# The Family That Commits Crimes Together,...



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

bioactive said:


> How would you react if you found a strange person inside your house?
> .


Castle Doctrine.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

Is there any way they did not know they were on private land? If not then the derelict comment fits.


----------



## johnhunter247 (Mar 12, 2011)

Man, you have all the luck! How does your property keep atracting Michigan's finest? At least they didn't damage your place this time. Using your dog as an excuse to tresspass is BS. If you can't keep control of your dog keep them at home! But I highly doubt they were chasing anything. They probably know your not around and could care less about tresspassing. No matter what they are up to they have no right to be there. Chances are they know they are tresspassing.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Playin' Hooky said:


> Is the date correct? Thought dog running resumed 7/15?? Maybe he escaped from the yard and was simply doing what hounds do--run!
> 
> If legal as far as calendar goes...or just a runner...I thought the law allows those running dogs to retrieve them from private property as long as there are no weapons carried onto the property? If that was the case, should of left the kids at the truck!


Training season started July 8th this year. Whether he escaped and was picked up, or being run on **** that night makes no difference. 

If there is no gun, it's legal. _The only caveat that I'm not sure of is whether all of them are allowed to be there or just one. May have to ask one of the resident CO's about that one._



farmlegend said:


> Let's see...they were all deputized law enforcement officers, and their hound was hot on the foot trail of a recent prison escapee. Or,...aw, hell, I can't think of another one. Help me out here guys, come up with another plausible excuse, extra points awarded for originality.


How about they were training a **** dog on a property where they had permission to turn their dogs loose. The dog struck a track, trailed to your or your neighbors ground and they legally retrieved their dog without a gun (since it's not **** kill season). They leashed their dog and walked out to the nearest road or back to their truck. 

Seems pretty original to me.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

srconnell22 said:


> How about they were training a **** dog on a property where they had permission to turn their dogs loose. The dog struck a track, trailed to your or your neighbors ground and they legally retrieved their dog without a gun (since it's not **** kill season). They leashed their dog and walked out to the nearest road or back to their truck.
> 
> Seems pretty original to me.


Not bad, Connell. However, the direction they were headed was most certainly NOT that of the nearest road. And the nearest property where someone was likely to give permission to turn dogs loose is almost certainly over a mile from where this pic was taken.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

dooman said:


> Is there any way they did not know they were on private land? If not then the derelict comment fits.


Doubtful, but you've me an idea for another possible excuse - they picked up the track of a raccoon down at the Lost Nations State Game Area (10 miles away), and it turned out to be the **** equivalent of an olympic class marathoner, leading them on a wild chase through Jefferson, Pittsford, Wheatland, and Adams townships. That would explain the trespassers stooping posture and odor which was detectable for 17 days.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bucksnbows said:


> You got to love FL for his way to turn an unpleasant find into a bit of comedy, but because of his mantra around these parts (MSF) some automatically assume his accustations to be wrong and look for ways to* justinfy *(not misspelled) the obvious act of people being somewhere they do not belong.
> Lets face it people.........no matter what the law says that gives one the right to be on anothers property without permission..........deep down inside a true sportsman and upstanding citizen knows they shouldn't be there and gets out quick. They typically do not bring the entire family along for an evening walk on SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND.


 
Nice Observation BnB.

As a landowner we..... bought the hunk of dirt with are hard earned money..... pay taxes every year........ have alot of blood, sweat and tears invested in it. We just want to be left alone and have things exist as they did the way we left our lands.
I am a compassionate and forgiving person but seeing a "WHOLE FAMILY UNIT and CANINE".
Maybe they should have invited the neighbors down the street as well.
Idiots!

Hang em High next time ,FL.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

farmlegend said:


> Not bad, Connell. However, the direction they were headed was most certainly NOT that of the nearest road. And the nearest property where someone was likely to give permission to turn dogs loose is almost certainly over a mile from where this pic was taken.


I don't see a GPS collar on the dog, so they may have been trying to keep up with him by voice the whole way through the race and are heading back the direction they came from. That would fall under where I said "or back to their truck".

It's a bad year for corn in most places, wouldn't surprise me a bit if a local farmer got fed up with ***** knocking stalks down on top of a drought year and called in help. 

I wasn't there, I don't know the real story so I shouldn't comment further without knowing the truth.

I do know that the only possible leg you have to stand on for a trespassing complaint here is with multiple people retrieving the dog versus just one. I don't know the legalities of that, and it should be addressed with your local (or one of the resident MS) CO's. If they say it's legal, then there is no wrong doing. If they say it's illegal, then have fun giving a bunch of kids recreational trespassing tickets and teaching them a lesson.


----------



## hartman756 (Nov 21, 2008)

Now, I know there is such a thing as ethical **** hunters out there, but, honestly, the only times I've ever seen anything to do with **** hunting, lawlessness was involved. 
[/COLOR] 

I know farmlegend is an arrogant, opinionated, old fart:yikes: *OH* and I better add the laughing smillie face.......:lol: 

But I agree with him!!!!! I am a **** hunter and I am ashamed the way most of my fellow (so called) **** hunters act! It also makes it harder for those of us that do follow the rules!!! 

Here is the law for retreaving a hunting dog from private land

(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively.

I don't know what the definition of a person is but I was always under the impression it ment one person............even if that is not the right interpritation of a person ,it also is clear that person should not remain on the property beond reasonable time nessary......I highly doubt hauling the whole fam damly onto someones private property to get your dog is doing it in the most reasonable amount of time!!!!! 



c hartman


----------



## hartman756 (Nov 21, 2008)

Another thing ,it has been mentioned that sometimes a **** will run a long way without treeing. That is not the norm, normally when a dog cuts a fresh track the chase is short...............................................



c hartman


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

I walk away with two things. A lot of people have never **** hunted. The other would be some people just like to think the worst.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

srconnell22 said:


> Training season started July 8th this year. Whether he escaped and was picked up, or being run on **** that night makes no difference.
> 
> If there is no gun, it's legal. _The only caveat that I'm not sure of is whether all of them are allowed to be there or just one. May have to ask one of the resident CO's about that one._
> 
> ...


