Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 147222" data-attributes="member: 373">Holy man he asked me a question  (note the ? on the end of his post) ......I repliedyou and old wstnodak must hook up and comfort each other like a couple of liberals anguished over Trumps election.- - - Updated - - -With the ownership of property comes the responsibility for the liabilities that property can cause. That also is state law. You want to speak of what is reasonable, once again tell me why I must compensate YOU for my property destroying yours, but apparently you have no concerns about compensating me when your property ruins mine. So if you are going to embrace the wildlife are the publics property should the public not carry the same responsibilities for their property a private individual must according to state law to be "reasonable"?To directly answer your question, it is no more unreasonable to expect someone to post their land to prevent access to something that belongs to the public than it is to expect the public to be liable for the damages their property incurs to others. After all, we are trying to be "reasonable" here right?- - - Updated - - -"only 36 quarters,"Why is it you are concerned??- - - Updated - - -  And there ya go 6 pages. every couple years when the legislature is in session and bills  come up like this............... like clock work. Show where these Federal programs are tied to compensation for state public property damages. Those dollars may be tied to some pretty bullshit programs but you can't just glob onto them to cover to what YOUR property does in damages. This wild life is your property right? Shouldn;t you be liable for damages your property does? - - - Updated - - -Can you show in this thread where that has been done? I missed it.- - - Updated - - -No one has said this particular bill will change that.- - - Updated - - -claiming ownership of property can open up a can of worms you may not want it to. Think about wildlife that does not fall under state management or regulation such as migratory waterfowl. What a Federal lawsuit can accomplish might surprise you. Every year there are attempts, some successful from the "public" to protect their wildlife from a form of hunting or hunting all together. When this nation believes we are simple majority rule democracy with the initiated measure to create law, this "public ownership" of wildlife can in deed become a slippery slope. Add in Federal judges appointed to fullfill agendas...............and groups that use the tax payer dollars to file lawsuit after lawsuit........Simply look to the struggle wolf management thru hunting has become and tell us again how this can not become a slippery slope when the public embraces the "ownership" of their wildlife.Say what do you think would happen if the moose is declared an endangered species here in ND by the public that is concerned over the future of their property? <a href="http://www.climatesignals.org/headlines/two-groups-seek-endangered-species-protection-nd-moose-species" target="_blank">http://www.climatesignals.org/headlines/two-groups-seek-endangered-species-protection-nd-moose-species</a>"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found the petition, filed on July 9, 2015, to contain “substantial scientific or commercial information,” indicating the northwestern subspecies of moose, also known as andersoni, may need protection, according to the findings of the wildlife service..."- - - Updated - - -http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ptd_10-1.pdfI can;t get it to copy and paste. Go to page 25 and start reading where it starts "As case law"........Then tell us how this public ownership under the Public Trust Doctrine can not turn into a slippery slope for hunters.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA