Post by: Nwgunner on May 04, 2019, 08:52:33 PM
The interaction begins with a simple how's it going and I reply with very good. Then a response of a raised voice and 3 things he says I'm doing wrong. 1. I'm on private property and trespassing. 2. IM in his winter wheat and damaging it. 3. IM shooting off a county rd. ( I was 150 ft. off the rd.) I calmly respond that I have a map showing IM on state land and he goes absolutely ballistic. He is now shouting/screaming and swearing at me at a distance of 10 ft. I listen calmly and try and interject, telling him I'm being respectful of the property and wheat. ( walking between rows, setting up my table in an area of dirt only, picking up all brass and trash). He acknowledges this is state land but he has a lease. He tells me to pack my stuff and go, but with many other swear words and threats. So I do, I turn and start packing. He still going at me screaming, cussing, and bluff charging me from the roadway. He says he's going to call the sheriff and I tell him please. I would love to talk to the sheriff. He sees I'm packing and leaving so he goes up the road and watches me.
I decide to call the sheriff and explain everything. The Deputy did not have a clear cut resolution but told me to verify the property on GIS and not ONYX. He says he will look into it and up to this point I have not heard back.
I do not know if IM in the wrong or right. I will accept a trespass ticket if IM wrong. This guy however completely went off the deep end. I told the sheriff that I am worried that in the future this guy might run into someone that may not be as tolerant of his antics as I was. I would like to reach out to DNR if this guy is intimidating the public off the land when we have a right to be there, if we do have that right.
Sorry for the long post but I had to get that off my chest. I accept any criticism levied if I was not supposed to be there...
Post by: cbond3318 on May 04, 2019, 09:11:25 PM
Sorry it was confrontational but you probably caught the wrath for the dozen D Bags that weren’t so conscientious before you.
Post by: MtnMuley on May 04, 2019, 09:20:29 PM
Post by: MADMAX on May 04, 2019, 09:27:26 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 04, 2019, 09:27:40 PM
I know grazing leases you have the right to access, dry land ag leases and irrigated leases I'm not so sure, hopefully someone knowing will chime in soon with a source.
"not for recreational use"
Post by: dreamunelk on May 04, 2019, 09:35:55 PM
Post by: Dan-o on May 04, 2019, 09:59:06 PM
Explain the situation.
I've been harrassed while on DNR land 3 times.
The first time, when I got back I called the regional DNR manager. He assure me that I was doing nothing illegal. Gave me his cell phone and told me to call if I ever got hassled on DNR land again.
Since then, I have no problem calling the Sherriff myself if one of them hassles me.
They lease the land for agriculture, but it is still state land that we are allowed on.
Don't take my word.
Call the regional DNR manager.
You'll feel much better..
Post by: RockChuck on May 04, 2019, 10:14:27 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 04, 2019, 10:23:56 PM
Post by: swordtine on May 04, 2019, 10:26:42 PM
State DNR land is open for recreational use, period. If the person leasing it for agricultural purposes doesn't like it, they need to take it up with the DNR. In some cases the DNR will allow them to close it to recreational use. But if it were, it would need to be posted. And obviously in this situation the guy was full of it, since the first thing he did was to lie and say you were on private land. I would have got a photo of HIS license plate and turned him in to the DNR.
Exactly ^
Besides, not like conventional winter wheat is a huge cash crop to begin with...! You walking out there and shooting a little makes absolutely no difference to his bottom line. He was just being an idiot.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 04, 2019, 10:33:11 PM
Post by: Nwgunner on May 04, 2019, 10:41:48 PM
This land does not have a single sign on it.
I am going to pursue this further as I believe this guy is a danger to further recreational users. DNR and a formal complaint at the sheriffs office.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2019, 10:51:32 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 04, 2019, 10:54:35 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 04, 2019, 11:04:14 PM
Here is the actual state law verbatim:
All state lands hereafter leased for grazing or agricultural purposes shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting and fishing, and for nonconsumptive wildlife activities, as defined by the board of natural resources, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or unless the department gives prior written approval and the area is lawfully posted by lessee to prohibit hunting and fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife activities, thereon in order to prevent damage to crops or other land cover, to improvements on the land, to livestock, to the lessee, or to the general public, or closure is necessary to avoid undue interference with carrying forward a departmental or agency program. In the event any such lands are so posted it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or fish, or pursue nonconsumptive wildlife activities, on any such posted lands. Such lands shall not be open and available for wildlife activities when access could endanger crops on the land or when access could endanger the person accessing the land.
The department shall insert the provisions of this section in all new grazing and agricultural leases.
Nowhere in the law or the lease does it say the public has access however it sees fit, it says the public is allowed to hunt, fish, or other nonconsumputive wildlife activities. Now I also say that I know of no law/reg that says a leasee can prohibit someone who is not hunting, fishing, etc from accessing the leased lands. My guess is the state legislature wanted to secure the ability to hunt, fish, etc on leased lands.
So what to do: Personally, I would contact DNR and give them a heads up on this farmer, but I would also find another place to shoot. If you go out there and shoot again and lets say you happen to step on some wheat the farmer could pursue the charge of damaging crops on DNR leased land which is a misdemeanor, not saying you would get convicted but from your story it sounds like something he would do. It's just up to you, my guess is this won't be the last time the farmer goes nutso because someone is on his lease. :twocents:
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on May 05, 2019, 03:19:46 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on May 05, 2019, 06:31:17 AM
State DNR land is open for recreational use, period. If the person leasing it for agricultural purposes doesn't like it, they need to take it up with the DNR. In some cases the DNR will allow them to close it to recreational use. But if it were, it would need to be posted. And obviously in this situation the guy was full of it, since the first thing he did was to lie and say you were on private land. I would have got a photo of HIS license plate and turned him in to the DNR.
Exactly ^
Besides, not like conventional winter wheat is a huge cash crop to begin with...! You walking out there and shooting a little makes absolutely no difference to his bottom line. He was just being an idiot.
