*censored* outfitters

[boneaddict]

It also has to do with it is zoned for.....farmable or scrub.
If this is where I think it is, its not even farmable......

[Rainier10]

From what I remembered of it it looked like bottom of a canyon that the deer hang out in during the day before heading up to the farm fields to eat.  I was thinking it was a great spot to put blinds and just wait.

[jackelope]

It also has to do with it is zoned for.....farmable or scrub.
If this is where I think it is, its not even farmable......

It's one side and part of the bottom of a steep canyon with a small creek in the bottom. It's super steep on the sides. It's definitely not farmable, but I don't think that's why he bought it. Lots of chukars and huns. A fair amount of deer but it's only 300 acres and the bordering landowners are not too friendly about letting a guy on their land. Been there, done that. My wife's family owns the other side of the canyon/creek bottom that borders this piece of land. I haven't hunted this piece of land in years. It's been reasonably productive for legal deer. I've never seen a large buck come out of this area.
 

[Caseyd]

To much for scab

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

It also has to do with it is zoned for.....farmable or scrub.
If this is where I think it is, its not even farmable......

It's one side and part of the bottom of a steep canyon with a small creek in the bottom. It's super steep on the sides. It's definitely not farmable, but I don't think that's why he bought it. Lots of chukars and huns. A fair amount of deer but it's only 300 acres and the bordering landowners are not too friendly about letting a guy on their land. Been there, done that. My wife's family owns the other side of the canyon/creek bottom that borders this piece of land. I haven't hunted this piece of land in years. It's been reasonably productive for legal deer. I've never seen a large buck come out of this area.

This is the same spot you kept posting those giant branch bulls?

[jackelope]

It also has to do with it is zoned for.....farmable or scrub.
If this is where I think it is, its not even farmable......

It's one side and part of the bottom of a steep canyon with a small creek in the bottom. It's super steep on the sides. It's definitely not farmable, but I don't think that's why he bought it. Lots of chukars and huns. A fair amount of deer but it's only 300 acres and the bordering landowners are not too friendly about letting a guy on their land. Been there, done that. My wife's family owns the other side of the canyon/creek bottom that borders this piece of land. I haven't hunted this piece of land in years. It's been reasonably productive for legal deer. I've never seen a large buck come out of this area.

This is the same spot you kept posting those giant branch bulls?

No. Different spot a few miles away.

[bearpaw]

Just a shout out to Bearpaw and the mods.....


Out of ignorance, it's easy (speaking for myself) to not understand what the risks and or consequences could be of what we would call fun.  I'm not talking of slandering a business for "fun", I mean to dance around the guidelines of what has been laid out.  I for one really appreciate this forum and this "community".  I apologize for any unneeded BS.  It would be interesting to know what the real rules and risks are with the owner of a forum.  Does the owner of Google or Facebook have risk for what is posted?  Also, in the event that a lawsuit came up for something as dumb as people voicing their comments on a person and Bearpaw was sued....... in all seriousness, I'll donate the first hour billed by an attorney.

Gringo





P.S.  I'm still intimidated by Smachalope. 

I appreciate your response. Yes, most likely all internet service providers (ISP's) are threatened regularly by lawsuits, in most cases I doubt that anyone like Zuckerberg deals with any of it, big companies have lawyers to deal with those issues.

Lawsuit threats come nearly every time someone is defamed on the forum so I've looked into internet defamation quite extensively including an attorney consultation so that I have a very good understanding of the law. Essentially anyone can sue on the basis that damages to their reputation or business have resulted due to slander. The proof of slander is the burden of the accuser, but even if the court rules in favor of the defense (ISP) there are still attorney expenses which can be significant, so I've tried to avoid going to court and I get very tired of having to deal with lawsuit threats caused most often by outspoken internet tough guys who don't have the guts to put their real name with their comments. Thus my new rule, put your full name with your comments and feel free to post away.

There is a significant level of security provided to ISP's by laws enacted by congress. Following that numerous courts have ruled that ISP's (internet service providers) like H-W are not responsible for what publishers (forum members) post on the internet using their service. However, if an ISP is contacted by someone regarding slanderous untruthful comments, and the ISP fails to remove those untruthful comments, and if the plaintiff can prove damages and that the comments are false to the court, there have been lawsuits awarded to the plaintiff.

Reviews are a good thing, I read them too about all kinds of things and they sometimes influence my buying decisions. But, the biggest problem is that too often people throw out comments based on hearsay without knowing the real facts or they purposefully say something untruthful to get even because they thought they were wronged, then the next guy says more and pretty soon the whole topic is pretty defamatory and full of speculative remarks and untruths. I don't want to be responsible for member's comments based on hearsay or rumors and I have no way of knowing who is truthful and who is just being a gossiper or troublemaker.

