and manners of obstructions upon section lines adjacent to land they owned, and frankly, upon section lines that they just didn't want folks to drive on for whatever reason.

I kind of wish everything didn't have to be fair to everyone all the time.  It'd be nice to take each situation individually without them setting precedent for each future event.  It'd be nice to give good guys a break while really sticking it to those who are perpetual problem makers.

 

gst Said:

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. 

Just so we're clear, who's stupid here?

1.  The warden for running into the rock?

2.  The adjacent landowner for placing the rock within the right of way?

Again, to clarify, who's trying to make someone else pay?

1.  The state?

2.  The adjacent landowner who wanted to be sued civilly so his Ins. Co. would pay?

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



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

I think the world would be a better place of gst's mom would have swallowed him the night of conception.

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
Joined: 8/29/09

Now that I've moved my mailbox 33' from the center of the road.  Maybe we as sportsman should donate to make this man whole again?

                                                                                                                         

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

 Mail man will not travel that far to deliver your mail ,  You will have to pick your mail up at the nearest post office. 

WormWiggler Said:
Now that I've moved my mailbox 33' from the center of the road.  Maybe we as sportsman should donate to make this man whole again?

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

I have also heard if you leave a ladder leaning against your house and some random person climbs up, falls off, and gets hurt, you are also responsible for such injuries as the home owner.

Or if you happen to have someone breaking into your home and the get hurt in the process, well you are on the hook for that too.

A rock placed in the right of way is right in line with all of this, it is what it is

Neat

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

boy would I LOVE to see a pic of said rock and section line

anybody got coordinates? bet you can see that big bugger in google earth


 

kman's picture
kman
Offline
Joined: 7/4/12

So if I go out in the badlands and hit a rock on a section line on federal land will they fix my pickup

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

kman Said:
So if I go out in the badlands and hit a rock on a section line on federal land will they fix my pickup?

You're confusing something that is there naturally with something that was placed there intentionally - maybe with the intention of cause injury to a neighbor maybe not but certainly placed there on purpose for some reason.  Two completely different scenarios.  Now if the forest service intentionally piled rocks on the section line you might have a case.

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

Farnorth Said:

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.

Okay Mr. Farnorth. here is the question and here is my answer the first time.

gst Said:

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. .

And sir his is the 2nd time I answered the question. For most people I didn;t "change" anything. I simply answered clearly that if it was my stupidity I would NOT seek someone else to pay for it.  I guess you and I differ on that point of view.

gst Said:

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

And do you actually think Terry Steinwand could not have stepped in and said we are not going to go down this path?

The supervisor likely has a mentality much like your own, possibly was a hall monitor himself back in the day.

So Mr. Farnorth, what then should the "State" do about ALL the rock piles within the 66 foot section line right of way across this state?

According to you they have NO choice but to start prosecuting each and every farmer that has ever dumped a rock within this 66 foot allowance.

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

Horsager Said:

gst Said:
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.

Please explain how that could happen.  For the record, I wish there was a way for that to happen.  I guess what I'd like to hear is how do you recover the damage to the vehicle in this instance without then absolving future "rock/obstruction placers" of any wrongdoing?  I think we both know that there are folks out there who, if they knew this guy was let off, would place all sorts and manners of obstructions upon section lines adjacent to land they owned, and frankly, upon section lines that they just didn't want folks to drive on for whatever reason.

I kind of wish everything didn't have to be fair to everyone all the time.  It'd be nice to take each situation individually without them setting precedent for each future event.  It'd be nice to give good guys a break while really sticking it to those who are perpetual problem makers.

 

gst Said:

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. 

Just so we're clear, who's stupid here?

1.  The warden for running into the rock?

2.  The adjacent landowner for placing the rock within the right of way?

Again, to clarify, who's trying to make someone else pay?

1.  The state?

2.  The adjacent landowner who wanted to be sued civilly so his Ins. Co. would pay?

Horsager, the state attorney decides to drop or prosecute cases all the time. There have been instances where a clear violation has occurred, but because someone was willing to make restitution the states attorney agrees to drop the case. Perhaps in the case of the "state" this is different, I am guessing if Terry Steinwand went to the states atty and explained they did not want to prosecute this guy as long as the damages were covered no one would have ever heard about this.
 
