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

Pages

434 posts / 0 new
Last post
Springers's picture
Springers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/12/07

hwm, i was just relaying information with the goal of shedding some light on why he may have been found guilty.  regarding the issue of the game warden's responsibility and/or negligence:  this wasn't a civil trial on liability and damages.  the game warden wasn't on trial here.  the landowner was.  the game warden's negligence probably wasn't even an issue here.  given the wording of the statute, if i was the judge and if i believed the landowner had actually placed the rock there with the purpose of impeding travel on the section line, i wouldn't have cared one bit about whether the game warden was paying attention or not.  unless the judge felt the initial statements from the landowner, his nephew and the other hunters were fabricated, those statements likely held significant weight when he made his decision regarding the landowners intent.  i also think if the judge honestly believed the landowner and his nephew's later version that they never said those things and that there was no intent to impeded travel, then he probably wouldn't have found him guilty.  but, those are just my guesses based upon what mr. bear wrote that is posted on page 1 and the court documents.

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

 gst... you are a piece of work.  and i am not going to discuss this any more than i think is absolutely necessary.  in fact, you are one of the top 10 reasons i quit posting on this site so much.  you attempt to dominate discussions to the point it gets seriously annoying and any attempt at actual dialogue gets pretty frustrating.  

let me be clear... i am only regurgitating what is in the affidavit that is posted online under the case.  that affidavit includes what appears to be the investigative report from the deputy sheriff.  the HP initially responded.  i can only assume since the accident wasn't on a highway, he passed it on to the local sheriff's department.  the deputy sheriff then interviewed mr. game warden.  mr. game warden then passed information on to the deputy about what was said at the scene.  the deputy then subsequently interviewed the landowner himself.  and, if you believe the deputy, the landowner himself admitted to placing it there... and i quote... "to keep someone from driving in his field".  he then later asked if "it was criminal to place it there."  

do people fabricate evidence?  sure as hell.  but, for your theory to be correct, here is what would have had to transpire... 1.  the game warden would've had to lie about what nephew and other hunters said to him at the scene.  2.  the deputy sheriff would have had had to have fabricated the statement from the landowner from when he interviewed him that night.  3.  the deputy would have had to be willing to risk his career by fabricating the statements knowing full well that the landowner, his nephew and other other hunters (who knows what the hunters said in court) would come into court and dispute they ever said those things.  4.  he would have had to risk his career to protect the pocket books of the insurance company of a completely different state agency.  5.  the game warden would be risking his career by fabricating statements as well.  6.  the state's attorney would have to be convinced the judge is going to believe such fabrication.  7.  the judge would have had to actually believe those statements were not fabricated even though the nephew, uncle and maybe the other hunters claim they were.  

for 5 and 6 to have happened, i have a hunch that the other hunters probably confirmed the initial conversations between game warden, themselves and nephew.  but, that is just a hunch.  

carry on with your rock placing detective work.  i couldn't give two shits whether the guy got convicted or not.  i was just trying to shed some light on why he probably did.  

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

Guber, that story you told was awesome!

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

wstnodak Said:
Guber, that story you told was awesome!

the stalker is back

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

probably been posted.  but, here is the code.  

24-06-28. Obstruction of section lines prohibited - Exception - Certain fences not

considered obstructions - Obstructions and traffic safety hazards - Penalty.
1. A person may not place or cause to be placed any permanent obstruction within the
vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within the right of
way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the board of county commissioners or the board of township supervisors, as appropriate. The permission must be granted where the section line has been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 or where the topography of the land along the 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.
 
2. A person may not place or cause to be placed any obstruction or traffic safety hazard
within the vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within
the right of way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the
board of county commissioners or board of township supervisors, as appropriate.
 
3. Subsection 1 may not be construed to prohibit construction of fences:
 
a. Along or across section lines which have been closed pursuant to section
24-07-03 or which have not been opened because construction of a road is
impracticable due to the topography of the land along the section line, but such fences are subject to removal as provided in section 24-06-30.
 
b. Across section lines which have not been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 if
cattle guards are provided in accordance with chapter 24-10 where fences cross
the section lines.
 
4. The construction of fences pursuant to subsection 3 may not be considered an
obstruction of section lines and any person who damages any fence or who opens and fails to close any gate constructed under subsection 3 is guilty of an infraction.
5. Subsection 2 does not apply to a railroad company performing maintenance and repair work of railroad track, crossings, or other railroad facilities. 
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

johnr Said:

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.

that's not necessarily true.  I live in the country.  I can't do anything within that easment. not even plant my wheat.  I'm not sure if they would let me piss in it.

 

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

given the above wording, any obstruction other than a fence with a gate or some other opening, could technically be a violation.  however, as has been so eloquently pointed out in numerous hypothetical situations posted on so far, there are certainly things called prosecutor discretion and even judicial discretion.  again... just a guess... but, i am guessing the reason the prosecutor pursued this particular case and the reason the judge found him guilty is because they believed he placed the rock there with the purpose of impeding travel in some way shape or form.  

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

Springers Said:
probably been posted.  but, here is the code.  

24-06-28. Obstruction of section lines prohibited - Exception - Certain fences not

considered obstructions - Obstructions and traffic safety hazards - Penalty.
1. A person may not place or cause to be placed any permanent obstruction within the
vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within the right of
way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the board of county commissioners or the board of township supervisors, as appropriate. The permission must be granted where the section line has been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 or where the topography of the land along the 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.
 
2. A person may not place or cause to be placed any obstruction or traffic safety hazard
within the vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within
the right of way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the
board of county commissioners or board of township supervisors, as appropriate.
 
