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

Skip to comments.

Rancher Accuses Federal Wolf Agent of Trespassing
Casper Star Tribune ^ | 02/28/04 | AP

Posted on 02/28/2004 6:33:41 PM PST by Probus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: Zeroisanumber
Sounds like this guy was stupid or lazy, or maybe both.


Nope. Just another Fed who thinks his powers are unlimited.
41 posted on 02/29/2004 6:22:10 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Howell says that the Forth Amendment does not apply to open fields outside the curtilage of the farmhouse. McDowell makes it clear that "no trespassing" signs do not create an expanded Forth Amendment right.

Interesting. Are fenced in fields considered 'open' fields? And does McDowell make it legal to deliberately conduct unwarranted searches on any privately owned land not a part of the farmhouse or curtilage?

42 posted on 02/29/2004 6:27:30 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: templar
No doubt they were being transplanted.

Unless there is some new type fully automatic tranq-sniper-rifle that we are unaware of and in the hands of a highly qualified sniper.

Clear case of tresspass.
43 posted on 02/29/2004 6:31:03 PM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
You obviously are not a landowner. Condo's don't count.
44 posted on 02/29/2004 6:32:29 PM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: templar
trespass = tresspass
45 posted on 02/29/2004 6:34:52 PM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Probus
"The NYers think its great, however. That's why WE have them, cause the PUBLIC wanted to see them reintroduced (somewhere where there are not real people, like here in WY, I guess)."

For your information, Wolves and Mountain Lions have been recently reintroduced back into NY.
46 posted on 02/29/2004 6:44:07 PM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
He is getting upset over a fed entering his land to tranquilize wolves. It is not clear what the wolves are doing on the land or why they are being tranquilized. My guess is genuine sheep ranchers in the neighborhood have lost sheep and have asked the agents to track wolves which may be responsible.

No, he is getting upset over a fed entering his land to release wolves onto his grazing pasture where young calves are. The fed is there deliberatly so the wolves can get an easy meal or two at the rancher's expense.

Read up on the program here:

The wolf release plan, evaluated in an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1992-1994, is to restore wolves to Yellowstone and central Idaho by establishing experimental populations of gray wolves in both areas. The goal for Yellowstone is to establish 10 packs of wolves reproducing in the area for three consecutive years by the year 2002. Restoring wolves to Yellowstone is in keeping with national park goals to perpetuate all native species and their natural interactions with their environment.

here:

#11 left the pack in Jan 96. She was mistaken for a Coyote and killed by a ranch hand. He responsibly reported the incident and was fined $ 500.

and here:


47 posted on 02/29/2004 6:57:00 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: templar
Are fenced in fields considered 'open' fields?

Old law in at least one state, yes. I don't know what the general rule is.

And does McDowell make it legal to deliberately conduct unwarranted searches on any privately owned land not a part of the farmhouse or curtilage?

Yes, in rural areas, with some qualifications, with the qualification that I haven't looked at this stuff in over 20 years.

48 posted on 02/29/2004 6:59:35 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone
Shoot, shovel and shut-up!
49 posted on 02/29/2004 7:04:56 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Entering Real Property Without Permission

IDAHO CODE 18-7008. TRESPASS -- ACTS CONSTITUTING.

"A. Every person who willfully commits any trespass, by either (items 1-7 not applicable)...

8. Every person, except under landlord-tenant relationship, who, being first notified in writing, or verbally by the owner or authorized agent of the owner of real property, to immediately depart from the same and who refuses to so depart, or who, without permission or invitation, returns and enters said property within a year, after being so notified; or

9. Entering without permission of the owner or the owner's agent, upon the real property of another person which real property is posted with "No Trespassing" signs, is posted with a minimum of one hundred (100) square inches of fluorescent orange paint except that when metal fence posts are used, the entire post must be painted fluorescent orange, or other notices of like meaning, spaced at intervals of not less than one (1) sign, paint area or notice per six hundred sixty (660) feet along such real property; provided that where the geographical configuration of the real property is such that entry can reasonably be made only at certain points of access, such property is posted sufficiently for all purposes of this section if said signs, paint or notices are posted at such points of access; or

10. (item 10 not applicable)...

Is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Criminal Trespass

IDAHO CODE 18-7011 (1). -- DEFINITION AND PUNISHMENT.

"Any person... who without permission of the owner or the owner's agent enters the real property of another person where such real property is posted with "No Trespassing" signs or other notices of like meaning spaced at intervals of not less than one (1) notice per six hundred sixty (660) feet along such real property, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six (6) months or by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and not more than three hundred dollars ($300) or by both such fine and imprisonment. Where the geographical configuration of the real property is such that entry can reasonably be made only at certain points of access, such property is posted sufficiently for all purposes of this section if said signs or notices are posted at such points of access. As used in this subsection and in section 18-7008, Idaho Code: "enters," "entry" and "entering" mean going upon or over real property either in person or by causing any object, substance or force to go upon or over real property."