In past situation where someone violated game laws the warden at the scene was able to "work out" an agreement that took care of issue. Sheriffs implement common sense solutions all the time. Perhaps in today's age of hall monitors that have grown up, this is no longer possible.
 
How is a High way patrol able to give one person a warning for driving 67 in a 65 and another write another person up a ticket for the same violation of state law?
 
The warden seemed to admit himself he was the "stupid"  party by the accounts of the witnesses.

Mr. Horsager, what is your solution for all the rock piles that exist within the 66 foot section line right of way across this state?

What if a warden veers off the two track trail and runs into a 30 by 40 foot rock pile that is 7 foot high that has been there for 40 years?

 
Should he bear ANY responsibility?

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 There are many things that happen every day that are illegal.  If something bad doesn't happen as a result of that illegal action usually it goes unnoticed and unprosecuted but doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.  I will occasionally exceed the speed limit.  If nothing happens as a result of that and an officer doesn't see it I probably won't be prosecuted.  If I get in an accident and damage someone else's property because of my excessive speed I guarantee you I will be prosecuted and will be responsible for damage even though I'm certainly not meaning to cause that damage.  

Initially, based on the landowner's response I read, I thought this might be on the crazy side of things.  However, there are always both sides to the story and according to some the rock could have been placed with the intent of causing damage.  I don't know when the rock was placed there but if it was just this year perhaps the warden had driven that section line many times without an issue which could have contributed to his lack of attentiveness.  The other hunters seem to so-so with their observations.  They state the warden was travelling at a significant rate of speed 25-50 mph.  Pretty wide range.  25 not so fast - 50 pretty fast on a section line. 

Also, either a judge or jury have decided the landowner was culpable.  They've heard all the facts, we've heard bits and pieces.  Who am I to second guess their decision based on what is printed on a open forum?  

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

labhunter66 Said:
 The other hunters seem to so-so with their observations.  They state the warden was travelling at a significant rate of speed 25-50 mph.  Pretty wide range.  25 not so fast - 50 pretty fast on a section line. 

Hit a 3 foot by 4 foot rock 3 feet tall at 25 mph and then tell me if you think it is "not so fast".

Been there done that., it seems "fast".

The bottom line is if you are traveling down the two track trail and run over a rock someone "placed" there purposefully, yeah someone is likely going to have to pay damages.

If you are traveling down a section line that is 66 foot wide and veer 30 feet off the two track trail and hit a 3ft by 4 ft rock placed 2 foot into the 66 foot allowance  to get it off the field because you were not looking where you were going, maybe you aught to look in the mirror when whining to place blame for "your" damages.

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

gst Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 The other hunters seem to so-so with their observations.  They state the warden was travelling at a significant rate of speed 25-50 mph.  Pretty wide range.  25 not so fast - 50 pretty fast on a section line. 

Hit a 3 foot by 4 foot rock 3 feet tall at 25 mph and then tell me if you think it is "not so fast".

Been there done that., it seems "fast".

The bottom line is if you are traveling down the two track trail and run over a rock someone "placed" there purposefully, yeah someone is likely going to have to pay damages.

If you are traveling down a section line that is 66 foot wide and veer 30 feet off the two track trail and hit a 3ft by 4 ft rock placed 2 foot into the 66 foot allowance  to get it off the field because you were not looking where you were going, maybe you aught to look in the mirror when whining to place blame for "your" damages.

Where does it say he veered 30 feet off the two track trail?  If that had been the case he probably wouldn't have been on the section line anymore.  Seems you're just adding "facts" to make your point.  All the more reason we shouldn't be questioning the decision of the judge or jury that heard the case.

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

gst Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 The other hunters seem to so-so with their observations.  They state the warden was travelling at a significant rate of speed 25-50 mph.  Pretty wide range.  25 not so fast - 50 pretty fast on a section line. 

Hit a 3 foot by 4 foot rock 3 feet tall at 25 mph and then tell me if you think it is "not so fast".

Been there done that., it seems "fast".

The bottom line is if you are traveling down the two track trail and run over a rock someone "placed" there purposefully, yeah someone is likely going to have to pay damages.