I’d try another justification. Pretty piss poor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Axle on May 05, 2019, 08:13:50 AM
Being a FARMER. I will say that you were the recipient of bad behavior from former shooting enthusiasts. His reaction was due to others bad behavior, not yours. As with most of the restrictions we face, it’s not our behavior that is the problem. It’s the ones that came before us. Be kind and kindness will follow you.
I'm going to say this is right on. He's probably has some bad apples in the past. :tup:
Now - do you know if the wheat was GMO or non-GMO? I'm just curious....
Post by: hunter399 on May 05, 2019, 08:32:38 AM
Never explained why she needed pictures
Never explained what is was that she thought I had done
I reload all my brass and always take my target with me so nothing gets left behind.
This spot does get used a lot for shooting
Post by: bugs n bones on May 05, 2019, 09:08:23 AM
Post by: jackelope on May 05, 2019, 09:26:06 AM
State DNR land is open for recreational use, period. If the person leasing it for agricultural purposes doesn't like it, they need to take it up with the DNR. In some cases the DNR will allow them to close it to recreational use. But if it were, it would need to be posted. And obviously in this situation the guy was full of it, since the first thing he did was to lie and say you were on private land. I would have got a photo of HIS license plate and turned him in to the DNR.
Exactly ^
Besides, not like conventional winter wheat is a huge cash crop to begin with...! You walking out there and shooting a little makes absolutely no difference to his bottom line. He was just being an idiot.
I’d try another justification. Pretty piss poor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree. I want to access all the public land I can, but I’d never be walking over any farmer’s crops regardless of what it was or what it was worth unless I had the green light from them. It’s worth a lot to the farmer, otherwise it wouldn’t be there. This might also come from me spending a lot of time hunting in pomeroy and getting to know and understand the farmers way of life a little better.
Post by: KopperBuck on May 05, 2019, 09:46:43 AM
Being a FARMER. I will say that you were the recipient of bad behavior from former shooting enthusiasts. His reaction was due to others bad behavior, not yours. As with most of the restrictions we face, it’s not our behavior that is the problem. It’s the ones that came before us. Be kind and kindness will follow you.
I'm going to say this is right on. He's probably has some bad apples in the past. :tup:
Now - do you know if the wheat was GMO or non-GMO? I'm just curious....
There isn’t any GMO wheat in production, at least not purposely. But organic white wheat, organic red wheat, winter malt barley or organic malt barley, waxy barleys... lots of valuable crops that you can’t identify without a little detective work.
Agree it was bad on both ends. Usually there’s more to the story, even though it doesn’t make it right. We had a good one the last day of waterfowl. Guy claimed #1 we were on tribal land. We ALL knew that wasn’t the case. He was trying to bully us. #2 He wasn’t even the farmer that owned the ground, he was a neighbor. Called him on that as well. I mean, after all, we had permission from the landlord. But have had issues where the landlord didn’t communicate to the farmer either.
I actually understood his frustration as the area is well known to have problems with trespassing. But no reason to act irrational. The problem is for every respectable outdoors person they run into, there’s another 5-6 bad encounters. I’d venture more.
Dismissing one bad situation with equally bad behavior or attitude = shut down access, period.
I understand in this instance it was public ground. I wouldn’t lease state ground to farm if it was my last choice. Too many headaches. Wish it would go away, frankly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Colville on May 05, 2019, 10:04:31 AM
Post by: Fishnfowler on May 05, 2019, 10:51:06 AM
On another note. I've got a hobby of looking for state land leased for wheat. I find the owner and knock on their door. I explain that I've been looking at maps and want to avoid trespass. I ask their help to show me where the lines are and in the process have a nice conversation about crops and how long they have lived there. Eventually I ask if they ever let people hunt on their land. It is rare that I'm turned away. I generally get directions to where the birds and deer are. I always bring a quart of honey or whiskey, and if they do me a solid, I give it to them as thanks. This has given me more private land to hunt than I can cover. YMMV.
Post by: yorketransport on May 05, 2019, 11:07:41 AM
Regardless of who was in the right here, I wouldn't go back. Catching a guy on a bad day is one thing, going back to "poke the bear" again is asking for an escalation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 05, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
If I lived by you, I'd try and get as many friends as I know to go back out to where you were and target shoot all day! guys that take advantage of public leased land need an Azz kicking. Such bs
Yep. I'd bring the Grendel and shoot off $300 worth of ammo. We'd have a fun day. Too bad Tannerite is now prohibited on Federal and WA state lands.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 05, 2019, 11:32:52 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 05, 2019, 11:38:21 AM
Hunt-WA 2019 Range Day...... :chuckle:
I might even make the drive for that.
Post by: Bango skank on May 05, 2019, 11:57:46 AM
Post by: Gobble Doc on May 05, 2019, 01:06:53 PM
Unfortunately its not all that uncommon for people to falsely claim ownership of public land. this sign was on dnr land. i contacted dnr, they came and removed the sign.That sign was up for years. When I first saw it I actually went and talked to him. It was worth it because my kid was learning to bow hunt and he gave us permission to shoot in his yard so the kid got to shoot at a lot of birds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on May 05, 2019, 01:09:51 PM
Unfortunately its not all that uncommon for people to falsely claim ownership of public land. this sign was on dnr land. i contacted dnr, they came and removed the sign.That sign was up for years. When I first saw it I actually went and talked to him. It was worth it because my kid was learning to bow hunt and he gave us permission to shoot in his yard so the kid got to shoot at a lot of birds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah it had obviously been there a long time, but that doesnt make it okay. that guy knew damn good and well he had public land posted. Total b.s. that guy has zero authority over that land and nobody is required to ask his permission to hunt it.
