Goose hunters & Jeff 2.0 ???

[espringers]

the recourse is to call law enforcement to assist in enforcing the "eviction notice". not damage property. for what its worth, the term "eviction notice" doesn't seem accurate. generally speaking the order would be: 1. like a notice to vacate/comply which tells the lessee they need to leave the property or fix the problem within a certain amount of time. 2. if the lessee doesn't leave, an eviction action is started with a summons and complaint. 3. assuming the landlord is successful in the eviction action, then they would be served with a judgment of eviction/possession. 4. if they don't leave within the specified timeframe, the landlord would get a writ of possession/eviction that would be enforced by local law enforcement... not the landowner.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Yep all kinds of things don't add up that's why debating on this very subject is based on an article with very vague information or information that isnt defined properly that we can only speculate, hence the conjectures to said article. I'm still going to side with the nephew basd on the information that kurtr has given us into the character of this guide. Lots of questions need to be answered like where is the landlords daughter in all this, who called the leo, how long were the decoys out in the field so many questions. One thing is certain here, this article gives hunters and landowners a bad rep.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Well it's a good thing we atleast have this article to get some of our information because Dustin Loyd Facebook page most think he owns the land, he said he was in the field to fix the damage the guides pickup tires did. Which is the reason why he had the roller on but then another post said that actually the game warden was there first and told the guide he could hunt. Then the guide called the sheriff to report that his decoys were being destroyed. The only ones who are going to make out here are the lawyers in court.

 

[Davey Crockett]

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.

That entirely depends on the lease contract. Hunting rights should always be discussed and declared in a lease agreement. I'm surprised NDSU doesn't mention this on the lease agreement information page.

From University of Nebraska webpage " Who has the hunting rights for leased land with a written lease? A written cropland or pasture lease can specify who has hunting rights. If the written lease does not reserve hunting rights in the landlord directly or indirectly, the hunting rights would go to the tenant for the duration of the lease."



Common sense and respect is dwindling. I think it's a shame that Outdoor Life would published this, It boils down to them using both hunters and landowners as pawns just like that Sweere kid did with his video.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Totally agree davey

 

[NDbowman]

Both parties were probably in the wrong. The hunter for not leaving when asked and the farmer for destroying the hunters property. The real loser in all of this is the rest of us hunters and landowners that aren't complete dickheads like these two. Destroying those decoys is really dumb, what happens to all that crap now, who cleans it up, I doubt all the stakes will be found and that shit will be in the field for years to come. The farmer should have been smarter and followed a more legal way to get the hunter to leave and he probably could get him for damages to his field if he truly didn't have permission to be there any longer. Now he is the one who will have to pay for damaging the hunters decoys.