If you are traveling down a section line that is 66 foot wide and veer 30 feet off the two track trail and hit a 3ft by 4 ft rock placed 2 foot into the 66 foot allowance  to get it off the field because you were not looking where you were going, maybe you aught to look in the mirror when whining to place blame for "your" damages.

Also, I never said hitting a 3x4 rock at 25 mph wasn't fast, I said travelling at that speed is not that fast.  That would certainly depend on the condition of the two track trail though.

Blue Plater's picture
Blue Plater
Offline
Joined: 8/9/08

 The warden messed up here, PERIOD. Should have the farmer put the rock where he did? Who knows and who cares. Pretty obvious to me that if he was paying attention to where he was driving (very important) and at a prudent speed he could have circumvented the rock just as the hunters before him did. Sounds like he felt foolish afterward as he should have. We've all been there done that. Did something stupid and then had the thought we messed up. 

Think it makes sense to spread the blame elsewhere? Man up and take some responsibility,


 

z's picture
z
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/3/07

Tough situation, but as a former township officer I can tell you that townships are constantly fighting the section line obstruction issue.  Many have had to acquire additional insurance for Errors and Omissions to cover the inability to control these issues.  If anything, the landowner, the township and the farmer that placed the obstacle on the section line are all liable.  The township and other entity may have to sue the person who put the obstruction there.  It gets especially ugly when a death is the result of such an issue.  The placement of an obstacle(such as a tall crop) within 33 feet of either side of the section line that leads to or causes damage, injury or death will usually result in a law suit involving all parties.  Good luck

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

labhunter66 Said:
 

gst Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 The other hunters seem to so-so with their observations.  They state the warden was travelling at a significant rate of speed 25-50 mph.  Pretty wide range.  25 not so fast - 50 pretty fast on a section line. 

Hit a 3 foot by 4 foot rock 3 feet tall at 25 mph and then tell me if you think it is "not so fast".

Been there done that., it seems "fast".

The bottom line is if you are traveling down the two track trail and run over a rock someone "placed" there purposefully, yeah someone is likely going to have to pay damages.

If you are traveling down a section line that is 66 foot wide and veer 30 feet off the two track trail and hit a 3ft by 4 ft rock placed 2 foot into the 66 foot allowance  to get it off the field because you were not looking where you were going, maybe you aught to look in the mirror when whining to place blame for "your" damages.

Where does it say he veered 30 feet off the two track trail?  If that had been the case he probably wouldn't have been on the section line anymore.  Seems you're just adding "facts" to make your point.  All the more reason we shouldn't be questioning the decision of the judge or jury that heard the case.

It appeared the witnesses traversed  the section linwe without hitting the rock. The warden admitted feeling pretty "dumb" and seemed to allude to it being his fault. the farmer admits to placing the rock on the edge of the section easement. Figure it out for yourself.

This is the problem with this country as a whole. No one wants to admit and own up to their own stupidity. If there is some why to dump it off on someone else, hell yeah, don;t own up to nothing.

The warden seemed willing to admit his fault, his adult hall monitor supervisor appears less congenial. But then hey how do people end up being hall monitors/supervisors any more.

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

At this point, most of you have only heard landowners side. I can assure you the reports and court documents tell another. Given the wording of the century code, does anyone really think he would have been found guilty absent "the rest of the story". Those of you that are taking this so personally might be wise to contact someone who can access the documents online or go visit the courthouse and ask to see them. It might save us all from turning this into another 20 pager. But I won't hold my breath.

Jig4Pig's picture
Jig4Pig
Offline
Joined: 3/7/10

Springers Said:
At this point, most of you have only heard landowners side. I can assure you the reports and court documents tell another. Given the wording of the century code, does anyone really think he would have been found guilty absent "the rest of the story". Those of you that are taking this so personally might be wise to contact someone who can access the documents online or go visit the courthouse and ask to see them. It might save us all from turning this into another 20 pager. But I won't hold my breath.

Why don't you tell us if you know?

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

I think his point is no one knows.  The sad thing is so many think they know, or more than likely they are not going to let ignorance get in the way of their prejudice.  