Post by: huntnfmly on May 05, 2019, 01:20:01 PM
I’m gonna say you both were in the wrong, farmer for the way he handled it obviously. I grew hunting in pomeroy, it was always the cardinal rule to stay out of the green wheat . Even though it’s state land which is fine to be there it’s more of a courtesy thing just to stay out of the growing crop.Agreed and that is the problem common courtesy is in very low supply these days
Post by: bobcat on May 05, 2019, 01:24:33 PM
I’m gonna say you both were in the wrong, farmer for the way he handled it obviously. I grew hunting in pomeroy, it was always the cardinal rule to stay out of the green wheat . Even though it’s state land which is fine to be there it’s more of a courtesy thing just to stay out of the growing crop.Agreed and that is the problem common courtesy is in very low supply these days
I agree with this too. I personally would not have picked a green winter wheat field to shoot in. But the farmer was wrong in the way he handled it. There's nothing worse in my mind than a farmer claiming ownership of public land.
Post by: Gobble Doc on May 05, 2019, 01:46:44 PM
TrueUnfortunately its not all that uncommon for people to falsely claim ownership of public land. this sign was on dnr land. i contacted dnr, they came and removed the sign.That sign was up for years. When I first saw it I actually went and talked to him. It was worth it because my kid was learning to bow hunt and he gave us permission to shoot in his yard so the kid got to shoot at a lot of birds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah it had obviously been there a long time, but that doesnt make it okay. that guy knew damn good and well he had public land posted. Total b.s. that guy has zero authority over that land and nobody is required to ask his permission to hunt it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on May 05, 2019, 01:54:14 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on May 05, 2019, 02:36:51 PM
If I lived by you, I'd try and get as many friends as I know to go back out to where you were and target shoot all day! guys that take advantage of public leased land need an Azz kicking. Such bs
Yep. I'd bring the Grendel and shoot off $300 worth of ammo. We'd have a fun day. Too bad Tannerite is now prohibited on Federal and WA state lands.
You’d do that in a field of green wheat that belonged to someone else?
Post by: Nwgunner on May 05, 2019, 03:00:59 PM
Yes this was near the tri cities and yes I did have a discover pass in response to earlier questions.
Post by: BDildine on May 05, 2019, 03:04:17 PM
He's in the wrong because while it is in fact not his state land,and should not have reacted the way he did. I'm glad to hear you were respectful and didnt further escalate the situation.
I am quite worried about everyone elses "piss on him and his crops" response though, thats the s#!t that will keep closing off access, continue to tighten up uses of state and federal lands because eventually it will piss off EVERYONE and they will vote/litigate your usage out, then what?
turn the other cheek, call it a day, and be a good steward for hunters and shooters......dont think thats too much to ask
Post by: jackelope on May 05, 2019, 03:04:23 PM
Post by: Caseyd on May 05, 2019, 03:36:19 PM
DNR leases houses out. You going to go shoot in their front yard
Post by: nwwanderer on May 05, 2019, 04:36:49 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 05, 2019, 05:50:05 PM
In the future I will avoid green wheat fields. I can understand the common courtesy in that. I would assume that this does not apply later in in the year when the wheat is not actively growing?
Yes this was near the tri cities and yes I did have a discover pass in response to earlier questions.
Walking through the wheat between the planted rows wouldn't bug me, if I knew that's what you were doing.
Thing is a lot of folks want to drive way down yonder to drop off and check their target (through the field) then drive back to the bench, rinse, repeat.
Also, if a range gets established it gets used over and over and more people driving on the wheat.
The farmer pays DNR for the right to grow a crop on leased land, so the margins are thinner than growing a crop on their own property.
The farmer has probably had a lot of past problems with folks that think "DNR land is open for public use PERIOD" and while it is mostly if people are driving on the field to shoot DNR will allow no trespassing signs be put up and the people could get charged (thanks Bigtex)
I had friends in Pomeroy, learned quite a bit about CRP land and DNR leased land for crops and every one of my Pomeroy local friends all made sure I knew not to drive on a growing crop PERIOD. Not that I ever would, as I grew up farming too, but they made sure I knew anyways :chuckle:
The farmer that confronted you could have done a lot better job informing you instead of freaking out, you weren't driving on his field as you stated so he could have just informed you not to do so.
Post by: dscubame on May 05, 2019, 07:00:46 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 05:56:48 AM
In the future I will avoid green wheat fields. I can understand the common courtesy in that. I would assume that this does not apply later in in the year when the wheat is not actively growing?
Yes this was near the tri cities and yes I did have a discover pass in response to earlier questions.
Walking through the wheat between the planted rows wouldn't bug me, if I knew that's what you were doing.
Thing is a lot of folks want to drive way down yonder to drop off and check their target (through the field) then drive back to the bench, rinse, repeat.
Also, if a range gets established it gets used over and over and more people driving on the wheat.
The farmer pays DNR for the right to grow a crop on leased land, so the margins are thinner than growing a crop on their own property.
The farmer has probably had a lot of past problems with folks that think "DNR land is open for public use PERIOD" and while it is mostly if people are driving on the field to shoot DNR will allow no trespassing signs be put up and the people could get charged (thanks Bigtex)
I had friends in Pomeroy, learned quite a bit about CRP land and DNR leased land for crops and every one of my Pomeroy local friends all made sure I knew not to drive on a growing crop PERIOD. Not that I ever would, as I grew up farming too, but they made sure I knew anyways :chuckle:
The farmer that confronted you could have done a lot better job informing you instead of freaking out, you weren't driving on his field as you stated so he could have just informed you not to do so.
He already stated he wasn't hurting the crops. I can only assume that means he wasn't driving down to his target, so not really a point. Leasing is actually far more economical that purchasing land, keeping it up, and paying taxes on it. Even if the margins are tighter, which I doubt, he has no right to harass someone using public land.
If the shoot went down as described, and I have no reason to doubt the OP, the farmer was being a jerk and has an inflated view of his rights with regards to farming public lands.
