Goose hunters & Jeff 2.0 ???

[KDM]

It's pretty easy to me. If I told you to get off my land and you do so, but fail to take all your equipment with you, that equipment is abandoned and is trash and litter to be dealt with as I see fit. Same as the many dishwashers, refrigerators, and furniture that somehow appeared on my land for some reason.

 

[lunkerslayer]

@KDM Thank you for posting, I just think Allen just loves to argue for the sake of arguing even after he admits that two wrongs don't make a right. If the Leo isn't going to force the freeloader from the property how is he going to arrest someone who has a right to be there, but allow someone to place garbage ( goose decoys) on private property and not arrest the freeloader for littering?

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

This is a classic example why so many loath farmers now days. So many arrogant pricks

I would say this goes both ways. There are a lot of worthless outdoorsmen that ruin it for the rest of us as well.

 

[Allen]

What's the matter, Lunk? I show you the Arkansas century code which clearly shows what the farmer did as being a criminal violation, so you wanna switch to saying I just want to argue? Hah, that's rich.

I hope the media does a follow-up on this one. I predict the guide will now get the message that he needs to pay to play. Along with that, the nephew (farmer) will also get the message in the form of a bill for some very expensive decoys.

Just because something something being on your land without your permission does NOT entitle one to do with it as they please. I think there was a pretty damn good example of this a number of years ago in ND (Nelson county???) where a few cows showed up on someone else's land and they decided to keep them. Turned into a big shitshow, but in the end they ended up not being able to keep the cows. In this example they found him guilty of Disorderly Conduct, which seems pretty lenient given the circumstances.

 

[bravo]

I think the biggest issue is that the farmer in this instance doesn’t actually own the land, therefore doesn’t necessarily have the right to kick the guide out.

 

[Allen]

I think the biggest issue is that the farmer in this instance doesn’t actually own the land, therefore doesn’t necessarily have the right to kick the guide out.

He will likely claim he was acting as the agent for his aunt.

Which will not be enough in a court to prevent him (or maybe his aunt) from having to buy some decoys.

 

[lunkerslayer]

So why wasn't the freeloader arrested for littering remember according to the article the freeloader was given an order to vacate the property. You now change the story about arresting the nephew but in your original post you stated that the Leo should have. Being sent an order to pay for decoys last time a checked is a civil matter. So that statement is a contradiction to your original post if you would have said that right from the get go there would have been no reason to argue about this. I probably would have still sided with the nephew though in that the freeloader had no legal grounds to be on that property and that his decoys could be considered to him at the time as nothing more then being rubbish.
Clearly the cattle theft is a different type of issue here since you already know there are laws on the books to protect the cattle owner in regards to this matter in north dakota. This is completely different matter since the decoys were never taken from the property.
I too hope to get to the bottom of this with more updates in the future

 

[Obi-Wan]

What's the matter, Lunk? I show you the Arkansas century code which clearly shows what the farmer did as being a criminal violation, so you wanna switch to saying I just want to argue? Hah, that's rich.

I hope the media does a follow-up on this one. I predict the guide will now get the message that he needs to pay to play. Along with that, the nephew (farmer) will also get the message in the form of a bill for some very expensive decoys.

Just because something something being on your land without your permission does NOT entitle one to do with it as they please. I think there was a pretty damn good example of this a number of years ago in ND (Nelson county???) where a few cows showed up on someone else's land and they decided to keep them. Turned into a big shitshow, but in the end they ended up not being able to keep the cows. In this example they found him guilty of Disorderly Conduct, which seems pretty lenient given the circumstances.

I don't think your ND story fits this situation since the cattle either walked on the land on their own or the guy trying to keep them put them there. The decoys didn't ended up on this land on their own nor did the farmer/renter put them there. If he was given a notice to vacate by a specific date anything after that date would be considered abandoned.

 

[espringers]

was the "freeloader" present when the decoys were turned into compost?

 

[lunkerslayer]

If you read the article espringers you would already know that answer since the Leo was there at the sametime to. Leo said this was a civil matter and there wasn't anything he could do about.

 

[Freedom]

Idiots collide round 2, both in the wrong. Sportsman make the video go viral, we all lose again.

 

[johnr]

Total dick thing to do, regardless of motive.