3. Subsection 1 may not be construed to prohibit construction of fences:
 
a. Along or across section lines which have been closed pursuant to section
24-07-03 or which have not been opened because construction of a road is
impracticable due to the topography of the land along the section line, but such fences are subject to removal as provided in section 24-06-30.
 
b. Across section lines which have not been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 if
cattle guards are provided in accordance with chapter 24-10 where fences cross
the section lines.
 
4. The construction of fences pursuant to subsection 3 may not be considered an
obstruction of section lines and any person who damages any fence or who opens and fails to close any gate constructed under subsection 3 is guilty of an infraction.
5. Subsection 2 does not apply to a railroad company performing maintenance and repair work of railroad track, crossings, or other railroad facilities. 

did I miss the part about where it was legal to plant crops within the easement? 

 

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

this depends on the nature of the easement.  gravel road, county road, etc... easements probably have different wording than your typical section line easements that are granted by the century code wording.  those easements would have specific language about what is allowed and what is not allowed and what the duties are (like cutting the ditches), etc... they might even be specific to each county, township and type of road.  i have no idea.  the section line easements being discussed here are general easements to the right of travel on said section line pursuant to the language of the century code.  i am guessing that section of the code only grants a right of travel and imposes a duty not to impede or obstruct that travel... nothing more... nothing less... farmer can plant right up to the line.  but, as was said before, if i am an inclined to be an asshole, i can also drive right through said crop.  

eyexer Said:

johnr Said:

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.

that's not necessarily true.  I live in the country.  I can't do anything within that easment. not even plant my wheat.  I'm not sure if they would let me piss in it.

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

 

eyexer Said:

Springers Said:
probably been posted.  but, here is the code.  

24-06-28. Obstruction of section lines prohibited - Exception - Certain fences not

considered obstructions - Obstructions and traffic safety hazards - Penalty.
1. A person may not place or cause to be placed any permanent obstruction within the
vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within the right of
way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the board of county commissioners or the board of township supervisors, as appropriate. The permission must be granted where the section line has been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 or where the topography of the land along the 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.
 
2. A person may not place or cause to be placed any obstruction or traffic safety hazard
within the vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within
the right of way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the
board of county commissioners or board of township supervisors, as appropriate.
 
3. Subsection 1 may not be construed to prohibit construction of fences:
 
a. Along or across section lines which have been closed pursuant to section
24-07-03 or which have not been opened because construction of a road is
impracticable due to the topography of the land along the section line, but such fences are subject to removal as provided in section 24-06-30.
 
b. Across section lines which have not been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 if
cattle guards are provided in accordance with chapter 24-10 where fences cross
the section lines.
 
4. The construction of fences pursuant to subsection 3 may not be considered an
obstruction of section lines and any person who damages any fence or who opens and fails to close any gate constructed under subsection 3 is guilty of an infraction.
5. Subsection 2 does not apply to a railroad company performing maintenance and repair work of railroad track, crossings, or other railroad facilities. 

did I miss the part about where it was legal to plant crops within the easement? 

 Be careful what you wish for or you will either be paying taxes to maintain section lines and/or most of them will get shut down 

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

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

geothermal Said:
 

eyexer Said:

Springers Said:
probably been posted.  but, here is the code.  

24-06-28. Obstruction of section lines prohibited - Exception - Certain fences not

considered obstructions - Obstructions and traffic safety hazards - Penalty.
1. A person may not place or cause to be placed any permanent obstruction within the
vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within the right of
way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the board of county commissioners or the board of township supervisors, as appropriate. The permission must be granted where the section line has been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 or where the topography of the land along the 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.
 
2. A person may not place or cause to be placed any obstruction or traffic safety hazard
within the vertical plane of thirty-three feet [10.06 meters] of any section line or within
the right of way of any highway, unless written permission is first secured from the
board of county commissioners or board of township supervisors, as appropriate.
 
3. Subsection 1 may not be construed to prohibit construction of fences:
 
a. Along or across section lines which have been closed pursuant to section
24-07-03 or which have not been opened because construction of a road is
impracticable due to the topography of the land along the section line, but such fences are subject to removal as provided in section 24-06-30.
 
b. Across section lines which have not been closed pursuant to section 24-07-03 if
cattle guards are provided in accordance with chapter 24-10 where fences cross
the section lines.
 
4. The construction of fences pursuant to subsection 3 may not be considered an
obstruction of section lines and any person who damages any fence or who opens and fails to close any gate constructed under subsection 3 is guilty of an infraction.
5. Subsection 2 does not apply to a railroad company performing maintenance and repair work of railroad track, crossings, or other railroad facilities. 

did I miss the part about where it was legal to plant crops within the easement? 

 Be careful what you wish for or you will either be paying taxes to maintain section lines and/or most of them will get shut down 

it was stated that it was legal to do so but I didn't see it in the cent. code.  So I was just asking if I missed it.  I do know that is a long standing practice.  so is farming right over the section line. 

 

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

Springers Said:
hwm, i was just relaying information with the goal of shedding some light on why he may have been found guilty.  regarding the issue of the game warden's responsibility and/or negligence:  this wasn't a civil trial on liability and damages.  the game warden wasn't on trial here.  the landowner was.  the game warden's negligence probably wasn't even an issue here.  given the wording of the statute, if i was the judge and if i believed the landowner had actually placed the rock there with the purpose of impeding travel on the section line, i wouldn't have cared one bit about whether the game warden was paying attention or not.  unless the judge felt the initial statements from the landowner, his nephew and the other hunters were fabricated, those statements likely held significant weight when he made his decision regarding the landowners intent.  i also think if the judge honestly believed the landowner and his nephew's later version that they never said those things and that there was no intent to impeded travel, then he probably wouldn't have found him guilty.  but, those are just my guesses based upon what mr. bear wrote that is posted on page 1 and the court documents.

