Posted on 09/19/2014 7:09:21 AM PDT by redreno
State transportation officials are refuting rancher Cliven Bundy’s claim that they are ultimately responsible for keeping his cattle off Interstate 15 in northeastern Clark County.
In a statement Thursday, Mary Martini, district engineer for the Nevada Department of Transportation in Las Vegas, said that while the state maintains the fences along I-15 to “designate the right of way” and control access, “it is always the responsibility and liability of the owners to control their animals.”
The dispute could be headed for court.
Bundy was sued for negligence this week by a 34-year-old Las Vegas woman injured when her car hit one of the rancher’s cows on I-15 about 10 miles from his Bunkerville ranch.
The April 14 crash came two days after Bundy and his armed supporters made national news by forcing federal authorities to abruptly abandon an impound operation on public land where the rancher has been raising hundreds of cows without paying grazing fees for more than 20 years.
The collision with the cow sent Danielle Beck and her boyfriend, Matthew Zanatta, to the hospital.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
If the Fed is leasing land for grazing purposes, should
they not be responsible for maintaining the fence?
**************
Good question but it may also be defined in the lease agreement
as to whom is responsible.
Thread from Yesterday.......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3205387/posts
like.... how do you hit the cow on open highway?
They are slooooow, not like springy deer that jumps out of the woods.
She had to be RAT reporter from the city, used to right of way.
reminds me of the time I was driving through Tennessee and some farmer drove his herd of cows across the 2-lane road I was on. Cows on all sides of me, all moving at a crawl. I just had to wait them out.
Exactly.
The driver is blameless?
What if the cow had been a human?
I live in N Nevada.
This state has vast areas of OPEN RANGE.
I don’t believe this ‘spokesperson” for NDOT is correct.
They are trying to duck responsibility & pushing against Bundy again.
Grazing Rights have the rancher maintaining fences & water supplies.
However, there have been many instances where BLM & other Federal employees have tampered with those ‘improvements’.
Look into the Wayne Hage case near Tonopah.
The Feds lost that case & still have NOT paid the Hage estate for the results.
I live within 1 mile of US Hwy 95-A, which is in N Nevada. There are Open Range signs all along it.
Cattle aren’t the main problem here-—Wild Horses are.
Too many city people moving into this area & they just don’t get it.
Your buddy may have gotten the cheap end of the deal.
IF he had hit a breeding BULL, the cost could have been much higher.
A good breeding bull can cost $100,000 easily. They are useful for at least 10-15 years.
Most people don’t realize that people wishing to ride their ATV’s & motorcycles are cutting fences all over the
West to gain access to land they think is ‘open & not owned by anyone’.
It is a nightmare for the ranchers.
Milk would taste different
Probably didn't do much for the cow, either.
Bundy can't very well claim that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the range land and then complain that they didn't put up a fence to keep his cow off the interstate now can he?
“Milk would taste different”
But, the “supply mechanisms” would be more...interesting...
From the story: "In a statement Thursday, Mary Martini, district engineer for the Nevada Department of Transportation in Las Vegas, said that while the state maintains the fences along I-15 to “designate the right of way” and control access, “it is always the responsibility and liability of the owners to control their animals."
So if the state did have a fence designating the right of way, and Bundy allowed his cow to ener into the fenced right of way, then he's liable.
That’s why I have a liability policy.Two million is a good starting point if you have large animals on the farm.
He may not be making that claim. I do not know if he is.
But if the Fed built a highway through his property, or on their own property, knowing that the land was used for grazing, are they not responsible for constructing a suitable fence to protect those using the highway?
My guess is this whole thing is more about retribution against Bundy then anything else.
Also; Since the Fed talks out of both sides of their mouth, why can't Bundy do the same?
No. They are responsible for constructing a fence to designate the right of way and to limit access. According to the story they did that. But they aren't responsible for keeping cows or deer or buffalo or whatever off the road. If a rancher allows his cattle to enter that right of way then he's responsible.
Thank you.
Hmmm
Did you read pp #1 in my link?
Are you from an open range state or really familiar with open range laws?
Yes. More importantly I read pp #2. The Nevada law defines open range as unenclosed land in 563.355. If a highway right of way is fenced then it can't be considered open range because, well, it isn't open or unenclosed. So the interstate is not considered open range. The question then becomes did Bundy negligently allow his cow into the right-of-way and I assume that would depend on the circumstances. If the state fence was not maintained and had gaps in it that cows could wander through then the negligence would be on the part of the state and not Bundy. But if the fence was in good repair and somehow Bundy's cattle got past it then the liability would be with him.
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.