Jig4Pig Said:

Springers Said:
At this point, most of you have only heard landowners side. I can assure you the reports and court documents tell another. Given the wording of the century code, does anyone really think he would have been found guilty absent "the rest of the story". Those of you that are taking this so personally might be wise to contact someone who can access the documents online or go visit the courthouse and ask to see them. It might save us all from turning this into another 20 pager. But I won't hold my breath.

Why don't you tell us if you know?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

springer I for one am not defending him putting something on the right of way. I traveled that particular section line a number of times after that rock was placed. To have hit it would require total attention to the trail and tracks period. Hence my point of responsisble driving is required by anyone under the wheel. The warden was not in hot pursuit, nor traveling to a call out or an emergency. Due care is required. Heck think about it, a person could just as easily been on that section line walking and if it was a farmer or someone not hunting they would not have needed blaze orange but even that I doubt would have made a difference.

That is the point regarding common sense and taking responsibility for your actions!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

 So the rock was placed is a fact? Just one rock or a rockpile?

AR-15's picture
AR-15
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/10/09

 You people are trying to be the judge and the jury on this one.. how's the fishing at Vanhook?

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 Farmers, please remove your rocks from public roadways. Thank you! Pretty often you have drive off the 2 track path to avoid ruts and such. Your rock piles can at times make it difficult to navigate.

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

Springers Said:
At this point, most of you have only heard landowners side. I can assure you the reports and court documents tell another. Given the wording of the century code, does anyone really think he would have been found guilty absent "the rest of the story". Those of you that are taking this so personally might be wise to contact someone who can access the documents online or go visit the courthouse and ask to see them. It might save us all from turning this into another 20 pager. But I won't hold my breath.

the "point" that is seeming to be missed here is despite the farmers "illegal actions" of placing a rock within a 66 foot strip of land on the edge by a field, much like has been done by hundreds if not thousands of farmers all across this state for decades, the ex hall monitors on here seem to think the wardens apparent alleged admission of his own stupidity  absolved him of any responsibility just because the law states a rock can not be placed there.

As a legal professional springers you know that states attorneys choose all the time whether to actively pursue cases or to drop them.

Heads of depts, choose all the time what paths they wish to travel down and actions they wish to take.

So perhaps you wish to asnwer the question others have avoided. What is to be done about the hundreds if not thousands of rock piles across the state  that exist within the 66 foot allowance of a section line and those that continue to add rocks off their adjoining fields to them?

Normal peoples common sense self accountability versus ex hall monitors rigid stupidity.

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

For the ex hall mointers, here is something to ponder that  has happened up here, there is a section line that has not been traveled for decades along the edge of one of our pastures. Not "legally" by the commissioners but it remains untraveled because of the terrain that is rougher than a cobb.

There is a ground blind a hunter has placed within the 66 foot allowance.  It has been placed there each of the last 3 years. Should someone call the county states attorney and turn this hardened criminal in?

I mean the law is the law and it certainly seems this ground blind is an "obstruction" that was "placed" within the 66 foot allowance.

So what would happen if that warden was traveling down this section line and while not paying attention to where he was driving, ran over this ground blind while someone was hunting in it.

Would the states attorney be obligated to travel to the hospital and handcuff this fella to the bed and charge him under the law to recover the value of the damages sustained to the wardens vehicle?

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

So perhaps you wish to asnwer the question others have avoided. What is to be done about the hundreds if not thousands of rock piles across the state  that exist within the 66 foot allowance of a section line and those that continue to add rocks off their adjoining fields to them?

Sometimes it's best to keep the mouth closed and not always open a can of worms.  I think you can find enough trouble in the world without looking for it.   There appears to be a dump on the Game and Fish attitude here, but it's a state law not a Game and Fish law. 

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

So what are you suggesting then plainsman?

1bigfokker's picture
1bigfokker
Offline
Joined: 7/18/12

The rock has been beaten to a pile of sand...drop it.

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

Plainsman Said:

So perhaps you wish to asnwer the question others have avoided. What is to be done about the hundreds if not thousands of rock piles across the state  that exist within the 66 foot allowance of a section line and those that continue to add rocks off their adjoining fields to them?