Post by: Badhabit on May 06, 2019, 09:22:59 AM
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/psl_ag_proposed_12a82173.pdf?1lbaw
Go to page 6 of 30 for the Public Hunting section.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 09:30:57 AM
You guys seem to agree on a common point, that being, you all have some specific right to use that land even though it was leased by the state to the farmer.
My line of thinking is if that land was lying unused then maybe it is available for shooting. However it was obviously leased to a farmer for agricultural purposes, therefore no longer unused land. It just doesn't make sense to me to walk out into a man's crops and start target shooting. I just don't get this mentality. As a matter of courtesy I would never mess with a man's crop land no matter if it is leased, private ownership, or other types. The simple fact that a farmer leased it and I didn't tells me he has a right to take care of the land in accordance with his agreement with the state. I hold no such agreement so in my mind that pretty much supersedes my claim to access.
He's leasing public land. As long as someone isn't damaging his crops they get to use the land, too. If you don't want to, that's up to you.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 06, 2019, 10:27:24 AM
I think between the above lease agreement and the reference Big Tex posted earlier, it seems clear to me that Joe Schmo has no right of access in order to target shoot. If I am missing something there please point it out to me.
It vaguely seems that general recreational access is allowed
Quote
The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless......
Post by: NOCK NOCK on May 06, 2019, 10:29:47 AM
State land, leased for wheat, intermingled with sage, clear boundary lines, extremely confrontational farmer screaming, cursing, yelling, especially when we told him we had an accurate map(pre onX days)
My wife was rifle hunting, I was accompanying her with a spotting scope on a tripod, we were targeting a freaky cactus buck.
Spent the morning creeping through the sage draws, never stepping foot on cultivated land. As we got back to the pick up another truck came flying down the gravel road and screeched to a stop. Out jumps the farmer cursing and yelling that we are trespassing on private ground. I told him I knew exactly where I was at, I have a map, when I pulled that out he went ballistic. He came running up to our truck with what I belived was wanting to call me out into a fist fight. The wife does not like confrontation so we put it in drive and pulled away. The farmer proceeded to chase us down the gravel road at speeds up to 30+ miles an hour. He stop chasing us as we turned onto the cement road and got out of there.
We reported this behavior to the county sheriff. The sheriff contacted us several hours later after he had talked with the farmer. The farmer was told that he was in the wrong and all that this couple wants to do was hunt the state leased land and that was there right, if the farmer continued to harass us the following day the sheriff would then charge him with harassing a lawful hunt.
Sunday we were there again and as we walked up through the draws, The farmer was on a dirtbike just ahead of us pushing Deer out of the draws before we got to the next one. After watching this happen for three or four small draws we headed back to the truck and left, then called the sheriff again and told him what it happened.
The sheriff contacted the farmer and charged him with obstructing a lawful Hunt. Several months later we were subpoenaed for the trial (St of WA. Vs Farmer)
High dollar lawyer got him off. They played that we were party hunting( farmer said he saw a rifle in both our hands) NOT. I showed the court my archery license, and told the jury I was carrying a spotting scope on a tripod that he mistook for a rifle. They evidently did not believe me, or that a pretty woman like my wife would be a Deer Hunter.
A couple years later I found out from an acquaintance who lives near there why this farmer was so hard fighting on this issue.
The farmer also owned land adjecent to this area, And he would charge tresspass fees to other hunters for access to deer hunt. The deer Are worth money to him so he does not want Joe public to be out there shooting “his” bucks.
Post by: Bill W on May 06, 2019, 10:39:19 AM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on May 06, 2019, 10:59:33 AM
Quote
The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless......[/quote)
:yeah:
Non consumptive wildlife and other activities......pretty sure target shooting falls into that.
As long as your not damaging the crop or land.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 11:19:41 AM
Here's a copy of a DNR lease from Franklin County.
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/psl_ag_proposed_12a82173.pdf?1lbaw
Go to page 6 of 30 for the Public Hunting section.
I think between the above lease agreement and the reference Big Tex posted earlier, it seems clear to me that Joe Schmo has no right of access in order to target shoot. If I am missing something there please point it out to me. The section on waste clearly makes clean up of the land the responsibility of the lease holder, to include returning it to the state in which it was issued.
Beyond that, I still hold the opinion that if someone goes to the cost and effort of leasing land from the state for the purpose of agriculture or whatever, then why be that guy and decide you are going to go use that land too? You can take the time and energy to research your GPS app, and look at the county property lines, why not go one step further and simply ask the farmer if he minds you shooting on the edge of his leased field.
Why not lease it yourself if you feel the desire. Just another example of our community getting a reputation for being bad neighbors and bad stewards of the environment.
You are indeed missing something. We don't need to lease something we all already own unless we intend to make a profit from it. And even then, we have no right to exclude other individuals from that public land. The law is quite clear that we all have access to that land. Read the statute that's been posted several times. "The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless...... "
I have no problem with farmers and ranchers having land leases on public lands, just as long as they have no problem with the general public having recreational activities on it as allowed by law. Grazing and agriculture usually have positive benefits for underused public lands. However, if all of the lands that are open to public grazing and agriculture were made of limits to the public, we'd lose a very large chunk of public land on which to recreate.
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2019, 11:20:16 AM
In the future I will avoid green wheat fields. I can understand the common courtesy in that. I would assume that this does not apply later in in the year when the wheat is not actively growing?
Yes this was near the tri cities and yes I did have a discover pass in response to earlier questions.
Walking through the wheat between the planted rows wouldn't bug me, if I knew that's what you were doing.
Thing is a lot of folks want to drive way down yonder to drop off and check their target (through the field) then drive back to the bench, rinse, repeat.
Also, if a range gets established it gets used over and over and more people driving on the wheat.
The farmer pays DNR for the right to grow a crop on leased land, so the margins are thinner than growing a crop on their own property.