So if members post negative comments or reviews they can include their full name, that will create accountability. Negative comments without a full name will likely be removed depending on the comment. However, if I am threatened and the comments in question may be untruthful, H-W may still have to remove topics or comments to avoid potential litigation. This policy is intended to keep H-W (myself) out of court!


slan·der
ˈslandər

noun
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"

verb
1.
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
synonyms:   defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint; malign, traduce, vilify, disparage, denigrate, run down, slur; informalbadmouth, dis, trash; formalderogate
"they were accused of slandering the minister"




li·bel
ˈlībəl

noun
1.
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms:   defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.

verb
1.
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
"she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
synonyms:   defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).

[JDHasty]

Just a shout out to Bearpaw and the mods.....


Out of ignorance, it's easy (speaking for myself) to not understand what the risks and or consequences could be of what we would call fun.  I'm not talking of slandering a business for "fun", I mean to dance around the guidelines of what has been laid out.  I for one really appreciate this forum and this "community".  I apologize for any unneeded BS.  It would be interesting to know what the real rules and risks are with the owner of a forum.  Does the owner of Google or Facebook have risk for what is posted?  Also, in the event that a lawsuit came up for something as dumb as people voicing their comments on a person and Bearpaw was sued....... in all seriousness, I'll donate the first hour billed by an attorney.

Gringo





P.S.  I'm still intimidated by Smachalope. 

I appreciate your response. Yes, most likely all internet service providers (ISP's) are threatened regularly by lawsuits, in most cases I doubt that anyone like Zuckerberg deals with any of it, big companies have lawyers to deal with those issues.

Lawsuit threats come nearly every time someone is defamed on the forum so I've looked into internet defamation quite extensively including an attorney consultation so that I have a very good understanding of the law. Essentially anyone can sue on the basis that damages to their reputation or business have resulted due to slander. The proof of slander is the burden of the accuser, but even if the court rules in favor of the defense (ISP) there are still attorney expenses which can be significant, so I've tried to avoid going to court and I get very tired of having to deal with lawsuit threats caused most often by outspoken internet tough guys who don't have the guts to put their real name with their comments. Thus my new rule, put your full name with your comments and feel free to post away.

There is a significant level of security provided to ISP's by laws enacted by congress. Following that numerous courts have ruled that ISP's (internet service providers) like H-W are not responsible for what publishers (forum members) post on the internet using their service. However, if an ISP is contacted by someone regarding slanderous untruthful comments, and the ISP fails to remove those untruthful comments, and if the plaintiff can prove the comments are false to the court, there have been lawsuits awarded to the plaintiff.

Reviews are a good thing, I read them too about all kinds of things and they sometimes influence my buying decisions. But, the biggest problem is that too often people throw out comments based on hearsay without knowing the real facts or they purposefully say something untruthful to get even because they thought they were wronged, then the next guy says more and pretty soon the whole topic is pretty defamatory and full of speculative remarks and untruths. I don't want to be responsible for member's comments based on hearsay or rumors and I have no way of knowing who is truthful and who is just being a gossiper or troublemaker.

So if members post negative comments or reviews they can include their full name, that will create accountability. Negative comments without a full name will likely be removed depending on the comment. However, if I am threatened and the comments in question may be untruthful, H-W may still have to remove topics or comments to avoid potential litigation. This policy is intended to keep H-W (myself) out of court!


slan·der
ˈslandər

noun
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"

verb
1.
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
synonyms:   defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint; malign, traduce, vilify, disparage, denigrate, run down, slur; informalbadmouth, dis, trash; formalderogate
"they were accused of slandering the minister"




li·bel
ˈlībəl

noun
1.
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms:   defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.

verb
1.
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
"she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
synonyms:   defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).

I would suggest that they come just as often every time some flimflammer finds out that he/she has been exposed. 

[bearpaw]

Just a shout out to Bearpaw and the mods.....


Out of ignorance, it's easy (speaking for myself) to not understand what the risks and or consequences could be of what we would call fun.  I'm not talking of slandering a business for "fun", I mean to dance around the guidelines of what has been laid out.  I for one really appreciate this forum and this "community".  I apologize for any unneeded BS.  It would be interesting to know what the real rules and risks are with the owner of a forum.  Does the owner of Google or Facebook have risk for what is posted?  Also, in the event that a lawsuit came up for something as dumb as people voicing their comments on a person and Bearpaw was sued....... in all seriousness, I'll donate the first hour billed by an attorney.

Gringo





P.S.  I'm still intimidated by Smachalope. 

I appreciate your response. Yes, most likely all internet service providers (ISP's) are threatened regularly by lawsuits, in most cases I doubt that anyone like Zuckerberg deals with any of it, big companies have lawyers to deal with those issues.

