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

Pages

434 posts / 0 new
Last post
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
GREENHORN
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!

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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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?

Pages