Don;t think anyone has slammed the judge for his legal verdict have they springers?

What is being pointed out that the G&F likely could have found some way to avoid making this a public relations nightmare and setting back landowner relations.
 
 

Springers Said:
 gst... you are a piece of work.  and i am not going to discuss this any more than i think is absolutely necessary.  in fact, you are one of the top 10 reasons i quit posting on this site so much.  you attempt to dominate discussions to the point it gets seriously annoying and any attempt at actual dialogue gets pretty frustrating.  

let me be clear... i am only regurgitating what is in the affidavit that is posted online under the case.  that affidavit includes what appears to be the investigative report from the deputy sheriff.  the HP initially responded.  i can only assume since the accident wasn't on a highway, he passed it on to the local sheriff's department.  the deputy sheriff then interviewed mr. game warden.  mr. game warden then passed information on to the deputy about what was said at the scene.  the deputy then subsequently interviewed the landowner himself.  and, if you believe the deputy, the landowner himself admitted to placing it there... and i quote... "to keep someone from driving in his field".  he then later asked if "it was criminal to place it there."  

do people fabricate evidence?  sure as hell.  but, for your theory to be correct, here is what would have had to transpire... 1.  the game warden would've had to lie about what nephew and other hunters said to him at the scene.  Where did the GW testify in your "story" that the nephew told him anything? You are assuming MR. Bear lied about what the hunters told him? 2.  the deputy sheriff would have had had to have fabricated the statement from the landowner from when he interviewed him that night.  How do you know it was not placed in an approach leading into the field off the main two track trail down the section line? He said he placed it there to keep people out of his field, not off the section line correct? It seems HWM had no problem traveling down the section line so it apparently was poorly placed itf that was the intentIt seems once again an assumption has ocurred in your judging of this. 3.  the deputy would have had to be willing to risk his career by fabricating the statements knowing full well that the landowner, his nephew and other other hunters (who knows what the hunters said in court) would come into court and dispute they ever said those things. Where does it say the other witnesses heard the nephew say his uncle put the rock there on purpose? Another assumption on your part? Funny, in my "story" old whiney west liked so much when I was able to ask the young officer the states attorney called to testify that was standing right bedside the older officer that suggested I take this to court and would have been deaf not to hear was asked by me if the older officer told me to take this to court his response was "I don;t recall". Hard to tell isn;t it when it is one persons word against another.  4.  he would have had to risk his career to protect the pocket books of the insurance company of a completely different state agency.  5.  the game warden would be risking his career by fabricating statements as well. Where does it say the GW "fabricated anything" Yet again another "assumption" on your part. 6.  the state's attorney would have to be convinced the judge is going to believe such fabrication.  7.  the judge would have had to actually believe those statements were not fabricated even though the nephew, uncle and maybe the other hunters claim they were.  

for 5 and 6 to have happened, i have a hunch that the other hunters probably confirmed the initial conversations between game warden, themselves and nephew.  but, that is just a hunch.  

carry on with your rock placing detective work.  i couldn't give two shits whether the guy got convicted or not.  i was just trying to shed some light on why he probably did.  

pull your panties up there fella and get over it or go back to your failed self imposed exile. Right now there are 15 out of 17 top topics that I have not even posted in and you are whining about "dominating" discussions? Like I said pull up the panties man.
 
You come on here posting a direct claim and telling everyone that should put this to rest. Then when question a tiny bit, start to  backpedal from there and now are "assuming" and "hunching" your claims.
 
All the while no one has disagreed with the judges ruling, only the G&F depts decision to move ahead with this.

Nice dodge on answering the "very large rock" pile question Ironsides.

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

Springers Said:
 i have no idea.

Shoulda stopped right there.

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

 

gst Said:




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



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

You are a piece of work. Really. I just posted info... You know... FYI. But I think you have a reading comprehension problem. You were asserting that it was placed on the edge of the field with no I'll intent and no intention of impeding traffic just like all other rocks on the edges of section lines throughout the state. That's because you took Mr. Bears statement as the truth. The other side of the story is that nephew said it was put there on purpose, fellow hunters claimed they may have hit it had nephew not gone around it before them, uncle admits placing it there and based on nephew's assertion that he had made a new trail around the rock and hwm version, it sounds like this rock is no where near the edge. I understand you want to vilify the game and fish and put a halo around the head of a fellow landowner. That's fine. I expected that from you. I am just relaying info for those who are inclined to keep an open mind about things. I know you aren't that type of person and knew such efforts were likely wasted on you. Most others get it. Carry on.

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

 

Springers Said:
You are a piece of work. Really. I just posted info... You know... FYI. But I think you have a reading comprehension problem. You were asserting that it was placed on the edge of the field with no I'll intent and no intention of impeding traffic just like all other rocks on the edges of section lines throughout the state. That's because you took Mr. Bears statement as the truth. The other side of the story is that nephew said it was put there on purpose, fellow hunters claimed they may have hit it had nephew not gone around it before them, uncle admits placing it there and based on nephew's assertion that he had made a new trail around the rock and hwm version, it sounds like this rock is no where near the edge. I understand you want to vilify the game and fish and put a halo around the head of a fellow landowner. That's fine. I expected that from you. I am just relaying info for those who are inclined to keep an open mind about things. I know you aren't that type of person and knew such efforts were likely wasted on you. Most others get it. Carry on.

. Unbelievable. haha. well not really I guess. It's gst.

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

Corn or sunflowers that are planted over a section line are indeed an obstruction. You risk damage to your vehicle while plowing out a trail.

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

Springers Said:
You are a piece of work. Really. I just posted info... You know... FYI.

bullshit.

Springers Said:
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

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

You clearly posted your story thinking everyone else was wrong.

Springers Said:
. You were asserting that it was placed on the edge of the field with no I'll intent and no intention of impeding traffic just like all other rocks on the edges of section lines throughout the state.

Bullshit once again. SHOW where I was "asserting" he placed it any specific place other than somewhere within the 66 foot allowance of the section line or for a specific reason.

Really espringers prove what you claim.

Springers Said:
. I understand you want to vilify the game and fish and put a halo around the head of a fellow landowner. That's fine. I expected that from you.

Bullshit yet again, I did nothing more than assert that someone that would run over a "very large rock" that everyone else seems to be able to drive around should take a bit of responsibility for his own actions and that the ex hall monitor/G&F supervisor that likely never talked with the Head of the Dept probably did far more damage to their landowner relationship efforts than was worth it.

"vilify"????hardly unless you are a high school drama queen.

Springers Said:
 I am just relaying info for those who are inclined to keep an open mind about things. I know you aren't that type of person and knew such efforts were likely wasted on you. Most others get it. Carry on.

Information that originally you implied was undisputable proof and then back pedaled and assumed and hunched your way out of a corner, all without ever answering a simple question what would YOU do about all the landowners that place rocks in "very large rock" piles that a wayward warden may drive over.

Springers Said:
 That's fine. I expected that from you.

Indeed I did espringers. With all the bullshit you are willing to spout to try and prove your point you should be a lawyer..................................oh wait, you are. Go figure.

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

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:



Mr. Horsager, you seem unwilling to answer the question posed to you also, What would YOU do about all the rock piles within the 66 foot section line allowance across the state and those farmers that place rocks on or near them?
 
If this wayward , wondering warden happens to be eye balling hunters just hoping to catch them piling ducks and plows over a rock pile that everyone else has seen fit to drive around, should he be accountable or should the G&F supervisor and the SA go drag an 88 year old farmer out of the nursing home and throw his ass in front of the judge for the rocks he placed there 20 years ago?
BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 Was it illegal to place rocks on section lines 20 years ago?

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

The best way to make this fair is to deny Gratis tags to any landowners that have placed rocks on section lines.. 

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

 Whats with this phrase lately!?!?!    So many questions unanswered....think we'll need a new thread with unanswered questions. Come on Matt!! Clay!! Bruce! Steve! Ron!

gst Said:
Mr. Horsager, you seem unwilling to answer the question posed to you also, What would YOU do about all the rock piles within the 66 foot section line allowance across the state and those farmers that place rocks on or near them?
 
Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

gst Said:

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:



Mr. Horsager, you seem unwilling to answer the question posed to you also, What would YOU do about all the rock piles within the 66 foot section line allowance across the state and those farmers that place rocks on or near them?

Nah, you're not going to pigeon-hole me into a landowner vs. non-landowner argument, all or nothing bunch of BS.  The problem isn't the guy who makes a mistake or just plain forgets he's placed something where it doesn't belong.  The problem is the guy who habitually purposefully blocks off access.  That's the guy that ruins things for other landowners, and, most of the time, he's one of you, not a non-landowning hunter, but, a landowner who's decided unilaterally that he's going to do what the county or township has failed to do.  How about you police your own before you go jaw-jacking the rest of us.

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



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

You see things how they exist between your earballs. Nothing more. Even when reading words on a page. I would suggest you reread this thread, your posts in their context and my posts word for word in the context they are posted. However, I know its a pointless request. So again... Carry on.

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

 

feather_duster Said:
 Whats with this phrase lately!?!?!    
gst Said:
Mr. Horsager, you seem unwilling to answer the question posed to you also, What would YOU do about all the rock piles within the 66 foot section line allowance across the state and those farmers that place rocks on or near them?
 

Everybody wants to know what I think.  It's been that way my whole life.  It's the cross I must bear for the good lord bestowing an inordinate amount of intelligence and insight.

I've also got this bridge for sale, ocean-front in AZ.  (grin)

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



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

 Gst if -------- if the landowner is guilty will it still cause poor relations with land owners and the Game and Fish?  If a land owner runs a red light and a policeman tickets him will it cause bad rations between land owners and the Game and Fish if it's found that the policeman's wife knows the wife of a man who's brother-in-law knows the father of a man who works for the Game and Fish?


odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

Thanks for researching those records, Springers. Good to hear both sides FINALLY. Sounds like bad decisions on both parts. Mr. Warden for not paying full attention to his driving, and Mr. Brown for placing rock on/near centerline of Section line, intentionally to impede traffic or not). In the end its on the person who placed the rock, regardless of the intentions. A good way to look at it is what if the accident had involved an ambulance going out to a field to pick up a person in critical condition? What if striking the rock from driving said vehicle fast in an attempt to reach victim killed a EMT? Had the rock been placed on or near the edge of the easement away from normal route of travel (like most rock piles), there would never have been an issue. Its really just a bad thing all around for landowners and sportsmen (more land posted, general attitudes, etc.). Thankfully there were no serious injuries. I bet there is some sort of reasoning on why this wasn’t handled/settled without court, cant imagine after all the audit findings and lack of tags, etc that the NDGF would want this kind of press, regardless of who's fault. Maybe Springers can elaborate  more on that (not why NDGF would want that press, but why this had to go to court...state law or other reason)?

Anyways, like I say, crappy situation all around. It is what is, and the law is the law. Time to bury this and move on.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

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

 

Springers Said:
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.  


I tried to find it at ndcourts.gov, but couldn't find it. Not sure where else to look.

