Believe it: Landowners liable for yahoo’s work

NH Sunday News ^ | November 2, 2003 | John Harrigan

[RJCogburn]

ALL RIGHT, try this one on for size, and I’m not making it up:

Someone drives an ATV onto your land, which you have left open for other people to enjoy but have not opened to motorized use, and turns a wetland into a gigantic mud pit.

Environmental officials are tipped off about the damage and arrive on the scene for inspection.

Damage assessors determine that it’ll cost several thousand dollars to smooth out the ruts and replant the damaged area, and tell you, the landowner, “Fix it.”

And yes, you have to fix it. Now, I, too, was part of the July 25 session “Managing ATV Use on Forest Lands in New Hampshire” in Concord, but I didn’t stay long enough to hear the part that caught the attention of Tom Thomson of Orford, to put it mildly.

“This brought me out of my chair,” he wrote in the recent issue of Timber Crier, the quarterly published by the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association.

The revelation came during a presentation titled “Wheeled Vehicles and Wetlands” by the Department of Environmental Services. “DES said that in the case of wetland damage caused by ATVs, the forest landowner — whose property has just been vandalized by some yahoo who gets his kicks out of making as much mud as he can on someone else’s property — is responsible for restoring and repairing the wetland damage,” Tom wrote.

This just sounded too ridiculous to Tom to be true. But, he said, “When questioned by myself and other landowners, Ann Edwards, assistant attorney general, confirmed that, according to state law, the landowner would be responsible if the violator could not be found and/or prosecuted.”

Now, in the case of the ATVer we are talking about someone who, unlike hikers and hunters and bird-watchers implicitly invited to use non-posted land, is specifically not invited.

Unlike other users who can assume they can be privileged guests on someone else’s land simply by the absence of posting, motorized users by law must have specific permission. In short, they are not covered under the blanket “implied permission” bestowed by landowners who leave their land open for others to enjoy.

Motorized vehicles are inherently in a different class.

Because their presence carries a greater potential impact on the land and other users, they need written permission.

And as for catching the vandals, any landowner can share Tom’s sentiments. “My own experience is that identifying, prosecuting and collecting restitution to repair damage done on our land by vandals is nearly impossible.”

This law is not good for responsible ATVers, who are scrambling like mad to organize and clean up their sport, and it’s an outright insult to the large majority of New Hampshire’s 83,000 private landowners who leave their land open for hunting, fishing, skiing, snowmobiling, and all manner of other uses.

As Tom Thomson says, “It’s wrong, and should be changed.”

[Batrachian]

It's not an ATV issue. It's a private property issue, and unless what you're doing on your land constitues a substantial nuisance to others the government should, no, they must, keep out. Environmentalism is a monster that will destroy us. It's communism.

[Normal4me]

Exactly. And what gives the Enviro-police the right to tresspass on your private property in order to fine you?

[Savage Beast]

I am not familiar with any of the situations or people discussed in this article and have nothing to say about them, but the American people must become aware of the malevolence of the "environmental movement". So-called "environmentalists" are not merely harmless do-gooders.

[Dutch Boy]

With any luck, after the fires in CA the environmentalists might start losing their control. The failed and harmful regulations should be exposed at every turn. Maybe, just maybe global warming, energy and a few others will get a critical review instead of the emotional knee just support.

IMHO - The environmentalists should be held responsible for their actions. If their actions caused $billions in damage due to asinine policies they shoul pay it back.

[TheBattman]

I have no problem believing this story. I have heard far worse property owner liability stories - one comes from just south of the community I live in-

A farmer landowner had his property clearly marked following all laws regarding posting as private property/no trespassing. All the purple paint, all the possible signs, ets.

Well, There was a fellow that just insisted on trespassing to deer hunt. He had actually been caught by the landowner on several occaisions and escorted off the property. The sherrif's office had been notified every time he trespassed with no results.

One day the trespasser showed up and got up on one of the landowner's deer stands. This fool fell asleep and fell out of the stand sustaining a broken arm and lots of other more minor injuries.

The trespasser filed a law suit against the landowner and WON! There was nothing unsafe about the stand, other than the fact that if you fall asleep you can fall out (true about any deer stand). The fool was on private property as a TRESPASSER, had been warned and escorted off the property on multiple occasions. Yet the landowner was found to be liable for the slob's injuries because it happened on the landowner's property.

The government has FAR exceeded it's constitutional, logical, and moral authority and has been aided primarily by the court system.

[Enterprise]

“DES said that in the case of wetland damage caused by ATVs, the forest landowner — whose property has just been vandalized by some yahoo who gets his kicks out of making as much mud as he can on someone else’s property — is responsible for restoring and repairing the wetland damage,”

Gee, do you think they'll apply the same standard to all those people who lost their homes in the California fires?

[Budge]

Others on this thread have stated what this boils down to.

Which popular, loudmouth party does this remind you of?

[Cultural Jihad]

That is just standard law. Say you loan your car to someone, who by malice or ignorance tinkered and vandalized it somehow. You later drive it and get into an accident because of the vandalism. You are liable for the damages your car caused, while in turn the vandal is liable to you. There's probably even a legal term for that chain of responsibility, such as 'culpeum vandalum' or something. ;-)

[ampat]

Like O'Reilly said in his latest book. Don't associate with bad people.

[steplock]

Another reason to post

Trespassers WILL BE SHOT

[kenth]

Yep, just another cloak for a tried and proven failed ideology. But they still try, and in the process take our country one step closer to the ash pile.

Trees, wildlife, children, homeless, poor, etc. are all being used as pawns under different guises of the same socialist front.

[philetus]

"And what gives the Enviro-police the right to tresspass on your private property in order to fine you?"

Their guns.

[Cultural Jihad]

Landowners are the ones responsible for any nuisances their properties have, even if the nuisance was caused by someone else. They can turn around and demand restitution from the miscreants, if they can be found.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[hedgetrimmer]

Environmentalism is a monster that will destroy us. It's communism

Thank you for speaking the truth.

[hedgetrimmer]

We also need to hold politicians responsible for subverting the Constitution to support environmental totalitarianism. Clinton signed the environmental justice executive order and put together the presidents council on sustainable development. These two things are the genesis of all the property rights destroying programs that are now embedded in many branches of the government, the justice department, the EPA, the AG department, the BLM. If we don't get rid of the politicians(and judges) enabling the environmentalists, we will completely lose our Constitution and property ownership will become a thing of the past. Because you see, the environmentalist's bible, from the Conference on Biodiversity, says property ownership is unsustainable, and only the government can properly care for the land(with the help of environmental NGOs like the Nature conservancy).

Did you know, BTW, that the Nature Conservancy is the largest landholder, after the federal government, in the whole country? And most of their billions of dollars worth of assets were achieved through tax payers purchasing the property and giving it to them? It is the scam of the millenium.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[tahiti]

Amendment V

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."