Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawyers for Brokaw say hunting on adjacent land is unsafe
Casper Star Tribune ^ | 31 October, 2004 | AP

Posted on 10/31/2004 5:42:22 AM PST by brityank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last
To: farmfriend

BTTT!!!!!!!


51 posted on 10/31/2004 2:45:25 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: brityank

If they are worried about their safety, they should stay away from the property line ;)


52 posted on 10/31/2004 2:46:29 PM PST by Libertina (Please Lord, grant America a leader who loves you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
''Tom and (wife) Meredith are not anti-hunting - they are concerned for their safety.''

liberals always seem to be concerned with their own safety. the kennedies are an example. that is why they live in a compound.

53 posted on 10/31/2004 2:49:19 PM PST by mlocher (america is a sovereign state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank

Brokejaw is not anti hunting. He is concerned for his safety. Yeah sure.....He cannot regulate what other private property owners do with their property. If the owner allows hunting on the land then Brokejaw maybe needs to sell and move to a more friendly anti firearm anti hunting place like CAlifornia?

We hunt on 280 acres bordering other property on all 4 sides of course and have no problem with neighbors. In fact, there are always several hunting partys on ajacent land. As a responsible hunter, knowing the approximate location of other hunters and proximity to homes and livestock is always a #1 priority. A party of 4 can safely hunt on 280 acres. So how can a party of 10 on 2500 acres be a danger to ajacent property? Only if the ajacent property owner is anti gun and anti hunting.

Elitists cannot tell us what to do with our property if the activity is legal. 2nd Amendment is still legal. Hunting licenses are still for sale. Hunting is still legal. Brokejaw loses.


54 posted on 10/31/2004 7:31:59 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

What? My Gosh, he is not really saying such a ludicrous thing is he? And I thought he was a sane man once!


55 posted on 10/31/2004 7:41:18 PM PST by ladyinred (John Kerry has a plan to change the national symbol of an Eagle to a Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brityank

I guess I will be the one who understands Tom's fears. I moved this summer into the Sierra Nevada, and it is deer season. I am afraid to go outside sometimes, and fear for my dogs because there is shooting all around me. Think how you would feel. It is close to my home, and it is freaky and scary to me too.


56 posted on 10/31/2004 7:43:14 PM PST by ladyinred (John Kerry has a plan to change the national symbol of an Eagle to a Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlocher
As Tom was saying to me just the other day, "NOT IN MY BACK YARD!".
57 posted on 10/31/2004 7:51:38 PM PST by albee (Those who desire peace should prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: albee

good point!


58 posted on 10/31/2004 7:53:08 PM PST by mlocher (america is a sovereign state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

He has been an elitist Progressive liar all of his life.

My MIL's maiden name was Brokaw. She and her relatives in Illinois were and are rock solid Republicans and conservatives. They warned me about their distant cousin decades ago.


59 posted on 11/01/2004 8:22:51 AM PST by Grampa Dave (When will ABCNNBCBS & the MSM fishwraps stop Rathering to America? Answer: NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Daryl L.Hunter

This is one of many reasons why Montanans are so sensitive to land purchases by out-of-state people. Aside from the factors that you mention, outsiders often aren't aware of the economic consequences of their purchases. Whitefish is rapidly becoming "the next Jackson Hole", making it impossible for native Montanans to afford a home on local wages, and complaining about the lack of government services, which have kept taxes reasonable. Not to mention bringing ecofascism and animism...


60 posted on 11/02/2004 9:53:46 AM PST by HolgerDansk ("Oh Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
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.


61 posted on 11/09/2004 2:54:23 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
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.

62 posted on 11/09/2004 8:06:19 AM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: brityank
''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.

63 posted on 11/09/2004 8:14:44 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

BTTT!!!!!!!


64 posted on 11/09/2004 8:20:23 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: brityank

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.


65 posted on 11/09/2004 8:21:10 AM PST by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
... 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.

66 posted on 11/09/2004 8:36:24 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: brityank
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).

67 posted on 11/09/2004 8:52:53 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


68 posted on 11/09/2004 7:01:25 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
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.

69 posted on 11/09/2004 7:18:35 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.


70 posted on 11/09/2004 7:28:57 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

71 posted on 11/09/2004 8:42:27 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 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. 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.


72 posted on 11/10/2004 5:02:46 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

73 posted on 11/10/2004 5:45:24 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

"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.


74 posted on 11/10/2004 6:20:18 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
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.

75 posted on 11/10/2004 7:21:19 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

They will probably be hunting elk there.


76 posted on 11/10/2004 7:27:57 PM PST by landerwy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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


77 posted on 11/13/2004 10:22:02 PM PST by highpockets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: highpockets
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.

78 posted on 11/13/2004 10:44:36 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

I wonder if this guy is their neighbor:

How to Hunt Deer with a Mountain Howitzer

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


79 posted on 11/15/2004 7:50:28 PM PST by flying Elvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
but this is the system we have.

I like yours better.

80 posted on 11/16/2004 9:36:21 PM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

To put it into perspective, that is over 4 square miles of land.


81 posted on 11/16/2004 9:39:40 PM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-81 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson