Lawyers for Brokaw say hunting on adjacent land is unsafe

Casper Star Tribune ^ | 31 October, 2004 | AP

[brityank]

News: AP Realtime | Wyoming | National
Lawyers for Brokaw say hunting on adjacent land is unsafe AP Slugline: w9427_BC_WY__Brokaw_Outfitter_1 liv-abhmssgms LIVINGSTON, Mont. (AP) - Lawyers for ''NBC Nightly News'' anchorman Tom Brokaw want a judge to require the Montana Board of Outfitters to review a decision that allows a Wyoming outfitter to guide big-game hunting trips on land next to Brokaw's Montana ranch. ''The complaint we have is safety, plain and simple,'' Clifford Edwards, a Billings attorney representing Brokaw, told District Judge Nels Swandal at a hearing Friday. ''Tom and (wife) Meredith are not anti-hunting - they are concerned for their safety.'' On Sept. 1, the Board of Outfitters granted Wyoming outfitter David Nelson's request to take up to 10 hunters onto more than 2,500 acres of private land bordering the Brokaws' West Boulder Ranch during archery season, court records said. West Boulder Ranch caretakers Karen and Doug Campbell testified Friday that increased hunting would put them, the Brokaws and their guests in harm's way. ''I'm terrified someone will get shot,'' Karen Campbell said, adding she was ''not so sure'' outfitters knew their clients' hunting skills well enough to ensure the Brokaws' safety. ''We are not anti-hunting. We have no objection to our neighbors hunting on that property as they have in the past and I'm sure will again in the future,'' Brokaw told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his office in New York. ''And we have no objection to bow and arrow hunting,'' Brokaw said. ''Our concern has always been about an out-of-state outfitter bringing strangers onto property with which they are not familiar that is very close to our home and buildings and the use of high-powered rifles.'' Edwards said Campbell's feelings were supported by a case heard in Justice Court earlier Friday, in which a man was cited for accidentally shooting his hunting guide with a .300 caliber Magnum rifle. Edwards said the Brokaws' land, southeast of Livingston, encompasses ''a 340-degree circle'' around some of the land on which Nelson wishes to hunt. Edwards subsequently told The AP that Brokaw's concerns don't extend to other lands owned by a neighbor and adjacent to U.S. Forest Service property. He said the state hunting permits are not exclusive to archery hunting, but also allow rifle hunting in areas that present a ''horribly hazardous situation for the Brokaws, permanent employees, livestock, all of this.'' An injunction against Nelson, issued last week, prevents guided hunts on the neighboring property until the review of the Board of Outfitter's decision is complete. Wayne Johnston of Helena, executive officer for the state Board of Outfitters, told The AP the Brokaws allow bird hunting on their property with shotguns. ''The Brokaws are trying to tell their neighbors who they can and cannot allow on their property and for what reasons,'' Johnston said. ''It seems like an infringement on their neighbors' property rights.'' AP-WS-10-29-04 2206EDT

Copyright © 2004 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated

[brityank]

Update: The cockroaches win another one.

Wyoming briefs

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Judge favors Brokaw in hunting dispute

LIVINGSTON, Mont. -- A Wyoming outfitter's request to bring more hunters on land next to the Montana ranch of NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw poses a safety threat to Brokaw, his family and employees, a judge here ruled.

District Judge Randall Spaulding ordered the Montana Board of Outfitters to revoke David Nelson's additional permits to guide big-game hunting trips on land bordering Brokaw's West Boulder Ranch near here.

"We're very happy with the decision," Brokaw told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "We want to reiterate that this is not about trying to stop all hunting by any means. ... Our concern is about the safety of an out-of-state outfitter bringing hunters to an area they were likely not familiar with."

The Montana State Board of Outfitters in September granted Nelson, an outfitter from Sheridan, 10 additional big-game hunting permits on 2,700 acres owned by Brokaw's neighbor, Chuck Reid. According to court documents, the permits would have allowed hunting anywhere on Reid's land, which nearly surrounds Brokaw's ranch.

Brokaw sought a judge's order to prevent the increased hunting, citing the danger posed by high-powered rifles.

In his ruling, dated Friday but released Monday, Spaulding ruled that "serious safety reasons ... exist and require a permanent injunction against Mr. Nelson."

Nelson did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Monday.

[farmfriend]

Update in post #61.

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.

[Carry_Okie]

''The Brokaws are trying to tell their neighbors who they can and cannot allow on their property and for what reasons,'' Johnston said. ''It seems like an infringement on their neighbors' property rights.''

Unless Mr. Johnston can bet his life that the bullets won't leave the property, this not about his property rights and Brokaw has a case.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[avg_freeper]

Anyone see "King of the Hill" Sunday night? It was about big city liberals moving to Montana and screwing everything up. Pretty darn prescient if you ask me.

[brityank]

... the bullets won't leave the property,..

Firing bullets from a bow wouldn't send them very far, now would it? Sorry to disagree with you, but the cockroaches are bringing their big city fears with them; after all legal gun owners always fire indiscriminately.

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the cockroaches are bringing their big city fears with them; after all legal gun owners always fire indiscriminately.

I am well aware of the propensities of urban liberals, as you know. I am also aware that rural folks too often make light of the occasional, "Oops." Hence my comment, which you did not read closely. Further, it doesn't matter if it's bullets or arrows (the article did mention both bow hunting and high-powered rifles).

[o_zarkman44]

I would promise to keep my bullets on my property only if Brokejaw keeps his opinionated news and commentary to himself. Pollution of the airwaves is dangerous to my mental health.

[Carry_Okie]

I would promise to keep my bullets on my property only if Brokejaw keeps his opinionated news and commentary to himself.

lol

You have a choice to change the channel. Bullets crossing his property line are the shooter's responsibility.

[o_zarkman44]

The chances of a stray bullet coming from 2500 acres of forest, adversely affecting Brokejaw are almost nil. He probably has a better chance of being struck by lightning.

We hunt in a much smaller area, with more population. Nobody complains. During rifle deer hunting season most people not engaged in hunting know better than taking a hike or straying too far from home. Brokejaw probably has a better chance of being hit by a stray bullet in New Yak, certainly being hit by a car. Does that chance deterr him from leaving NBC studios???? It isn't safety he is concerned with, it is people with firearms who hunt.

[Carry_Okie]

The chances of a stray bullet coming from 2500 acres of forest, adversely affecting Brokejaw are almost nil. He probably has a better chance of being struck by lightning.

Here is what I said:

Unless Mr. Johnston can bet his life that the bullets won't leave the property, this not about his property rights and Brokaw has a case.

If the chances are "almost nil," then I guess Mr. Johnston wouldn't have a problem betting his life. If he does, then it isn't that "almost," which is what this kind of dispute is all about. He has a case. Whether he wins or not is not the point. That doesn't mean I agree with his choice to bring the action. Mr. Brokaw quite apparently thinks the risk is worth the ill will in the community his action will clearly generate.

[o_zarkman44]

Brokaw is an elitist and really don't care if he steps on the rights of others as long as he thinks he is in his comfort zone. Brokaw has no rIght to interfere in another's business enterprise on the BUSINESS owners PROPERTY!

The logic Brokaw is using could also assume that someone driving an automobile on the same road as Brokaw could also stray over the center line and involve Brokaw in an accident. So does that give Brokaw the right to stop all traffic on the road so he can guarantee his safety from a stray automobile causing an accident? Could Brokaw request a written guarantee from each driver that MIGHT be on the road that they won't cause an accident with him?

This whole scenario is preposterous. There is no such thing as a material guarantee and asking for such is arrogant. The judge is wrong and the ruling will be reversed.

[Carry_Okie]

Brokaw is an elitist and really don't care if he steps on the rights of others as long as he thinks he is in his comfort zone.

No argument there.

Brokaw has no rIght to interfere in another's business enterprise on the BUSINESS owners PROPERTY!

Neither do they have a right to interfere with Brokaw's use of HIS PROPERTY. Bullets flying into HIS PROPERTY interferes with his use of the property.

Property rights cut both ways. That's the point.

The logic Brokaw is using could also assume that someone driving an automobile on the same road as Brokaw could also stray over the center line and involve Brokaw in an accident. Could Brokaw request a written guarantee from each driver that MIGHT be on the road that they won't cause an accident with him?