Lawsuit threats come nearly every time someone is defamed on the forum so I've looked into internet defamation quite extensively including an attorney consultation so that I have a very good understanding of the law. Essentially anyone can sue on the basis that damages to their reputation or business have resulted due to slander. The proof of slander is the burden of the accuser, but even if the court rules in favor of the defense (ISP) there are still attorney expenses which can be significant, so I've tried to avoid going to court and I get very tired of having to deal with lawsuit threats caused most often by outspoken internet tough guys who don't have the guts to put their real name with their comments. Thus my new rule, put your full name with your comments and feel free to post away.

There is a significant level of security provided to ISP's by laws enacted by congress. Following that numerous courts have ruled that ISP's (internet service providers) like H-W are not responsible for what publishers (forum members) post on the internet using their service. However, if an ISP is contacted by someone regarding slanderous untruthful comments, and the ISP fails to remove those untruthful comments, and if the plaintiff can prove the comments are false to the court, there have been lawsuits awarded to the plaintiff.

Reviews are a good thing, I read them too about all kinds of things and they sometimes influence my buying decisions. But, the biggest problem is that too often people throw out comments based on hearsay without knowing the real facts or they purposefully say something untruthful to get even because they thought they were wronged, then the next guy says more and pretty soon the whole topic is pretty defamatory and full of speculative remarks and untruths. I don't want to be responsible for member's comments based on hearsay or rumors and I have no way of knowing who is truthful and who is just being a gossiper or troublemaker.

So if members post negative comments or reviews they can include their full name, that will create accountability. Negative comments without a full name will likely be removed depending on the comment. However, if I am threatened and the comments in question may be untruthful, H-W may still have to remove topics or comments to avoid potential litigation. This policy is intended to keep H-W (myself) out of court!


slan·der
ˈslandər

noun
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"

verb
1.
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
synonyms:   defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint; malign, traduce, vilify, disparage, denigrate, run down, slur; informalbadmouth, dis, trash; formalderogate
"they were accused of slandering the minister"




li·bel
ˈlībəl

noun
1.
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
synonyms:   defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.

verb
1.
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
"she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
synonyms:   defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).

I would suggest that they come just as often every time some flimflammer finds out that he/she has been exposed.

The last letter I got from an attorney group in Seattle area last month regarding a questionable person. I've seen the police reports and charges, so I asked the attorneys to please specify the specific untruthful remarks and I would remove them. The attorney replied back that they noted my position and I haven't heard back since, the topic is still on the forum. If they send back a list of what they claim is untruthful and I don't see proof otherwise, I will remove or modify the comments in question.

There's nothing wrong with posting truthful reviews or comments, the problem is that some people just blabber heresay with no regard of the actual truth! 

[hunter399]

I'm not being sued am I ,i need know I'm good with my questionable comments from time to time ,bearpaw pm or let me know.thank you.

[bearpaw]

I'm not being sued am I ,i need know I'm good with my questionable comments from time to time ,bearpaw pm or let me know.thank you.

Not that I know of, but I don't know what remarks you may have made, I haven't been on the forum much the last several months due to busy time of year with outfitting, a graduation, a wedding, other stuff, etc.

[hunter399]

I'm not being sued am I ,i need know I'm good with my questionable comments from time to time ,bearpaw pm or let me know.thank you.

Not that I know of, but I don't know what remarks you may have made, I haven't been on the forum much the last several months due to busy time of year with outfitting, a graduation, a wedding, other stuff, etc.

If u don't know ,and I don't know,than I'm not gonna worry about it ,besides you can't sue a poor sob like me anyway

[eliandsky]

So let me get this straight...... the original post is about a questionable outfitter, to some people, who legally picked up a good piece of land at a cost that was agreeable to the seller and everyone's loosing their minds?

I don't know about everyone's personal experiences with this guy and don't care. My experience first hand with friends on the site on certain tags and opportunities is they have literally been abused and mistreated by members from hearsay and false accusations and makes me sick.

According to the original post sounds like the guy did nothing wrong in this situation and who knows maybe he's working on getting his clients the best opportunities on animals. Does everyone on here watch the Kardashians or just filling that void for drama?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alchase]

I don't know about everyone's personal experiences with this guy and don't care. My experience first hand with friends on the site on certain tags and opportunities is they have literally been abused and mistreated by members from hearsay and false accusations and makes me sick.

Please be specific, you yourself are throwing out blanket statements.

I read the most of your 36 posts, I would like to see where your friends have been mistreated or abused.

[eliandsky]

Well I could be wrong I'm sure I'm wrong but if I'm not mistaken I read through every single post and I don't know if there was one post where anyone had actual first-hand experience with this guy. And maybe my post wasn't clear but the situations I'm talking about have nothing to do with this thread but my point being is you get people behind a computer and start throwing mud it just seems like a negative snowball that is pretty common on this forum. It's all for drama!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk