Protecting seedlings from snowmobilers?
- Thread starter MNBobcat
- Start date
- Views: 6659
brin
Super Member
:thumbdown: Don't get me started...So far I have said nothing about Canada or wherever you are from..In Eastern Ontario, if a club has an established trail across someones property, it is very difficult to get them to stop using it if you are a new landowner. We had a new neighbour who bought 100 acres for a hobby horse farm, and she spent a lot of money putting up fencing only to have it cut down by the local club. This happened multiple times, and the local authorities were very reluctant to get involved. She eventually sold the property for other reasons, but every winter it was a constant battle to keep her fences up.
Not a fan of 'clubs'. Fortunately most sleds these days only run for about 10 hours before they blow up.
Not a fan of 'clubs'. Fortunately most sleds these days only run for about 10 hours before they blow up.
jgrreed
Platinum Member
Where did that come from??
Not exactly sure how to take your comment, but it certainly doesn't look overly friendly, Sir. My comment about my like of the USA is genuine, and my comment about W and his stage-exiting issue is fact. If you're denying the litigious nature of the USA, let me remind you of the man WHO WON his case against a RV manufacturer because he put his new motorhome on cruise control to go to the back and make himself some fresh coffee.
Make no mistake about 'wherever' I am from. The big red maple leaf on my avatar should clear that up for you.
-Jer.
RoadHogg
Bronze Member
I believe that cruise control thing is a hoax, however, you don't have to look very far to find real life examples of ridiculous laws suits. The point is not who's country is better than who's, the point is, it's rather ridiculous that we are not allowed to delineate our property using a fence or to protect our personal property in any other way if the possibility exists that a perpetrator could possibly hurt themselves while trespassing on private property.
It's odd that people who live in a city can build a fence around their property and if someone slams their motorcycle or snowmobile into it, the vehicle driver is held liable. If a rural land owner puts a fence around their property and a trespasser wrecks their snowmobile or motorcycle etc while trespassing, the land owner is then held liable. It seems like a double standard to me. If it is, and I had to guess why, I'd say that it's because most lawyers and judges live in urban or suburban areas, not in rural areas.
IMO, it's easy to know if you are allowed to access any property or not. If you own it, you can go there. If you don't own it, you have no business going there. Why would a person need a sign to tell them they have no business being on property they don't own unless that person is operating on the assumption that if there isn't an armed guard securing an area then that area must be for the use of anyone who comes along.
Perhaps it's a valid misconception because many urban and suburban dwellers only experience open spaces in the confines of a city park or similar area and in those areas, it is assumed that they are there for the use of anyone who comes along. Perhaps they feel that if there isn't a giant building in a particular area then it's worthless to anyone and free to be used and abused by anyone who comes along. Perhaps they don't realize that the area they are trespassing on is where their food and building materials and all manner of other things they buy from a store, actually come from. Ask them where milk comes from and they will probably say, "the store". They may not realize that the area they are trespassing upon is where the cows live and THAT is where their milk comes from. They also may not realize that the area they are trespassing on is someone's business, someone's livelihood. Go strolling through every area of an urban factory and see how fast someone takes offense. In that case, they will actually assume you would know that you shouldn't be in there. How is that different from being on property that you don't own? I don't know.
jgrreed
Platinum Member
Couldn't agree more.....
Not saying Canada is 'better' - Lord knows we have our problems..... but it is true that the USA is more litigious. Most of my American Colleagues have at least one member of their admin staff dedicated to only lawsuits!!! My 'admin staff' is 1, yes ONE, person - actually not true.....half of one - she runs two of our practices.
-Jer.
RoadHogg
Bronze Member
True or not, I'm not sure how productive it is to poke them in the face about it. The issue at hand is trespassing and the apparent support of it, not a perceived declination of common sense and reason within any particular nation.
jgrreed
Platinum Member
I apologize if it came across as a 'poke in the face'. The sentiment of my original comment was truly one of regret that the US has to live in fear of this ridiculous behaviour. I know that we do too, but to a much lesser extent.
I guess my W comment was a bit off-color........ but come on!! It's W!!! Trying to think who it a parallel in our country. Chretien said some wacky things.... We've definitely had some crooks in power (do you remember Grant Devine's caucus in SK in the late 80's??)
Again, sorry if it came across as belligerent, wasn't meant to be that way.
-Jer.
77transam
Silver Member
Here's the law concerning what defines trespass in my state...
North Carolina General Stautes
ARTICLE 22B.
First and Second Degree Trespass.
ｧ 14-159.11. Definition.
As used in this Article, "building" means any structure or part of a structure, other than
a conveyance, enclosed so as to permit reasonable entry only through a door and roofed
to protect it from the elements. (1987, c. 700, s. 1.)
ｧ 14-159.12. First degree trespass.
(a) Offense. -- A person commits the offense of first degree trespass if, without
authorization, he enters or remains:
(1) On premises of another so enclosed or secured as to demonstrate
clearly an intent to keep out intruders; or
(2) In a building of another.
(b) Classification. -- First degree trespass is a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s.
1; 1993, c. 539, s. 101; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
ｧ 14-159.13. Second degree trespass.
(a) Offense. -- A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without
authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:
(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner,
by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized
person; or
(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.
(b) Classification. -- Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700,
s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
ｧ 14-159.14. Lesser included offenses.
The offenses created by this act shall constitute lesser included offenses of breaking or
entering as provided in G.S. 14-54 and G.S. 14-56. (1987, c. 700, s. 1.)
Fence, gate and signs everywhere!!! If they still enter, then they get to deal with me,my pit bull & my mossberg. ( I much prefer pump action and WIDE spray patterns in home defense scenario!)
North Carolina General Stautes
ARTICLE 22B.
First and Second Degree Trespass.
ｧ 14-159.11. Definition.
As used in this Article, "building" means any structure or part of a structure, other than
a conveyance, enclosed so as to permit reasonable entry only through a door and roofed
to protect it from the elements. (1987, c. 700, s. 1.)
ｧ 14-159.12. First degree trespass.
(a) Offense. -- A person commits the offense of first degree trespass if, without
authorization, he enters or remains:
(1) On premises of another so enclosed or secured as to demonstrate
clearly an intent to keep out intruders; or
(2) In a building of another.
(b) Classification. -- First degree trespass is a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s.
1; 1993, c. 539, s. 101; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
ｧ 14-159.13. Second degree trespass.
(a) Offense. -- A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without
authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another:
(1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner,
by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized
person; or
(2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises.
(b) Classification. -- Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700,
s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
ｧ 14-159.14. Lesser included offenses.
The offenses created by this act shall constitute lesser included offenses of breaking or
entering as provided in G.S. 14-54 and G.S. 14-56. (1987, c. 700, s. 1.)
Fence, gate and signs everywhere!!! If they still enter, then they get to deal with me,my pit bull & my mossberg. ( I much prefer pump action and WIDE spray patterns in home defense scenario!)