Sometimes it's best to keep the mouth closed and not always open a can of worms.  I think you can find enough trouble in the world without looking for it.   There appears to be a dump on the Game and Fish attitude here, but it's a state law not a Game and Fish law. 

It may be a state law plainsman but the G&F supervisor had to have gone to the states attorney to initiate the actions that followed.

Perhaps if he had followed your advice .....................................

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

I guess if I was a farmer I'd be out there making sure I had nothing in that 66' easement.  unless I like spending money frivilously.  To each his own.

 

bacon's picture
bacon
Offline
Joined: 1/23/09

 So what would happen if I went out and removed all the rock on our sections lines and left 4 foot deep holes for people to drive into. Would that be better? There are rocks that stick out a foot and are 5 or 6 feet in the ground. 

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

  Sometimes native prairie is that rocky.  Anyone with an ounce of sense would be running cattle and not John Deer on that land.  If that's the case I can't see where you would have any responsibility.  It's not up to you to provide smooth  roads for other people.   If crop land borders these rocky section lines then I would say you just handed us a line of bs.

bacon Said:
 So what would happen if I went out and removed all the rock on our sections lines and left 4 foot deep holes for people to drive into. Would that be better? There are rocks that stick out a foot and are 5 or 6 feet in the ground. 
feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

That would involve work and we all know farmers don't work that hard.  

bacon Said:
 So what would happen if I went out and removed all the rock on our sections lines and left 4 foot deep holes for people to drive into. Would that be better? There are rocks that stick out a foot and are 5 or 6 feet in the ground. 
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

feather_duster Said:
That would involve work and we all know farmers don't work that hard.  

bacon Said:
 So what would happen if I went out and removed all the rock on our sections lines and left 4 foot deep holes for people to drive into. Would that be better? There are rocks that stick out a foot and are 5 or 6 feet in the ground. 

I'm sure there is a piece of equipment they could buy just for that purpose.  we all know they need the write off.

 

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

Plainsman Said:
  Sometimes native prairie is that rocky.  Anyone with an ounce of sense would be running cattle and not John Deer on that land.  If that's the case I can't see where you would have any responsibility.  It's not up to you to provide smooth  roads for other people.   If crop land borders these rocky section lines then I would say you just handed us a line of bs.

bacon Said:
 So what would happen if I went out and removed all the rock on our sections lines and left 4 foot deep holes for people to drive into. Would that be better? There are rocks that stick out a foot and are 5 or 6 feet in the ground. 

I am always amused when people that have never invested a dollar of their own equity in a farming operation to provide their livelyhood tell other people how they should make a living farming as if they actually know something.

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

this is all public information if someone was really interested.  so, i am pretty sure i can post this.  since nobody cares enough to post the other side of the story and since its pretty clear it needs to be posted given how some of you refuse to even acknowledge there could possibly be another side of the story and everyone just wants to take mr. bear's letter as factually true, here is the narrative directly from the affidavit of probable cause that led to the charge.  i am going to paraphrase....

game warden was traveling down the section line.  game warden looked over at the hunters and his vehicle came to a sudden and abrupt stop.  he exited his truck to find that someone had placed a very large rock in the middle of the section line.  the group of hunters came over to the game warden. hunters said they saw him driving and knew he was going to hit the rock as they had almost hit it themselves but saw it in time because michael bear drove around it (the part about michael driving around it comes from the state's response to defendant's motion and brief to dismiss).  michael bear (notice the last name) stated his uncle (donald bear) placed the rock to keep someone from driving to his field.  investigator contacted donald later.  he acknowledged he placed it there to keep someone from driving in his field.  

also keep in mind that the defendant filed a motion and brief to dismiss.  the state responded in kind.  the court denied said motion.  a trial was held and he was found guilty after all evidence and testimony was presented to the judge (which included the truck sitting on said rock, google earth pictures, the location of said rock in section line, testimony from all witnesses, etc...).  he has appealed.  but, given the standard of review for appeals like this, i doubt he will be successful.  

hope this sheds light on the subject and puts an end to the nonsense.  


johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Thanks Springers. Guy was a dirty, road blocking, SOB.

