don novicki
Active member
Todd 's post up above has the solution to the problem IMO. I don't know that they suggested that, but it might have defused the situation. Cooperation, not confrontation, is what keeps private property in play.
Who Is In The Wrong?
- Thread starter Eric Patterson
- Start date
Eric Patterson said:
I think the manner in which the landowner demanded money is the very definition of extortion. The demand came with a threat. Had he driven up and said, "you guys are on my property and I charge $300 to hunt here. Pay me or please leave", no direct threat so different story.
My guess is the state won't raise it to the felony level, they will slap both parties on the wrist, the kids will pay a trespass fine and the neighbor will be charged with hunter harassment. In any event, guys like the neighbor need to be restrained a little to prevent one of these situations from escalating into a shoot em' up.
I was thinking that maybe hunters now have the equivalent of a "Karen". No offence to our friends on Duckboats.net named Jeff (yours truly's middle name), but now we can have a "Jeff". [w00t]
SJ Fairbank said:
Not liking this proposal!
Jeff Reardon said:
OK, I retract my motion! [
][smile]One thing I find strange about the incident is that the neighbor wasn't deterred by the filming. Usually someone who knows they're wrong backs off in the face of a lens. Not just the rant, but driving around in the other farmers bean field. Is it possible the guy thinks he was completely in the right?
Kris Schaumburg
Well-known member
either way i bet the bean field will be posted next year
Phil Nowack
Well-known member
While I think the hunters should never have set up that close to percieved line... and even should have moved once confronted... I would NEVER ask that guy to hunt with me...
Eric Patterson said:
I'm reading (forum chatter, so who knows) that one of the hunters was charged with criminal trespass. The landowner was charger with misdemeanor: hunter harassment, trading in special influence (extortion?) and disorderly conduct - obscenity.
Last edited:
I'm losing patience with the hunters, if only because every update, which could be a short paragraph, is instead a 20 minute video.
That said, it seemed from the beginning that regardless of the trespass issue, the landowner was out of line and at least borderline hunter harassment.
That said, it seemed from the beginning that regardless of the trespass issue, the landowner was out of line and at least borderline hunter harassment.
Gary Mills
New member
Do a little research on the one who made the video, appears if it same guy, he has a problem with make safe good decisions. That farmer is a lunatic, met a cpl. Like him through the years.
Thanks for the update. So he was charged with what amounts to extortion. I'm a little surprised, but can't say he doesn't deserve it.
Jeff Reardon said:
Same here. I set the playback speed to 1.5x just to get through it.
It will be interesting to see if the charges stick or get bargained away. I suspect the landowner will get a surveyor and if they trespassed go after them as well.
Eric
Jeff Reardon said:
Yes, that kid sure does drag it out to keep you on his site. His verbage also seemed deceptive to me, they turned over "most" of the raw footage and other waffling. If Tod is correct that one of them was charged as well, which I didn't hear mentioned, the kid's credibility is suspect.
Josh Schwenger
Active member
I would like to see the language for the trespass law in the state and see what the legislator put in for the culpability. If it's "purposely, knowingly" i don't see the hunters charge sticking. I can state one thing for sure the harassment was purposeful along with the three attempts at extortion.
Eric Patterson said:
That would be parsing things pretty closely. Reminds me of the Wyoming case about whether "corner crossing" is trespassing when 2 parcels of public land touch only at the corners. https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/2022/09/02/wyoming-corner-crossing-case-is-headed-federal-court/
I'd say setting up right on the line probably falls into the "legal but unwise" category.
There is a slight similarity but corner crossing case is distinctly different in my opinion. It was to prove that private landowners couldn?t deny access to public land. BHA and other pro-hunter groups are supporting the ability to access public land for hunting and fishing.
Brad:
I meant the theory of trespass seemed similar. As I recall the Wyoming case, the landowners' argument was that hunters who used a ladder to cross a fence at a corner to pass from one public parcel to another had trespassed even though they never touched any private property by passing in the airspace over the private parcel.
"Your grass is touching my corn," seems like the same sort of argument.
FWIW, I have great sympathy for the corner crossers and wish them well. The privatization of public lots by abutters is a scandal and needs more attention. No less intrusive way to access that public property.
I've got less sympathy for setting up right in spots that are inches from trespassing when there is a reasonable alternative.
I meant the theory of trespass seemed similar. As I recall the Wyoming case, the landowners' argument was that hunters who used a ladder to cross a fence at a corner to pass from one public parcel to another had trespassed even though they never touched any private property by passing in the airspace over the private parcel.
"Your grass is touching my corn," seems like the same sort of argument.
FWIW, I have great sympathy for the corner crossers and wish them well. The privatization of public lots by abutters is a scandal and needs more attention. No less intrusive way to access that public property.
I've got less sympathy for setting up right in spots that are inches from trespassing when there is a reasonable alternative.
Jeff, I see the similarities, but I was pointing out that the corner crossers were trying to prove a point about public land access while the others were "hunters" trying to monopolize the X. Both case have one group trying to gain advantage or exclude the other party from a public resource. I go back to my original comment about greed.