The farmer has probably had a lot of past problems with folks that think "DNR land is open for public use PERIOD" and while it is mostly if people are driving on the field to shoot DNR will allow no trespassing signs be put up and the people could get charged (thanks Bigtex)
I had friends in Pomeroy, learned quite a bit about CRP land and DNR leased land for crops and every one of my Pomeroy local friends all made sure I knew not to drive on a growing crop PERIOD. Not that I ever would, as I grew up farming too, but they made sure I knew anyways :chuckle:
The farmer that confronted you could have done a lot better job informing you instead of freaking out, you weren't driving on his field as you stated so he could have just informed you not to do so.
He already stated he wasn't hurting the crops. I can only assume that means he wasn't driving down to his target, so not really a point. Leasing is actually far more economical that purchasing land, keeping it up, and paying taxes on it. Even if the margins are tighter, which I doubt, he has no right to harass someone using public land.
If the shoot went down as described, and I have no reason to doubt the OP, the farmer was being a jerk and has an inflated view of his rights with regards to farming public lands.
He's paying $133,912.82 for rent, helluva lot more than property taxes.
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2019, 11:22:26 AM
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 11:24:54 AM
this
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2019, 11:27:31 AM
the rest was me playing devils advocate trying to illuminate a possibility on the farmers part, that's he's probably had people driving on his crops and pointing out that when one person sets up a shooting range others follow.
It's like going to an empty lake to fish, then all the sudden 15 boats park next to you and drop anchor.
Post by: jackelope on May 06, 2019, 11:54:05 AM
this
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.
But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?
I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190506/29c38af15d81aa3a377e601a4c9328f3.jpg)
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 11:56:19 AM
this
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.
But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?
I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)
Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.
Post by: jackelope on May 06, 2019, 11:58:53 AM
this
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.
But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?
I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)
Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.
Target shooting is a nonconsumptive wildlife activity? I took that as something like bird watching or something like that. I'm not challenging you or anything...really just trying to learn.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 06, 2019, 11:59:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 12:01:16 PM
this
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.
But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?
I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)
Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.
Target shooting is a nonconsumptive wildlife activity? I took that as something like bird watching or something like that. I'm not challenging you or anything...really just trying to learn.
The allowances seem to be quite broad as to what the general public is allowed to do. I can't believe they'd single out target shooting when they allow hunting, fish and an undefined list of other outdoor activities.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 06, 2019, 12:11:31 PM
“....and other activities “ allows a lot.:yeah: I think that is the catch all in the wording. Of course there are always three sides to every story, each persons version of the events and somewhere between those versions is what really happened.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2019, 12:26:16 PM
The statute does not include the "other activities" phrase that the included lease agreement shows. In fact some of available leases on the DNR website only state hunting, fishing, noncomsuptive wildlife activities.Here's a copy of a DNR lease from Franklin County.
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/psl_ag_proposed_12a82173.pdf?1lbaw
Go to page 6 of 30 for the Public Hunting section.
I think between the above lease agreement and the reference Big Tex posted earlier, it seems clear to me that Joe Schmo has no right of access in order to target shoot. If I am missing something there please point it out to me. The section on waste clearly makes clean up of the land the responsibility of the lease holder, to include returning it to the state in which it was issued.
Beyond that, I still hold the opinion that if someone goes to the cost and effort of leasing land from the state for the purpose of agriculture or whatever, then why be that guy and decide you are going to go use that land too? You can take the time and energy to research your GPS app, and look at the county property lines, why not go one step further and simply ask the farmer if he minds you shooting on the edge of his leased field.
Why not lease it yourself if you feel the desire. Just another example of our community getting a reputation for being bad neighbors and bad stewards of the environment.
You are indeed missing something. We don't need to lease something we all already own unless we intend to make a profit from it. And even then, we have no right to exclude other individuals from that public land. The law is quite clear that we all have access to that land. Read the statute that's been posted several times. "The Premises shall be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife and other activities, unless...... "
I have no problem with farmers and ranchers having land leases on public lands, just as long as they have no problem with the general public having recreational activities on it as allowed by law. Grazing and agriculture usually have positive benefits for underused public lands. However, if all of the lands that are open to public grazing and agriculture were made of limits to the public, we'd lose a very large chunk of public land on which to recreate.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79.10.125
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on May 06, 2019, 12:35:06 PM
this
3.07 Public Hunting, Fishing and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Activities. The Premises shall
be open and available to the public for purposes of hunting, fishing, and nonconsumptive wildlife
and other activities, unless closed to public entry because of fire hazard or a closure is authorized
in writing by State, as provided in RCW 79.10.125. When closure is authorized by State, Lessee
shall post the Premises with approved signs to inform the public of such closure. Lessee is not
required to post signs when the closure is for fire hazard.
give the OP the right to access and use the property as long as he's not damaging a crop in any way.
That's what we've been saying, no matter how the angry farmer feels about it.
But at the same time, the OP is not hunting, fishing or participating in any nonconsumptive wildlife activities either, is he?
I bet the angry farmer freaked out because of past bad experiences. Doesn't make it right, but it's all too common especially in SE WA(I'm not sure that's where this event occurred either, just what I'm familiar with)
Target shooting would be non-consumptive. He's not harvesting anything or taking anything from the land. He's just shooting. I can empathize with the farmer if he's had problems in the past. That doesn't mean he gets to change the rules.
Target shooting is a nonconsumptive wildlife activity? I took that as something like bird watching or something like that. I'm not challenging you or anything...really just trying to learn.
The allowances seem to be quite broad as to what the general public is allowed to do. I can't believe they'd single out target shooting when they allow hunting, fish and an undefined list of other outdoor activities.
There is lots of DNR land by me that doesn't allow target shooting but does allow hunting, fishing, etc. The signs specifically say no target shooting. Slobs that couldn't clean up after themselves made that happen. It's a plague that happens everywhere. A few bad apples ruin it for everyone.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 06, 2019, 12:37:59 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 06, 2019, 12:41:54 PM
So, do you think the OP is talking about lands that were marked "no shooting"? Since he went to the sheriff, I doubt it. I'll certainly be interested to see if anything comes of this.No. That land probably wasn't marked or posted at all I bet.
My comment was just in response to your last comment where you found it hard to believe the DNR wouldn't allow target shooting when hunting, etc is allowed. It happens all the time.
:dunno:
I still personally have a hard time with the fact that the OP was shooting in someone's wheat field regardless of who's land it is or isn't. Don't mean to be a jerk by saying that, but it seems like a common courtesy thing to me. Just because you can doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.
Sorry...
Post by: Bob33 on May 06, 2019, 01:01:34 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on May 06, 2019, 01:36:15 PM
Sad fact of life is that no one seems to think they should at least ask the farmer if he minds.
If you were to ask the farmer that I mentioned, you would get a resounding NO, even though legally you have the right to.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2019, 04:31:41 PM
Sad fact of life is that no one seems to think they should at least ask the farmer if he minds.:yeah:
Something also to remember is that the county assessor's website and OnX is not always up to date. I know of public lands in my area that is listed on OnX as private and I know private lands that is listed as public. I've contacted OnX and they have said that they only push out new owner updates 1-2 times a year.
DNR is constantly selling/trading/buying properties, to the point that they typically approve such a transaction monthly. So you can never 100% trust OnX, especially with the smaller DNR parcels.
Post by: Special T on May 06, 2019, 05:48:22 PM
I have talked to a couple of the local Wardens and they say they use On X maps to decipher land ownership issues in regards to public land. It may not be perfect but it is likely as close as we are gonna get.Sad fact of life is that no one seems to think they should at least ask the farmer if he minds.:yeah:
Something also to remember is that the county assessor's website and OnX is not always up to date. I know of public lands in my area that is listed on OnX as private and I know private lands that is listed as public. I've contacted OnX and they have said that they only push out new owner updates 1-2 times a year.
DNR is constantly selling/trading/buying properties, to the point that they typically approve such a transaction monthly. So you can never 100% trust OnX, especially with the smaller DNR parcels.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2019, 05:53:11 PM
I do too. But like we both said, it's not perfect, some people fail to realize that.I have talked to a couple of the local Wardens and they say they use On X maps to decipher land ownership issues in regards to public land. It may not be perfect but it is likely as close as we are gonna get.Sad fact of life is that no one seems to think they should at least ask the farmer if he minds.:yeah:
Something also to remember is that the county assessor's website and OnX is not always up to date. I know of public lands in my area that is listed on OnX as private and I know private lands that is listed as public. I've contacted OnX and they have said that they only push out new owner updates 1-2 times a year.
DNR is constantly selling/trading/buying properties, to the point that they typically approve such a transaction monthly. So you can never 100% trust OnX, especially with the smaller DNR parcels.
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2019, 06:02:53 PM
OnX app I think checks the mark for "due diligence" on the part of the hunter.
Post by: Dan-o on May 06, 2019, 07:34:40 PM
Sad fact of life is that no one seems to think they should at least ask the farmer if he minds.
If you were to ask the farmer that I mentioned, you would get a resounding NO, even though legally you have the right to.
I wouldn't even think of asking permission. I own that land every bit as much as they do.
(I probably also would't shoot in green wheat)
I would, however, try to be civil in any interchange.
There's no sense in being rude, but there's also no sense in giving up your rights to use the land.
I know that they have tried to bully me from hunting DNR land..... That is uncivil.
I will still respond civilly.
Post by: hunter399 on May 06, 2019, 08:00:26 PM
Post by: donsk16 on May 07, 2019, 01:45:46 PM
The farmer's best solution to having a problem with sharing his land is to stop buying access to state land and buy his own land - just as it is our best solution to not buy the pass if we don't feel the access is providing value.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 07, 2019, 02:03:05 PM
Post by: donsk16 on May 07, 2019, 02:49:41 PM
Post by: KFhunter on May 07, 2019, 03:24:00 PM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2019, 03:51:56 PM
Post by: JakeLand on May 07, 2019, 05:15:43 PM
You absolutely correct, the State does sell access. So does timber, federal lands etc. etc. etc.. This notion that citizens own state land is cute, but it sure isn't accurate. Private citizens may have a right to access a piece of ground but only with permission of the State. The very act of publishing guidelines to utilize public owned lands is in fact giving you permission. That permission can be withdrawn without need of legislative action and it can be changed by administrative action.uhhh NO !! He has the same right as everyone else no more no less
My position is that a lease farmer has more right to the land he has leased than you do, why not respect his investment?
Post by: Skillet on May 07, 2019, 06:13:53 PM
Both sides are right about what they're saying, but trying to shape the argument to fit what they are right about.
I know some of you guys on both sides of this, and know that when push comes to shove none of you would intentionally cause grief for the other guys.
It is possible to share DNR land cohesively. It seems to me that the DNR has dropped the ball in educating their leaseholders on what is permitted or not. And it also seems to me that there should be a way to access the leases to ask if the leaseholder has any specific concerns about public use of the land while they're operating the lease.
This group of guys here on the site generally represent the very best of land stewardship I've ever come across. We all care, and I think if each groups concerns were taken on their own merits, we'd all agree to the highest degree.