 

[watson]

So why wasn't the freeloader arrested for littering remember according to the article the freeloader was given an order to vacate the property. You now change the story about arresting the nephew but in your original post you stated that the Leo should have. Being sent an order to pay for decoys last time a checked is a civil matter. So that statement is a contradiction to your original post if you would have said that right from the get go there would have been no reason to argue about this. I probably would have still sided with the nephew though in that the freeloader had no legal grounds to be on that property and that his decoys could be considered to him at the time as nothing more then being rubbish.
Clearly the cattle theft is a different type of issue here since you already know there are laws on the books to protect the cattle owner in regards to this matter in north dakota. This is completely different matter since the decoys were never taken from the property.
I too hope to get to the bottom of this with more updates in the future

If you're holding judgment about this until more info comes out, why have you labeled one a freeloader and seem to be siding with the farmer? This is a civil matter, both the leo and gnf warden said it. This is all finger pointing until actual proof comes out. Question I have is was the land posted? If not then I think the farmer will be paying for some decoys.

 

[lunkerslayer]

If you're holding judgment about this until more info comes out, why have you labeled one a freeloader and seem to be siding with the farmer? This is a civil matter, both the leo and gnf warden said it. This is all finger pointing until actual proof comes out. Question I have is was the land posted? If not then I think the farmer will be paying for some decoys.

Apparently you didn't read the article, if you did read the article it's stated that the freeloader was served eviction papers. As far my original post is concerned I didn't know that the guide was actually a freeloader with a bad rep for clients complaining of bad service. So I'm entitled to my opinion and so are you even though you never read the article squeaky wheel.

 

[espringers]

no. i hadn't bothered to read it. i've got limited time during the day to peruse this site and sometimes i've got to triage what i read and participate in. the reason i asked if the "freeloader" was present was because someone else hinted at those decoys being abandoned property that the farmer can do with as they see fit. i've now read the article. the decoy owner was there filming. so, they clearly weren't abandoned. the farmer is another lessee. so, not sure what gives him legal authority to destroy someone else's property as a third party to a possible civil eviction action. even if he was the landowner, i fail to see how he couldn't be held civilly and possibly even criminally liable in this situation. the article seems to indicate an "eviction order" was served. i am inclined to think it was a notice to vacate. the two are way different. and even if it was an eviction order, you generally aren't allowed to destroy property as part of said order until a certain period of time has lapsed. anyway, carry on.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Noone is arguing about civil matters here espringers, if the guide takes him to court and wins then the price of the decoys should be compensated.

 

[johnr]

No-one is arguing about civil matters here espringers, if the guide takes him to court and wins then the price of the decoys should be compensated.

I am arguing that the farmer is a complete dick, and ruining that dudes shit is crazy. Hope he someday gets a taste of his own medicine.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I am arguing that the farmer is a complete dick, and ruining that dudes shit is crazy. Hope he someday gets a taste of his own medicine.

Totally agree juanr this nephew deserves to be brought behind the shed, strapped to a tree and given 30 lashes for his actions.

 

[espringers]

those decoys had been referred to as litter, rubbish and abandoned property more than once in an attempt to try to justify or minimize the till happy farmers actions. those decoys were none of the above. if you are illegally hunting on land i actually own, i can't cruise out in the field, run your decoys over and then on the way out run over your truck with my tractor. that not only makes me civilly liable. but, it should make me criminally liable. my recourse isn't to destroy your property. my recourse is to call law enforcement and have them enforce whatever civil or criminal rights i might have. ya know why its that way? its to prevent the escalation of situations like this. what's next? guide guy can just start shooting up the farmer's tractor? see where actions like this take you if they are legally allowed?

 

[lunkerslayer]

those decoys had been referred to as litter, rubbish and abandoned property more than once in an attempt to try to justify or minimize the till happy farmers actions. those decoys were none of the above. if you are illegally hunting on land i actually own, i can't cruise out in the field, run your decoys over and then on the way out run over your truck with my tractor. that not only makes me civilly liable. but, it should make me criminally liable. my recourse isn't to destroy your property. my recourse is to call law enforcement and them enforce whatever civil or criminal rights i might have. ya know why its that way? its to prevent the escalation of situations like this. what's next? guide guy can just start shooting up the farmer's tractor? see where actions like this take you if they are legally allowed?

I think the eviction notice is what is trumping your argument because if the guide was given an eviction notice and didn't vacate the property. Shouldn't the leo have the right to arrest and issue a citation for littering, since clearly by law he is trespassing on private property.