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

springer all this still does not clarify why the officer was not sited for failure to have his vehicle under control that caused damage? This is not as I said a defense of the placing of the rock, far from it. But as I pointed out distracted driving is just that and if you can get a DUI on a section line you most certainly should get cited for distracted driving as well.

In regards to landowner relations over this, I do not think it is going to affect things much. Most disputes and bad feelings over section lines come from those who are operating the lands and others operating lands in the area or right across from them.

Having seen the length that some go to in making it as difficult as possible for another operator to reach a piece of land, hunter travel are not the issue. Most of the landowners I talked with from that area never even mentioned it. The three that did where not surprised at this and all of them said this was a result of bad blood between two farmers.

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!

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

I didn't post this information to start a bigger fight. I posted it because this thread had taken a turn where a big majority were passing judgment on the game warden, the prosecutor and even the judge because they only heard the land oowners version. I knew there had to be another version for this to have made it to the court room and for a judge to find him guilty. When I made my first post, I hadn't even read that version yet cause I can't see actual court docs on my phone. But, I knew when I got in front of a computer, there was sure to be another side to the story and there was.

I don't take a side here. But, the other version sheds some light on why it may have turned out that way. I even prefaced some analysis with phrases like "I am guessing", " if I was the judge", "i assume", etc... In the context of both versions of events.

Gst, you fail to grasp that context and my post failed self imposed exile self doesn't care enough or have to time to pick this thread apart post by post, paragraph by paragraph, line by line, word by emboldened word, and period by question mark... Especially from my phone. Sorry.

On why I think it got to this point... I think if u dig deep into both parties versions and choose to believe the gw and the investigator, u might believe the landowner placed the rock there intentionally and probably with the intent of obstructing travel. If u believe them, then u also see the follow up statement from nephew that he never said uncle put it there intentionally to prevent someone from getting to his field and land owner also claiming he didn't say that and had just piled it on the edge like any other rock, as covering up and self serving and failing to accept any responsibility for wrong doing. That kind of conduct pisses off law enforcement and prosecutors. Which would explain how it made its way to a court room even in the hands of a reasonable prosecutor. It may (see that word gst?) also explain the judges verdict cause I doubt a reasonable judge would find him guilty if he honestly believed the rock was just the run of the mill rock dragged out of a field and placed on the edge with no ill intent. I could be wrong. But that's my analysis of how charges came about and how a guilty verdict was rendered after reading both sides of the story.

Btr, we get special user names to see the docs online. There is a push to give the general public the same access. But it is public info or I couldn't access it. If u went to the actual court house its filed in, you could see them too... Either in paper form or at a kiosk maybe. Also, everything said in that court room is public record. The hearing was open to the public and anyone can get a transcript if they made a request and paid a fee.

The supreme court appeal will probably provide more info and insight.

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

To me the GW confessed to "distracted driving" to the hunters after running into the rock (just like texting while driving.)  He said he was looking at the hunters instead of watching where he was driving:

Mr. Hastings told the hunters that he “was not paying attention,” that he felt “dumb,” and Hastings admitted that he was “watching the hunters rather than the road.”

This is a ticketable offense and should have absolved the landowner of any culpability.  The Judge should have found for Mr Bear!

Steve.

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Plainsman Said:
 Gst if -------- if the landowner is guilty will it still cause poor relations with land owners and the Game and Fish?  If a land owner runs a red light and a policeman tickets him will it cause bad rations between land owners and the Game and Fish if it's found that the policeman's wife knows the wife of a man who's brother-in-law knows the father of a man who works for the Game and Fish?


This is about as dumb of a post as any throughout this thread. If you can't see the correlation between the GW not paying attention due to the hunters on the land I don't know what to say. I hope it doesn't happen, but you eliminate the hunter off the land....
A: the GW might actually pay attention on a zero maintenance section line 
B: He might not be on that section line at all.

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

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:



Mr. Horsager, you seem unwilling to answer the question posed to you also, What would YOU do about all the rock piles within the 66 foot section line allowance across the state and those farmers that place rocks on or near them?

Nah, you're not going to pigeon-hole me into a landowner vs. non-landowner argument, all or nothing bunch of BS.  The problem isn't the guy who makes a mistake or just plain forgets he's placed something where it doesn't belong.  The problem is the guy who habitually purposefully blocks off access.  That's the guy that ruins things for other landowners, and, most of the time, he's one of you, not a non-landowning hunter, but, a landowner who's decided unilaterally that he's going to do what the county or township has failed to do.  How about you police your own before you go jaw-jacking the rest of us.

No problem with that there statement Mr. Horsager. But from all accounts of some one on this site hwm, this "very large rock" was NOT blocking travel down the section line. Not only did hardwaterman drive around it on more than one occasion to get to where he wanted to go, so did the hunters the wondering warden was eyeballing.
 
So really lets be honest here, how much "access" was blocked?

The fella said he placed it there to block "access to his field". I would hope you do not have a problem with a landowner controlling who drives in and out of their property.

Once again the point has always been not what the law states, it is how it was handled. If you really think the G&F handled this "properly" as some of the ex hall monitors on here believe..............................well we disagree.

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

 I have seen many things used to block section lines, but not big rocks.  I like it when section lines are blocked so i dont have pickups driving by while im sitting.

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

Springers Said:
You see things how they exist between your earballs. Nothing more. Even when reading words on a page. I would suggest you reread this thread, your posts in their context and my posts word for word in the context they are posted. However, I know its a pointless request. So again... Carry on.

Here is what i see as it "exists between my earballs" espringers.

You came on here claiming I made claims I did not . Between my earballs that is seen as lying. If you did not, go back and substantiate what you were asked to.