:twocents:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 07, 2019, 06:19:00 PM
uhhh NO !! He has the same right as everyone else no more no lessAs the lessor, the farmer has the right to fence, farm, till and maintain the parcel, as well as exclude others as per state law and with permission of the managing agency. These rights are specific to the lessor and are not granted to the general public.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on May 07, 2019, 07:56:13 PM
It's public land, Macs. It belongs to all of us. He leases the land with the understanding that his lease doesn't include private property rights. He signed the lease. He knew the deal. If he doesn't like the agreement he signed, that's really his problem.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: papaonthemountain on May 07, 2019, 09:07:17 PM
Post by: Dan-o on May 07, 2019, 09:42:39 PM
Skillet.... very well said. As one who has held both state ag and grazing leases along with a grazing permits on the National Forest, I have had 48 years of my 70 years dealing with the two groups of which Skillet portrays. I will make no effort to enumerate the times of open gates, cut fences, trash, shot up property, poached deer, trespassers, etc.... These and the attitudes/actions that some on this thread portend became the overriding factor in shutting down approximately 10,000 acres of arguably the best whitetail hunting property in Okanogan County. It used to be a 'feel free to hunt bottle of whiskey when you got a buck'. Actions matter. What do you think us farmers talk about at the early morning coffee clutches after engaging with Mr. No Respect? What do you think are the ramifications of our conversations? .....Amen
You are describing slobs and scofflaws. I wish they didn't exist. I wish the ones that doe exist would get prosecuted for those crimes. Poaching, cutting fences, littering etc........... Not OK on ANY land.
But, DNR land is open for us to hunt, and lease holders need to respect their end of that bargain as well.
And if I saw someone do that crap on DNR land, I would try very hard to get a pic of their license plate and turn them in.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on May 07, 2019, 09:51:05 PM
Out of curiosity, I used to hunt Chelan Buttes quite a bit and there is a lot of ag land up there. I had always assumed (and think I read it somewhere) that that land was cultivated by the state for bird and game management. Was I wrong and this land was leased farm land? I’m sure I could look it up, but frankly I’m too lazy to wait through my slow internet connection. I never saw any postings up there other than state road closed/don’t drive off-road signs. Is this land managed differently? Never had any issues up there, a lot of birds, deer, and coyotes. Very interesting area with the old homesteads and mines.
Post by: Skillet on May 08, 2019, 08:33:14 AM
Skillet.... very well said. As one who has held both state ag and grazing leases along with a grazing permits on the National Forest, I have had 48 years of my 70 years dealing with the two groups of which Skillet portrays. I will make no effort to enumerate the times of open gates, cut fences, trash, shot up property, poached deer, trespassers, etc.... These and the attitudes/actions that some on this thread portend became the overriding factor in shutting down approximately 10,000 acres of arguably the best whitetail hunting property in Okanogan County. It used to be a 'feel free to hunt bottle of whiskey when you got a buck'. Actions matter. What do you think us farmers talk about at the early morning coffee clutches after engaging with Mr. No Respect? What do you think are the ramifications of our conversations? .....Amen
That sounds frustrating, but I'm afraid you missed my point. If you would indulge me, a few responses to these questions might be helpful-
As a lease holder, can you share some of the good experiences you had with public access? Did you have any basic expectations of a "good" public land user on your leases? Was there any opportunity to encourage multi-user use of the publicly-owned land that you leased? Did the leasing agencies discuss public access in the negotiation process? If so, did they lean more towards "allow public access to the land whenever possible" or "you may post the land at will"?
Basically, we've got guys on your side who feel put upon with having to deal with some percentage of bad actors, and guys on the other side who feel like they're being unfairly shut out or discouraged from using public land.
How do you see a way to maximize the value of your leases while allowing John Q Public to enjoy what is owned by is all?
Post by: 2MANY on May 08, 2019, 09:13:52 AM
Until you have been on the land owner's side you have no idea.
NOTE: Very few big land owners post here and I'm not a big land owner.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2019, 10:30:34 AM
Public land is one thing but it always amazes me the entitlement that people feel to someone's private property.
Until you have been on the land owner's side you have no idea.
NOTE: Very few big land owners post here and I'm not a big land owner.
This thread has zero to do with private property and landowners. I'm absolutely a supporter of private property rights. I'm also a supporter of public property rights for the public.
Post by: KopperBuck on May 08, 2019, 10:38:33 AM
Post by: 2MANY on May 08, 2019, 10:48:19 AM
Public land is one thing but it always amazes me the entitlement that people feel to someone's private property.
Until you have been on the land owner's side you have no idea.
NOTE: Very few big land owners post here and I'm not a big land owner.
This thread has zero to do with private property and landowners. I'm absolutely a supporter of private property rights. I'm also a supporter of public property rights for the public.
Agreed.
Since we all own the public stuff shouldn't we respect it like it was someone's property other than our own?
Because it is................................Everyone's.
It's all about respect.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2019, 11:17:57 AM
Public land is one thing but it always amazes me the entitlement that people feel to someone's private property.
Until you have been on the land owner's side you have no idea.
NOTE: Very few big land owners post here and I'm not a big land owner.
This thread has zero to do with private property and landowners. I'm absolutely a supporter of private property rights. I'm also a supporter of public property rights for the public.
Agreed.
Since we all own the public stuff shouldn't we respect it like it was someone's property other than our own?
Because it is................................Everyone's.
It's all about respect.
Of course. I don't know anyone on either side of this thread that wouldn't agree with that.
Post by: 2MANY on May 08, 2019, 11:25:14 AM
Public land is one thing but it always amazes me the entitlement that people feel to someone's private property.
Until you have been on the land owner's side you have no idea.
NOTE: Very few big land owners post here and I'm not a big land owner.
This thread has zero to do with private property and landowners. I'm absolutely a supporter of private property rights. I'm also a supporter of public property rights for the public.
Agreed.
Since we all own the public stuff shouldn't we respect it like it was someone's property other than our own?
Because it is................................Everyone's.
It's all about respect.
Of course. I don't know anyone on either side of this thread that wouldn't agree with that.
Perfect.
Now that I've united both sides of the aisle.................I will retire from politics.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2019, 12:24:06 PM
Post by: Pegasus on May 08, 2019, 12:35:42 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2019, 12:45:35 PM
I hear the farmer was just protecting his beautiful daughter from uunscrupulous hunters.
Apparently unscrupulous and disrespectful.
Post by: papaonthemountain on May 08, 2019, 01:31:30 PM
can you share some of the good experiences you had with public access?
My memory can be suspect (according to the little lady), but there certainly have been good interactions with hunters. The usual pleasant conversations hunters have when bumping into each other. A widow lady who lived on adjacent property did approach me to see if walking with her dogs would bother the cattle. To be fair, there are few occasions for hunters to interact with a lessee unless they know the person. Interactions are pretty much limited to happenstance and human nature tends to store the negatives.
Did you have any basic expectations of a "good" public land user on your leases?
Yes, to follow what are the basic common sense "rules of the road" such as closing gates, staying on the roads, leaving livestock undisturbed, and all the other that we are aware of. I had no expectation of anyone coming to me to converse about them utilizing any lease.
Was there any opportunity to encourage multi-user use of the publicly-owned land that you leased?
No, not really. The public access issue was certainly in full view when signing the leases, but can't say it was encouraged by myself, DNR, or NF.
Did the leasing agencies discuss public access in the negotiation process? If so, did they lean more towards "allow public access to the land whenever possible" or "you may post the land at will"?
In order...yes, no, yes and no. Public access was discussed, but not expanded. Posting was not an option or considered until.... This particular DNR lease is on a county road which bordered 320 acres of my property. The only access to my property was through the DNR lease. Access through my property led to NF, so the layout was tempting to access my private and NF. Instances of open gates, cut fences, off road excursions, and bullet holes in troughs, all of which result in considerable expense of replacements, weed spraying, and wasted days of riding to put your cattle back where they belong. After negotiations I was granted permission to lock the gate which made it a walk in unit. Won't take up space on the resultant fiascos.
How do you see a way to maximize the value of your leases while allowing John Q Public to enjoy what is owned by is all?
Speaking only of my DNR lease, the maximum value came only after restricting access to walk in. Yes, it is an inconvenience for the disabled hunter, but resolution and enhanced experience for them to be gained from a short visit to the lessee and gaining road access.
In summery... This is an issue that I live on both sides of as a land lessee and avid hunter. Just counted 97 different mounts, plagues, hides hanging in my house along with a taxidermy business. I do see both sides as have certainly been a beneficiary of public ground. Admittedly, I am a bit biased on the land owner side as I have spent decades putting up with and taking $'s out of my pocket in dealing with John Q Public. The actions of a few bad apples do matter. I dare say any farmer/rancher that has to deal with the actions of a few of those apples develop a chapped hide and are prone to react in a matter that doesn't solicit hugs and kisses. The hackles go up when "I have every right to this property" shows up, right or wrong. Solution on all users is easy... be respectful and if preserved actions tickle that conscious bone, don't or ask.
Again, thanks Skillet for the kick. ....Amen
Post by: Skillet on May 08, 2019, 02:38:07 PM
:tup:
Post by: 2MANY on May 08, 2019, 03:30:00 PM
Post by: Igor on May 08, 2019, 04:34:00 PM
I hear the farmer was just protecting his beautiful daughter from uunscrupulous hunters.
Apparently unscrupulous and disrespectful.
You forgot to add deplorable....................
Post by: Goshawk on May 08, 2019, 09:46:16 PM
Come Monday morning I called the person who gave me the permission in the first place; Virgil Manke and brought him up to speed. That resulted in my acquirement of Virgil's personal cell number. A week or two later when I got the same treatment on another part of Manke Lumber lands I dialed up the phone number then handed it to the offending jerk. Just before the phone traded hands, Virgil got to hear all the cussing I was being showered with. Then end result was Mr. Jerk stood there by his bright yellow truck saying "yes sir. I understand sir, of course sir".
End of problem, and my relationship with the Manke Lumber family has been excellent ever since.
Post by: huntnfmly on May 08, 2019, 09:49:35 PM
Way back in the day, I had the same exact thing happen to me by a Manke Lumber Worker who swore at me in front of my then 8 year old daughter and threatened to both beat my tush and have me arrested for trespass just off of the Cinebar Road.I love this story
Come Monday morning I called the person who gave me the permission in the first place; Virgil Manke and brought him up to speed. That resulted in my acquirement of Virgil's personal cell number. A week or two later when I got the same treatment on another part of Manke Lumber lands I dialed up the phone number then handed it to the offending jerk. Just before the phone traded hands, Virgil got to hear all the cussing I was being showered with. Then end result was Mr. Jerk stood there by his bright yellow truck saying "yes sir. I understand sir, of course sir".
End of problem, and my relationship with the Manke Lumber family has been excellent ever since.
Post by: birddogdad on May 09, 2019, 06:34:03 AM
Way back in the day, I had the same exact thing happen to me by a Manke Lumber Worker who swore at me in front of my then 8 year old daughter and threatened to both beat my tush and have me arrested for trespass just off of the Cinebar Road.I love this story
Come Monday morning I called the person who gave me the permission in the first place; Virgil Manke and brought him up to speed. That resulted in my acquirement of Virgil's personal cell number. A week or two later when I got the same treatment on another part of Manke Lumber lands I dialed up the phone number then handed it to the offending jerk. Just before the phone traded hands, Virgil got to hear all the cussing I was being showered with. Then end result was Mr. Jerk stood there by his bright yellow truck saying "yes sir. I understand sir, of course sir".
End of problem, and my relationship with the Manke Lumber family has been excellent ever since.
Epic right there!
Post by: Goshawk on May 09, 2019, 07:45:40 PM
Post by: Timberdog on May 09, 2019, 09:45:46 PM
Post by: Dan-o on May 09, 2019, 10:33:30 PM
Thank you for the thoughtful response, papaonthemountain. Some great insight there.
:tup:
Thank you both.
Post by: Goshawk on June 06, 2019, 04:31:12 PM
Remember when sense was common and people had it?
The new phrase for "Common Sense" since it's no longer common is "Super Power" due to it's rarity.
Post by: konradcountry on June 08, 2019, 08:12:54 AM
I'd go back and scout from the road before opening day.