Neat

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

just to be clear.  i ain't taking sides on this.  i just figured "the rest of the story" should be out there.  his nephew actually disputes he ever told the investigator that mr. bear placed the rock there intentionally.  however, the judge would've heard everything including that dispute.  additionally, i can only assume he took into account previous supreme court rulings on this that seem to indicate you don't necessarily have a right to be free from obstruction the entire 66 feet... just the right to travel the section line.  given his ruling, he probably believed the investigator when he regurgitated the statements from nephew and the other hunters and probably didn't believe nephew when he said he never said that.  the same goes for mr. bear's statement.  if you believe the investigator, mr. bear admitted placing the rock there with intention of keeping someone from going someplace.  i am guessing he denies ever saying that.  however, absent being caught in a lie under oath before, judges would probably side with the investigator and be inclined to believe he wasn't simply making it up when he regurgitated what he was told by mr. bear, nephew and other hunters.  it would be interesting to see the transcript.  

Pheasant 54's picture
Pheasant 54
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/8/07

I am not very tech savy but I would like to see a picture of exactly where this rock was placed on the section line, 2 very different stories

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

 the pics and the satellite view are practically worthless.  there is a pic from the front of the truck showing the truck on the rock.  but, that's about as good as it gets.  here is what i will say on that though.  if you believe the nephew, he claims to have beaten down a pretty well worn path "around the rock" and the defense argued the game warden should've seen the path and followed it if he was paying attention.  which seems to indicate you had to travel around the rock to continue down the section line.   which also seems to dispute any assertion that the rock was someplace other than near the middle of the section line.  if you had to drive around the rock, i would guess it isn't exactly on either side of the 66 foot easement and was more than likely closer to the middle.  

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

 Did the judge seek legal guidance from gst?  

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Again springer as I said before to hit the rock one would have to be totally lacking any forward attention as to where you where going. First time I drove that section line last fall was at 3:45 am going to a field to setup for a waterfowl hunt. Our route to the field we had intended was obstructed by a broken down combine. So we looked at our map and found a different route. If I could avoid hitting it in the dark with only headlights, anyone paying any amount of attention could have and should have as well. To be clear the section line is not 66 ft of grass area it is farmed fairly close to the wheel tracks in spots.

Thanks for posting, as I said before not defending the placement in any way but think about this for a minute. The person operating the vehicle is still responsible for where it goes. Hitting a non moving object is always the error of the operator period. You are either traveling to fast for your light conditions, in error of your ability to stop due to road conditions etc....  These are the expectations  of a driver on any road, trail etc.. that are legal to travel with a vehicle.

Now please explain again how the driver has no clear responsibility in this at all? That is what has me upset with this. No emergency just a distracted driver of a state owned vehicle, no different than texting and driving for that matter if you stop and think about it.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

do the farmers that plant crops within that 66' easement have to rent that land from the state/county?  think we should enforce no planting in that easement alot more?

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

eyexer Said:
do the farmers that plant crops within that 66' easement have to rent that land from the state/county?  think we should enforce no planting in that easement alot more?

Of course not, they have road right of way. Such as when they post the land they own, that means the land is posted to the center of the road/ county line/ prairie trail/ whatever.

Neat

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

Springers Said:
just to be clear.  i ain't taking sides on this.  i just figured "the rest of the story" should be out there.  his nephew actually disputes he ever told the investigator that mr. bear placed the rock there intentionally.  however, the judge would've heard everything including that dispute.  additionally, i can only assume he took into account previous supreme court rulings on this that seem to indicate you don't necessarily have a right to be free from obstruction the entire 66 feet... just the right to travel the section line.  given his ruling, he probably believed the investigator when he regurgitated the statements from nephew and the other hunters and probably didn't believe nephew when he said he never said that.  the same goes for mr. bear's statement.  if you believe the investigator, mr. bear admitted placing the rock there with intention of keeping someone from going someplace.  i am guessing he denies ever saying that.  however, absent being caught in a lie under oath before, judges would probably side with the investigator and be inclined to believe he wasn't simply making it up when he regurgitated what he was told by mr. bear, nephew and other hunters.  it would be interesting to see the transcript.  

Espringers as a lawyer perhaps you can appreciate this.

I was involved in an accident one Christmas morning traveling thru Minot. Was traveling down Broadway and entered into an intersection as the light turned green. Struck a small car that was traveling fast enough to spin a 3/4 ton diesel pickup completely around 180 degrees on dry pavement so it was facing back north looking directly at the stop light which myself and my two sons recall being green.
 
One of the occupants in the car suffered a broken jaw and other minor injuries.

Was written up based on the testimonies of the other cars occupants for running a green light. The older officer that gave me the ticket suggested I take it to court as in his experience he said he believed at the rate of speed the small car had to be traveling to spin the pickup around they were going far faster than the 15 mph speed limit which was posted going by the school on the street they had traveled and were likely trying to beat the red light and didn;t see us.

Took his advice and went to court and testfied under oath that upon coming to rest facing back the direction we had came immediately saw a green light on the north stop light which would indicate thru traffic traveling north and south as we were had the right of way.
 
Now here is the part as a lawyer you might understand. The states attorney stated she drove that intersection every day coming to work and she asked me if I would be surprised if she told me that that light had a left turn green arrow that would have been showing at the turn of the light to green if the other car was trying to beat the red light from the east.

I stated that yes I would be surprised to learn that as I had saw a solid  green light and so had my sons and that they had told the officer on the scene that very thing.

She then told the judge that it appeared I was not so sure of what I had seen as I had admitted to being surprised to have been told what she had said. She then dismissed me before I could say anything else.

 
The judge found me guilty of running a red light, but reduced the fine down to $5 dollars as he was not sure there were not other "contributing factors".
 
On traveling home pulled over in a parking lot next to the stop light the State Attorney said had a grren left turn arrow and watched it cycle 3 times and not once was there a green left turn arrow. 
 
Two weeks later while in Minot I sat at that very same intersection and watched as a city crew changed out the stop light to put in a left turn signal.

She stopped just short of technically lying to win her case. She didn;t say it HAD a green left turn light, only if I would be surprised if she told me it had one. But it sure left the impression that she was claiming it was there based on her suggestion.

So excuse me if I am a bit skeptical from your first "explaination" of the case where you claim the nephew admitted his uncle placed it there intentionally that you later include a little tidbit about the nephew denying ever saying his uncle placed the rock there on purpose which position would certainly bolster the states case and allow the court to find the farmer at fault to avoid the consequences of having to pay for the warden hitting a "very large rock" which you seem to want to dismiss.

 
It is surprising what can transpire in a court room when the "shady lawyers" are not just working for the defendants and conviction rates are an important score card to move up the ladder .

You seemed at first to insinuate that google earth pictures were instrumental in proving the case and then backpedal to claim they were worthless when someone asked how to veiw them.  You first claim someone stated something and yet then later admit he actually denied ever saying it.

 
Then you have someone who has actually driven down this road suggesting the warden could have easily avoided hitting this rock had he been responsible in his driving and as such feels as many apparently do that perhaps there is some accountability on the part of the warden and his employer as well.
 
Seems the bulb "shedding" the light here you lawyers like to use is rather dim.
 
So answer the question, what if this same warden goes out and hits a "very large rock " pile that is in the section line right of way. Should the last person that placed a rock in that pile be charged and held accountable?
 
Or should the warden accept the responsibility of his driving?

Certainly worth throwing years of relationship building with farmers and ranchers out the window for the G&F though.

 


Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

eyexer Said:
do the farmers that plant crops within that 66' easement have to rent that land from the state/county?  think we should enforce no planting in that easement alot more?

In this thread there has been numerous posts that include the language of the state laws regarding section lines. To be clear they can be fenced, farmed, grazed, plowed, hayed etc... the only stipualation is that access cannot be denied to it. So to me the section line was not restricted to travel, anymore than if you planted right up to the trail. Drive of that established trail into the planted area on the section line and see who pays for that? This is why this ruling unless and it was not clear in the post by springer was not to close the section line but to prevent someone from driving into the landowners field. Hence part of my issue with what is known!!!  That said it still does not answer the question of proper operation of a state owned vehicle by an employee in  a safe manner!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Pages