The road is a public commons, not private property. Thus the two instances are not at all analogous. Given that it is a public commons, Brokaw can't insist on anything because State law is the governing authority. Therefore, no, but not for the reasons you are trying to advance. Were that a private road, it might be a different story.

There is no such thing as a material guarantee and asking for such is arrogant.

That's a value judgment on your part. Brokaw can ask for anything he wants. To insist your idea of reasonableness has the force of law is arrogant on your part.

[o_zarkman44]

"Bullets flying into HIS PROPERTY interferes with his use of the property."

Brokaw has not proven that bullets have come on to his property from the property in question so isn't it an assumption on his part that a bullet might arrive there?
With the velocity of some rifle,s bullets can travel over a mile unobstructed. So can Brokaw ask for a mile wide buffer zone around his property to protect from his inflated assumption that bullets are going to rain down on his property?

And where is the interferance on his property demonstrated?
Alleging that a bullet may be flying on to his property is assuming danger is imminent. But with the large expanse of area involved, including trees and hills, a microscopic threat with odds in the billions that a 1/4 inch piece of lead is going to travel unobstructed and cause grave injury is.....like a fly speck on a picture window blocking sun light.

Completely irrational. Reinforcing that Brokaw is anti gun, anti hunting, and looking for an excuse to deny lawful citizens their right because he don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. That is the crux of the matter. Brokaw found a sympathetic judge and with a little elitist pressure denies the rights of adjoining property owners.

[Carry_Okie]

Brokaw has not proven that bullets have come on to his property from the property in question so isn't it an assumption on his part that a bullet might arrive there?

Of course it is. I didn't say the Brokaw was being reasonable or that he would get his way, I said he has a case.

With the velocity of some rifle,s bullets can travel over a mile unobstructed.

A lot more than that.

So can Brokaw ask for a mile wide buffer zone around his property to protect from his inflated assumption that bullets are going to rain down on his property?

Certainly he can ask, and the judge would likely base the ruling upon standard setbacks used for shoot and no-shoot zoning. In our county it is 300 yards. I have no idea what it is up there, or even if such an ordinace exists in that jurisdiction.

And where is the interferance on his property demonstrated?

Were the neighbors to allow their customers to shoot anywhere right up to Brokaw's property line and his house anywhere from but 50 feet adjacent to a mile away, that depends, doesn't it? The threat could be anything from imminent to non-existent.

Completely irrational.

That's your assumption, without any specifics of evidence. I prefer to let the judge figure it out. That's why there will be a case. We have laws in this country to settle such disputes instead of people shooting it out.

Reinforcing that Brokaw is anti gun, anti hunting, and looking for an excuse to deny lawful citizens their right because he don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. That is the crux of the matter.

I haven't and don't dispute Mr. Brokaw's prejudices. He's a jerk. So what? It doesn't change the fact that he has a case.

Brokaw found a sympathetic judge and with a little elitist pressure denies the rights of adjoining property owners.

No, Brokaw and his able attorney likely found a LAW governing nuisances associated with adjacent commercial activity. This dispute is not about his neighbor's hunting, but running a commercial hunting operation with people on the land who, for example, may not know where the property line is or where Mr. Brokaw's house might be. He has a case, whether you or I like it or not.

Your prejudices in this discussion have missed the fact that I don't want Brokaw to get his way. What you don't understand is that I WILL defend his right to bring a legal action in defense of his preferred use of his property and the potential threat a that neighbor's use of his property poses to that use. Whether his claim is legitimate or not is up to the court to determine based upon facts that neither of us possess. For you to fly off the handle and attack that right out of your prejudices makes you as had as Brokaw, however rightly you might justify your hatred for the creep.

[landerwy]

They will probably be hunting elk there.

[highpockets]

Okie, as a result of your posts I have a much better understanding of this situation. Very informative. Thanks

[Carry_Okie]

You are quite welcome.

There are better ways to settle such disputes than running to court, such as a combination of Brokaw buying a lease to a "no-shoot buffer" on his neighbor's land and/or selling game management contracts on parts of his land in areas that concentrate the hunting away from his home, but this is the system we have.

[flying Elvis]

I wonder if this guy is their neighbor:

How to Hunt Deer with a Mountain Howitzer

http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

[farmfriend]

but this is the system we have.

I like yours better.