Looking, Peering, or Peeking into Windows & Openings

IDAHO CODE 18-7006. TRESPASS OF PRIVACY.

"It shall be unlawful for any person, upon the private property of another, to intentionally look, peer or peek in the door, window, or other transparent opening of any inhabited building or other structure located thereon, without visible or lawful purpose. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Entering Buildings Without Permission

IDAHO CODE 18-7034. UNLAWFUL ENTRY A MISDEMEANOR.

"Every person, except under landlord-tenant relationship, who enters any dwelling house, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, closed vehicle, closed trailer, airplane, railroad car or outbuilding without the consent of the owner of such property or his agent or any person in lawful possession thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Private Roads Are Private

IDAHO CODE 50-1309.3 -- JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS.

"Highway districts shall not have jurisdiction over private roads designated as such on subdivision plats and shall assume no responsibility for the design, inspection, construction, maintenance and/or repair of private roads."

Punishment

IDAHO CODE 18-303.

"All offenses recognized by the common law as crimes and not herein enumerated are punishable, in case of felony, by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years; and in case of misdemeanors, by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six (6) months or less than one (1) month, or by fine not exceeding $500, or both such fine and imprisonment. And whenever any fine is imposed for any felony or misdemeanor, whether such be by statute or at common law and the party upon whom the fine is imposed has the ability to pay said fine, the party upon whom the fine is imposed shall be committed to the county jail, when not sentenced to the state prison, until the fine is paid."

All Persons To Be Treated Equally Under The Law

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 14th AMENDMENT

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Sections 1 & 2

"All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary"
50 posted on 02/29/2004 7:17:02 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
The reason I had Idaho code handy was because we had to deal with public officials who thought the trespassing laws did not apply to them.

I looked for the article from Washington State, but the archives were down. All I can tell you is it went clear to the liberal governor Lock and he couldn't do anything because the man was within his legal rights to protect his posted private property.

Idaho is more freedom oriented than some, but I bet most states have similar laws.
51 posted on 02/29/2004 7:27:42 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
My husband has a Texas Concealed Carry Permit. This is what he was told; If someone is just walking around, you have them arrested for trespassing.

If they are in the act of stealing [anything], you can shoot to kill.

If they are in anyway 'threatening', you can shoot to kill.
52 posted on 02/29/2004 9:50:07 PM PST by potlatch ( Frankly, Scallop, I Don't Give a Clam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: panaxanax
Wolves? Are you sure? No offense intended with the NYer comment, by the way. I was born in Coudersport.

53 posted on 03/01/2004 5:37:59 AM PST by Probus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Both those cases, as I recall, involved law enforcement entering publicly viewed,adjacent to, and easily accessed from, public property and seeing something incriminating.

This involves a federal agent (not LEO) trespassing to plant or remove or do something (we will probably never know what) with wolves.
54 posted on 03/01/2004 5:45:22 AM PST by Probus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: potlatch; MeekOneGOP; Ragtime Cowgirl; Alamo-Girl; Shooter 2.5; Mia T; glock rocks; .30Carbine; ...



NO TRESPASSING!



55 posted on 03/01/2004 8:55:24 AM PST by autoresponder (JAMES BOND: http://00access.tripod.com/007.html J-FK: http://00access.tripod.com/Kerry-11.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder; Spiff; B4Ranch; JackelopeBreeder; JustPiper; Sabertooth; JohnHuang2

"Rancher Accuses Federal Wolf Agent of Trespassing"

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

56 posted on 03/01/2004 9:00:58 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PAR35; OregonRancher; farmfriend
"Howell says that the Forth Amendment does not apply to open fields outside the curtilage of the farmhouse. McDowell makes it clear that "no trespassing" signs do not create an expanded Forth Amendment right."

Please explain this further. When I have a $3000 registered bull in a field, am I not allowed to control who enters the field and who could possibly drop metal fragments into the field which my bull would then swallow? So we don't get off on the wrong foot. Yes, I do use magnets.

57 posted on 03/01/2004 9:16:35 AM PST by B4Ranch (Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Probus
"This involves a federal agent (not LEO)"

I believe that all federal agents who are armed, (which most of them are today because of the drugs and illegal aliens problem,) have the status of LEO.

58 posted on 03/01/2004 9:19:15 AM PST by B4Ranch (Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; MeekOneGOP; potlatch; PhilDragoo; GeronL


                        
L U N C H !
                        

59 posted on 03/01/2004 9:30:52 AM PST by autoresponder (JAMES BOND: http://00access.tripod.com/007.html J-FK: http://00access.tripod.com/Kerry-11.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
LHowell says that the Forth Amendment does not apply to open fields outside the curtilage of the farmhouse. McDowell makes it clear that "no trespassing" signs do not create an expanded Forth Amendment right.

Seems to me this is not the point of contention. Unless I mis-read, the federal folks weren't there to search the property of the land-owner because of some possible wrong-doing of the land-owner. It sounded like the federal folks were there to get those wolfs.

60 posted on 03/01/2004 9:35:07 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next 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