Who Is In The Wrong?

I'll give credit to the young guys for keeping their cool. Whether in the right or not, avoiding a fistfight or worse was commendable. One thing for sure, in blue states with hunter harassment laws like here in CT, the guy would be in handcuffs. I'll give the warden credit for listening and de-escalating instead of trying to pull a power move. It will be interesting to see if filming helps or hurts them in court.

What I'm not clear on is if the complainer would have backed down had they moved the blind ten feet. Something was said about 150 yards, is that a regulation for blind separation? If not, why didn't they move the blind away from the corn? That would have been my first move.

From what I could gather, it sounded like they had legitimate permission to hunt the property (away from Mr. Cornhole). The discussion should have been, how about moving over a little to give us some room. Or perhaps, as was suggested, he was just looking for payola.

Crappy situation for the young guys, I'm on their side. They might have moved the blind a little, but overall they weren't the asshole.
 
I clicked through it, I couldn't watch the whole thing. Where they parked on the corn edge to break up their outline?
 
They screaming guy got beat to the spot. Not sure why ther didn't set up 10-15 feet into the beans to be safe... but.. that would not ha e changed the situation . IMO
 
The husband is always wrong. Oh, different question.........

The farmer won't stand a chance in the court of law if he decides to push it. The grass from the blind is touching his corn stubble. While he may own the land, he does not own the air above the land. Maybe the corn stubble was going into the bean field.

Then he complains that maybe the line isn't straight and that put the hunters onto his property. Without a very expensive survey, who decides where the line really is?

The land owner could have handled himself a whole lot better for sure but I do understand him being upset. Paying taxes on the land and then being denied the ability to hunt it would piss me off as well.

Kids should have set up a little more into the bean field. It wouldn't haven't affected their hunt. Kids could have asked the farmer if he want to come hunt with them. Farmer demanding money makes me wonder what he really had going on. Was he really going to hunt or did he give permission to, and charge someone else to hunt that spot.

I've been on both sides of this and it has always ended up with hurt feelings or worse. In Laws had hunters ask permission to hunt a slough on their land. Permission granted. Father in law drives by slough to get to corn field and notices that field is posted. Guys who got permission for the day decided to post it with their number on the post. Unbelievable. Permission to others going forward was subsequently denied. Leaving garbage in the fileds, camping on his land, shooting farm cats, the list is endless.

Wish the video would have showed the edge of the blind in relation to the corn field. Otherwise all it is is one word against the other. Makes me think the video has been edited and that particular shot removed as it would show the kids to be set up on the farmers field. Just a guess.

Mark
 
Last edited:
I think its crystal clear the landowner doesn't know how to handle himself under duress and didn't really know what to do with the bigger situation of possible trespassers. Clearly, he was more upset over his hunt plans being wrecked than the act of trespassing. However, from the information being shown in the video it is possible the hunters were on his land. They set up in a way that placed more risk on themselves than I'd be comfortable with. Putting the blind right one the "line" leaves no margin for error. I think assuming the property line is accurately defined where the field switches from beans to corn is inadequate. They are either on the man's land or not. If they are not his request for them to leave has no standing. If he is correct about them crossing onto his land, then his request for them to leave should be met, and their refusal makes them trespassers. A survey of the two nearest corner markers will show definitively whether they were or weren't and that is actually a simple and cheap process with today's GPS surveying. I don't know ND trespassing law, but I have to think if the landowner says you are on his land and to leave and you don't you've violated the law.

The ball is in the court of the game warden, and I wouldn't be surprised if after the landowner cools down everything is dropped. The landowner was certainly a total jerk, and the hunters maintained themselves fairly well other than a few sarcastic comments which is to be expected, and it would really suck to be involved in something like this (and I have). In general hunters rely on apps like OnX to know where they are which is the responsible thing to do, but those lack accuracy to sit right on the boundary and are prone erroneous and outdated information. Too close for comfort in my book.

Eric
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to see what came of this in terms of charges and disposition.

The warden did a nice job of de-escalating the situation.

No idea what the local trespass laws are. They vary a lot state to state. If the young guys were NOT trespassing, what the landowner was doing would definitely qualify as hunter harrassment here in Maine. If they were, his actions were way out of proportion. This reads to me a lot more like "hunter upset that someone is on the spot I wanted" than a landowner upset about trespass.

I've had one similar experience. We were set up on an coastal island, sitting in the intertidal zone, when a family in a big canoe came out and "set up for a picnic" right next to us. Parents and 2 kids, and they showed up just as we had 2 dogs and a boat attempting to retrieve a crippled whistler. It was not pretty.