So before you "request" someone else go back and reread the thread, perhaps you should take your own advice. Because if you do you will clearly see I never claimed what you said I did.

At that point you have two choices, admit what you said was wrong or continue to allow your lie to stand .



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

Plainsman Said:
 Gst if -------- if the landowner is guilty will it still cause poor relations with land owners and the Game and Fish?  If a land owner runs a red light and a policeman tickets him will it cause bad rations between land owners and the Game and Fish if it's found that the policeman's wife knows the wife of a man who's brother-in-law knows the father of a man who works for the Game and Fish?

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

 

gst Said:
Once again the point has always been not what the law states, it is how it was handled. If you really think the G&F handled this "properly" as some of the ex hall monitors on here believe..............................well we disagree.

I think there's plenty of well intentioned and poorly executed plans and actions to go around here.  Like I said before, I've got no problem giving good guys a break.  But, I've got a real problem giving habitual access deniers any legal precedent to stand on.

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



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

Springers Said:
I didn't post this information to start a bigger fight. I posted it because this thread had taken a turn where a big majority were passing judgment on the game warden, the prosecutor and even the judge because they only heard the land oowners version. I knew there had to be another version for this to have made it to the court room and for a judge to find him guilty. When I made my first post, I hadn't even read that version yet cause I can't see actual court docs on my phone. But, I knew when I got in front of a computer, there was sure to be another side to the story and there was.

I don't take a side here. But, the other version sheds some light on why it may have turned out that way. I even prefaced some analysis with phrases like "I am guessing", " if I was the judge", "i assume", etc... In the context of both versions of events.

Gst, you fail to grasp that context and my post failed self imposed exile self doesn't care enough or have to time to pick this thread apart post by post, paragraph by paragraph, line by line, word by emboldened word, and period by question mark... Especially from my phone. Sorry.

On why I think it got to this point... I think if u dig deep into both parties versions and choose to believe the gw and the investigator, u might believe the landowner placed the rock there intentionally and probably with the intent of obstructing travel. If u believe them, then u also see the follow up statement from nephew that he never said uncle put it there intentionally to prevent someone from getting to his field and land owner also claiming he didn't say that and had just piled it on the edge like any other rock, as covering up and self serving and failing to accept any responsibility for wrong doing. That kind of conduct pisses off law enforcement and prosecutors. Which would explain how it made its way to a court room even in the hands of a reasonable prosecutor. It may (see that word gst?) also explain the judges verdict cause I doubt a reasonable judge would find him guilty if he honestly believed the rock was just the run of the mill rock dragged out of a field and placed on the edge with no ill intent. I could be wrong. But that's my analysis of how charges came about and how a guilty verdict was rendered after reading both sides of the story.

Btr, we get special user names to see the docs online. There is a push to give the general public the same access. But it is public info or I couldn't access it. If u went to the actual court house its filed in, you could see them too... Either in paper form or at a kiosk maybe. Also, everything said in that court room is public record. The hearing was open to the public and anyone can get a transcript if they made a request and paid a fee. The supreme court appeal will probably provide more info and insight.

Nice dodge on having to go back and substantiate your lie claiming I said something I did not.

You came on here posting the other side of the story chastizing others. Then when you were asked a couple question you came back with alot of admitted "I think" I assume" "maybe" "possibly" "I don;t know buts" along with lies of what someone else had stated...


I never once said the landowner was right or wrong in his action or the prosecutor was right or wrong from a legal standing or the judge was right or wrong in his decision. Only that the warden who ran over "a very large rock" that everyone else seemed to be able to avoid and still travel to where they wanted to go should have been accountable and that it was handled poorly.

My apologies if your tender feelings were hurt after ending your self imposed exile. I thought most people who post crap on here would be grown up enough to answer a few questions in a discussion about an issue they post a comment about.

I asked a simple question to get the measure of some people. So here is a little different version that I am sure these same people will not answer. If 20 people drive around a "very large rock" or a "rock pile" and one person drives on top of it, should the one person that drives on top of the "very large rock" 20 others avoided bear any accountability for his own stupidity?

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

gst Said:

Springers Said:
I didn't post this information to start a bigger fight. I posted it because this thread had taken a turn where a big majority were passing judgment on the game warden, the prosecutor and even the judge because they only heard the land oowners version. I knew there had to be another version for this to have made it to the court room and for a judge to find him guilty. When I made my first post, I hadn't even read that version yet cause I can't see actual court docs on my phone. But, I knew when I got in front of a computer, there was sure to be another side to the story and there was.

I don't take a side here. But, the other version sheds some light on why it may have turned out that way. I even prefaced some analysis with phrases like "I am guessing", " if I was the judge", "i assume", etc... In the context of both versions of events.

Gst, you fail to grasp that context and my post failed self imposed exile self doesn't care enough or have to time to pick this thread apart post by post, paragraph by paragraph, line by line, word by emboldened word, and period by question mark... Especially from my phone. Sorry.

On why I think it got to this point... I think if u dig deep into both parties versions and choose to believe the gw and the investigator, u might believe the landowner placed the rock there intentionally and probably with the intent of obstructing travel. If u believe them, then u also see the follow up statement from nephew that he never said uncle put it there intentionally to prevent someone from getting to his field and land owner also claiming he didn't say that and had just piled it on the edge like any other rock, as covering up and self serving and failing to accept any responsibility for wrong doing. That kind of conduct pisses off law enforcement and prosecutors. Which would explain how it made its way to a court room even in the hands of a reasonable prosecutor. It may (see that word gst?) also explain the judges verdict cause I doubt a reasonable judge would find him guilty if he honestly believed the rock was just the run of the mill rock dragged out of a field and placed on the edge with no ill intent. I could be wrong. But that's my analysis of how charges came about and how a guilty verdict was rendered after reading both sides of the story.

Btr, we get special user names to see the docs online. There is a push to give the general public the same access. But it is public info or I couldn't access it. If u went to the actual court house its filed in, you could see them too... Either in paper form or at a kiosk maybe. Also, everything said in that court room is public record. The hearing was open to the public and anyone can get a transcript if they made a request and paid a fee. The supreme court appeal will probably provide more info and insight.

Nice dodge on having to go back and substantiate your lie claiming I said something I did not.

You came on here posting the other side of the story chastizing others. Then when you were asked a couple question you came back with alot of admitted "I think" I assume" "maybe" "possibly" "I don;t know buts" along with lies of what someone else had stated...


I never once said the landowner was right or wrong in his action or the prosecutor was right or wrong from a legal standing or the judge was right or wrong in his decision. Only that the warden who ran over "a very large rock" that everyone else seemed to be able to avoid and still travel to where they wanted to go should have been accountable and that it was handled poorly.

My apologies if your tender feelings were hurt after ending your self imposed exile. I thought most people who post crap on here would be grown up enough to answer a few questions in a discussion about an issue they post a comment about.

I asked a simple question to get the measure of some people. So here is a little different version that I am sure these same people will not answer. If 20 people drive around a "very large rock" or a "rock pile" and one person drives on top of it, should the one person that drives on top of the "very large rock" 20 others avoided bear any accountability for his own stupidity?

I know if I had done something like this with a company vehicle my employer would have kicked my ass!!

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

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:
Once again the point has always been not what the law states, it is how it was handled. If you really think the G&F handled this "properly" as some of the ex hall monitors on here believe..............................well we disagree.

I think there's plenty of well intentioned and poorly executed plans and actions to go around here.  Like I said before, I've got no problem giving good guys a break.  But, I've got a real problem giving habitual access deniers any legal precedent to stand on.

If the fella had actually "blocked access" down this section line I would tend to agree with you, but clearly with everyone other than the warden driving around what was a 3 foot by 4 foot rock access was really not being denied.

That is why I asked the question about the rock piles in these allowances that do not really deny access but like this "very large rock" could do damage if someone was not paying attention to where they were driving and ran over one.

Not to "pigeon hole"  anyone anywhere, but to get people to stop and think if 20 other people drive around something, perhaps the one fella not paying attention that runs into that something deserves some accountability.

Most farmers and ranchers I know will look at this this way. If the fella put the rock there because  of a feud with his neighbor, (we all know about Hatfield/McCoy feuds like this that go on) he likely deserves some of the consequences, but the warden/G&F that ran over the rock cause he was eyeballing some guys hunting and not watching where he was going deserves to pay his fair share as well.

I guess common sense solutions are not common any more.


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

you know why i don't take the time to respond to you or dig through every post, etc???its cause i have a life, a wife, a job, 3 kids, hobbies, etc... and my time is worth money. i like to come here for entertainment.  not to argue.  i've gotten better at that.  but, i obviously have some work to do.  but, just for you... here are my posts on this subject up until you respond to me.  

Post 221... 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.

post 240... his 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.  

post 242...
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. 

post 244...  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.  

they all seem pretty mild up til this point.  just pointing out facts as they are alleged by the other side and examining why charges were probably filed and how they may have came up with the verdict.  

then you chime it at 249 and start busting my balls as usual and as was expected.  with statements like this... Seems the bulb "shedding" the light here you lawyers like to use is rather dim. 

and it goes down hill from there.  notice not one time before you chime in on my posts do i single you out as saying or insinuating anything.  not once.  i make a general analysis of the thread up until this point and the case as i saw it from both sides of the aisle.  you make it personal, call bullshit, tell me to pull up my panties, call me a liar, all in typical gst fashion.  everyone except you sees it.  

you want to know why i think its a YOU problem and not a ME problem?  because i can't even remember getting into a pissing match on this site with anyone but you.  on the other hand, i've seen you get into pissing matches with almost everyone of the regular posters on this site at one time or another.  in fact, i think you did it with 3-4 guys besides me on this thread alone.  these are guys who i didn't think were capable of saying anything worth getting angry about 99% of the time.  but, somehow, the very few arguments they've had seem to involve you.  you know why?  its not because of what you have to say.  its how you say it.  you come off as if you respect nobody's thoughts or opinions but your own.  you can be respectful from time to time.  but, that's very seldom the case when someone disagrees with you.  

oh and btw... on the edge of field thing... at first, i thought maybe i had you confused with someone else.  or maybe i was just taking your repeated remarks comparing this rock to ALL the other rocks on section lines all over the state;  or about how it couldn't have been in the middle of the section line if he was just trying to block access to his field, it must have been on the edge, etc... in their context.  but, i decided i better look and make sure so i could explain my comment because you keep referring to it and calling me a liar because of it.  so, i think this is what i was referring to...

post 169 by you... 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.

and post 220...
it appeared the witnesses traversed  the section line 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. 

did i take that comment out of context?  maybe.  but, i don't think so cause that seems to be what you are saying.  especially in the context of this entire thread.  and it seems disputed by HWM's version and nephews version when they describe driving around it.  if you believe uncle and nephew made their initial statements like GW and Deputy claim they did, then this isn't a rock like ALL the others and it wasn't on the edge.  this rock was different because it was in the middle of the section line and it was initially placed there to impede someone else's travel.

you also repeatedly blame the GW or the GNF for the charges.  fact is, the state's attorney files charges.  he certainly my take the GW or the GNF's wishes into account.  i have no idea if they wanted it pursued or not.  however, if the state's attorney felt it was placed there with the intent of impeding travel and that they later tried to change their story and accuse the deputy or GW of lieing about what they said (which is what the nephew asserts in his affidavit that accompanied the dismissal brief) and that he was refusing to accept any sort of responsibility that he committed a crime, then the state's attorney may very well have went forward with this charge on his own regardless of what GW or his supervisor said or regardless of whether the GW was negligent in his driving.  i do some prosecution work.  and its not uncommon for me to tell a victim who asks that charges be dismissed.. "i appreciate your input and i will take it into account in plea negotiations.  however, this is the State v. John Doe.  not you v. John Doe.  so, the decision of whether to go forward or not is not up to you.  if i think he broke a law and i have enough evidence to go forward with this charge, i will because i think John Doe needs to take some responsibility for his actions."

there... now i've wasted an hour of my time.  fucking stupid!

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

Springers Said:
  fucking stupid!

Shoulda started there espringers and then stopped.

From the start all I and others have maintained is that the wayfaring warden should have been accountable for his actions just as much as old Mr. Bear.

Springers Said:

did i take that comment out of context?  maybe.  but, i don't think so cause that seems to be what you are saying.  especially in the context of this entire thread. 

Ya you did espringers. And becasue you got all worked up, you claimed I said something I did not which" between my earballs" is a lie. Maybe not for you lawyers, but for me it is.

It really is not that hard to draw the conclusion that I merely think that the one fella that ran over the "very large rock" after who knows how many others drove around it with no problem should have a little accountability for his  actions from what I posted in this thread.

Seems to me to be a little common sense, but hey throw a hissy fit about me being a big meanie if it makes your day better.

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

 Sounds like a case of MMS...

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

look back again.  who through the hissy fit first?  who made it personal first?  you did.  and i responded in kind.  and you did it not just with me.  but, with a few others.  its a repeating process with you.

regarding holding GW accountable like mr. bear... what GW did wasn't criminal it was negligence.  if you believe the judge, what mr. bear did was.  and the GW's negligence is only an issue because of mr. bear's criminal actions.  absent those actions, the GW's actions wouldn't have been an issue.  there in lies the difference.  

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

Not so springer and you know it. Distracted driving is just that! Extenuating circumstances is your claim in his defense? If I have a child screaming in the back seat and run into someone that still is my fault. If I run into someone while watching the police chase a criminal, the criminal is not responsible for me hitting someone or something.

Admitted lack of attention by the officer involved deserves proper addressing period!! This inattentive driving could have and likely has occurred on well traveled roads. Would you feel the same had he hit someone head on ? 

There are two very clear wrongs in this case and unfortunately only one is being punished. 

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!

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:

Horsager Said:
 

gst Said:



Mr. Horsager, you seem unwilling to answer the question posed to you also, What would YOU do about all the rock piles within the 66 foot section line allowance across the state and those farmers that place rocks on or near them?

Nah, you're not going to pigeon-hole me into a landowner vs. non-landowner argument, all or nothing bunch of BS.  The problem isn't the guy who makes a mistake or just plain forgets he's placed something where it doesn't belong.  The problem is the guy who habitually purposefully blocks off access.  That's the guy that ruins things for other landowners, and, most of the time, he's one of you, not a non-landowning hunter, but, a landowner who's decided unilaterally that he's going to do what the county or township has failed to do.  How about you police your own before you go jaw-jacking the rest of us.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

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

Actually I am not sure I agree with you. You may be right. First of all, i dont think distracted driving applies to situations where u happen to take your eyes off the road for a few seconds and i have to wonder if it applies in an off road situation like a section line. But, I could equate it to this... Drunk driver is on road and swerving. Five drivers happen to avoid him and call in his swerving. Driver #6 comes upon him and happens to be fiddling with the radio and doesn't see him swerving and they meet head on. He was distracted. But should he be charged? The rock in the road is similar to the driver in my lane is it not? That's a bit of a stretch. But not in the context of someone's criminal actions negating or not negating someone else's. I am on my phone again. You mind posting the distracted driving statute?

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

Springers Said:
look back again.  who through the hissy fit first?  who made it personal first?  you did.  and i responded in kind.  and you did it not just with me.  but, with a few others.  its a repeating process with you.

regarding holding GW accountable like mr. bear... what GW did wasn't criminal it was negligence.  if you believe the judge, what mr. bear did was.  and the GW's negligence is only an issue because of mr. bear's criminal actions.  absent those actions, the GW's actions wouldn't have been an issue.  there in lies the difference.  

"Hall monitor, hall monitor, he pushed me first"

Springers if your panties are so fragile you can't stand being refered to as a "ex hall monitor" get off the internet chat forums.

I did not lie about what someone else stated.

Your second paragraph pretty well sums up our differences. I simply think the GW should be as equally responsible as Mr Bear in covering "damages",  you use lawyering technicalities to lay ALL the blame elsewhere.

THAT is the trouble with our society these days.

Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

Negative comments:

First: ask yourself why they are made or the reason they are made by that person.

Second: what is the responds and what road do you want to go down.

Third: do you become detached or continue on.

Fourth: turn negative into positive,  the cup is indeed half full and not half empty.

I have found saying "you may be right" to end the discussion will usually either piss the person off more or make him/her feel good so we can go on to some other subject.
If it is a women they will be more pissed but a guy will usually then go on.

If it was me I would of said I had no ideal how that rock got there but either my grandfather working with horses put it there or God with the help of the ice must of drop it there.  Common sense in answering a question by a guy with a badge on. 
As a kid I did clean up a lot of section lines with the help of a WD-9 and a stone boat.  Now the section line is only a memory in a number of fields.
db

Db

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

Pages