They were not rude or swearing, but made it very clear by their actions they were going to prevent us from hunting. (Who sets up a blanket on a long tide mud flat for a picnic on a drizzling November day?) We decided to move--plenty of other islands all around us. I went over to the parents and told them what we intended to do, and said if they had other plans for the afternoon, we'd be glad to stay away from whatever spots they wanted to visit. The father responded that "We don't know just what our plans are, so maybe we'll see you again."

My buddy called the warden the next day and asked if what they were doing would have qualified as harassment, and he said it probably would.

I've also seen some pretty egregious behavior by duck hunters in spots that are legal, but can also be expected to provoke a response. Finding the one spot on a developed shoreline that is just barely legal distance from the nearest house, for example. There are plenty of spots that are legal where it's probably better to leave the birds alone.
 
The way I see it is both parties suffer from greed. Parking your blind on the property line is pushing the issue. They had to be on that spot because they had an A frame blind but they could have moved. The landowner also had so much greed he couldn?t act in a civil manner. The combined greed screwed everyone out of a decent day.
 
Brad Bortner said:
The way I see it is both parties suffer from greed. Parking your blind on the property line is pushing the issue. They had to be on that spot because they had an A frame blind but they could have moved. The landowner also had so much greed he couldn?t act in a civil manner. The combined greed screwed everyone out of a decent day.
Click to expand...

Why do you say they had to be in that spot because they had an A frame blind? Just from a concealment perspective, corn vs. bean field? I agree, the smart move was to slide it away from the line a little, it's good etiquette and avoids possible trespass. I looked at the highlight reel again, I think the young guys new they were pushing it but figured they could get away with it. Poor decisions on both sides.
 
The A frame would stick out more in the bean field. They are using the corn stubble background as a backdrop to breakup the outline of the blind. If they dropped a bird behind the blind they would have had to trespass to retrieve it.

My point remains is both parties felt like they deserved the public resource over the other guy. It?s straight out greed.
 
Brad Bortner said:
If they dropped a bird behind the blind they would have had to trespass to retrieve it.
Click to expand...
Brad,
How would that be considered trespass?

North Dakota allows the retrieval of downed game.

20.1-01-19. When posted land may be entered.


Any person may enter upon legally posted land to recover game shot or killed on land where the person had a lawful right to hunt.

If the bird was shot over the bean field (where they had permission) and ended up in the cornfield (where they did NOT have permission), it wouldn't matter if the blind was 3 inches or 30 yards, from the property line. The hunter is still allowed to retrieve the bird, without penalty of trespass.
 
The kids could have set up 3", 3' or 30' off the corn stubble and into the bean field....it wouldn't have mattered, the farmer (neighboring landowner) was going to make darn sure and ruin the kids and grandpa's hunt.

The landowner was in the wrong blowing a gasket and harassing the hunters. He had the opportunity to approach the kids the evening before when he, admittingly, saw them scouting the same field.

All that kept playing in my mind as I watched are what possible similarities might have played out on Reelfoot Lake last duck season when two folks were murdered in a duck blind. All over a duck.
 
Dave, it may fall within the law in NoDak to go on land to retrieve game where you don?t have permission to enter, but setting up intentionally on the property line is in my opinion, asking for this sort of altercation. I am in no way supporting the irrationally irate landowner either.
 
Brad Bortner said:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but setting up intentionally on the property line is in my opinion, asking for this sort of altercation. I am in no way supporting the irrationally irate landowner either.
Click to expand...

Brad,
My question to you did not include any other issue, just the trespass statement you made. Folks here have come to look upon you and respect you, for accurate information.
 
Thanks Dave, I didn?t check the legal definition but was expressing my opinion of what I saw as the logical outcome of placing their blind on the property line. I?ve seen similar set ups on boundaries of refuges where it would be illegal to enter to retrieve downed birds.
 
Man, that guy in the buggy was steamed!

I would have said "Look, we are all set up here, grab your gun and your grandson and lets hunt this set and then figure out the details later"


I was worried that guy was going to have a heart attack.
 
Having watched the kids update, I keep asking myself why they didn't move the blind ten feet. The neighbor is still top asshole, but the kid and his buddies could have eliminated any possible trespass charges for themselves very easily. Poor decision and etiquette on their part, total jerk neighbor.
 
SJ

I agree.

Let me ask about another part of the incident. The hunter keeps referring to the landowner's request that they pay him and he'll walk away. Do you think that is extortion? Sure, he is saying "Pay me and I'll drop charges.", but since he owns the land they presumably are on, and money is often exchanged for hunting privileges, I'm not certain this meets the legal definition of extortion. Maybe a lawyer could enlighten me.

I keep going back to my original thought that a little distance from the property line would have eliminated the risk they took with the adjacent landowner. I don't think the group of hunters did anything that isn't done all the time with no issue, rather they just happened to be the group that ran into that one jerk who made it an issue.

Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top