All very true. I've **** hunted my whole life. We always went way out of our way to avoid trespassing, to the point of quitting the sport. We had mostly close running dogs and seldom had to cross property lines to retrieve them. When we did, we did so as quickly and quietly as possible. We never had a problem, of coarse that was before trail cams and deer crazed landowners. There really isn't enough room to hunt **** anymore, unless you go far north. That is why we quit. Willfully trespassing was never tolerated in my family.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Whats the big deal,,, all I was doing is scoutin' out a Youth Hunt fence-line spot for me and the kids? If you wouldn't of moved that cam, you never woulda known I was there... Now I'm gonna have to find a spot on your other fence line,,, where all the does are..


----------



## Nocturnal Ghost (May 26, 2011)

I doubt they were **** hunting. Taking young kids in June/July to the woods after dark would be more of an adventure then any dad would voluntarily do especially it looks like a couple of them have shorts on. :yikes:


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

Boy oh boy do you have trespassing problems. If I was you u would be searching the property for a meth lab. 

Where is you property Afghanistan? Yikes!!


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

I love the dog excuse.

My trespasser, who was really in the course of breaking the law, his probation, and setting himself up for a prolonged stay in the county lockup, also used the hunting dog excuse.

The only problem was, he was a convicted felon so wasn't likely to be hunting.

And he lied to the court about where he was at, thinking that I would not show up in court. 

He told them the dog jumped out of his car at the wine store, two miles away from my house in a residential area.

Yet the same cast of characters came on my thread telling me how unfair it was for me to think the worst about this poor guy.

I do not believe you can both be a responsible sportsman and also **** hunt with dogs in an area where you end up on a property (farmlegend's) that has neighbors to the east with a 40, 4 neighbors to the north with a 100, 60, a 150, and a 12 respectively. Neighbors to the west with a 25 and 105 (across a road--it is obviously an irresponsible dog owner that would put the animal in a position to cross a road unleashed:sad. Neighbors to the south with a 60, 160, 80, and an 80. 

You simply can't do it without having a high probability of trespassing, disrespecting someone else's property.

i remember the days when **** hunting was popular in the 50s and 60s. One of the main tools carried was a bolt cutter to get through fences.

Give me a break.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

You can't be serious, what a joke. The guy has a head lamp on and one of the youths has on a pair of **** boots, look like lacross. And the dog looks like it's a walker. It's perfectly legal to retrieve your dog off ones property until asked to leave. Get over it. 

The best one can hope for is they don't run all the deer off the property the night before opening season. And the dog does not take a dump by his favorite tree stand, hopefully he does not hunt on the ground


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

bioactive said:


> i remember the days when **** hunting was popular in the 50s and 60s. One of the main tools carried was a bolt cutter to get through fences.
> 
> Give me a break.


Maybe in your neighborhood.:16suspect


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

farmlegend said:


> so there was no accident of this clan of inbred derelicts wandering innocently onto my farm


Dan...you seriously crack me up with the stuff you come up with  been working late hours staring at a computer and when I ran across these comments I laughed out loud!! Good stuff...I hope you catch em, but at the same time this stuff honestly does provide for some seriously needed comical relief  hilarious...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Threefish (Jan 20, 2009)

We pay taxes on the land, we never own it, and life is to short. It is common in the north to have bear hunters ,**** hunters and coyote hunters run dogs. Trespass yes. Is it the end of the world, no. There might be more to it than a picture. They could of been looking for another dog , doesn't matter life go's on. AS far as spooking your deer off your property they will come back. I Know by BIO's description you shouldn't have anyone within a hundred miles of you. but maybe he forgot a 5 acre parcel.I understand the trespass rule. But I myself think that predator control is as equally important so if I see someone running dogs on my property I take it up with them because I know a dog has no boundry. Some I let hunt some I don't depends on there answer an what there hunting for. JMO>


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

You have to love the Mine Mine Mine mentality, Id reason the only thing you own is what you take with you when your dead, ya Nothing!
This earth is not for private use only, You my friend do not know the words "Love Thy Neighbor" do ya? 
If you did you would not even posted the pic because it is demeaning and causes SIN @ every turn!
You need to remember why you even have property, its not because of your sweat, its not because you worked so hard to get it, its because of the Grace of God, if you dont believe me then check how much you bring with you when you die!

BD


----------



## remcorebond (Jul 14, 2008)

That's some of the silliest **** I ever heard!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

bassdisaster said:


> You have to love the Mine Mine Mine mentality, Id reason the only thing you own is what you take with you when your dead, ya Nothing!
> You need to remember why you even have property, its not because of your sweat, its not because you worked so hard to get it, its because of the Grace of God, if you dont believe me then check how much you bring with you when you die!
> You my friend do not know the words "Love Thy Neighbor" do ya?


Why am I thinking..."you didn't build that!"?:lol:

Why even have laws that protect private property? Oh yeah, securing private property rights was the fundamental reason our republic was created.

Just how much "love" were the miscreants in the photo showing their neighbors? I noticed you didn't comment on that.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

FredBearYooper said:


> Imbred derelicts? Really?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I hear ya! I think that "linebred" is more pc these days.


----------



## deepsleep (Aug 16, 2009)

bassdisaster said:


> You have to love the Mine Mine Mine mentality, Id reason the only thing you own is what you take with you when your dead, ya Nothing!
> This earth is not for private use only, You my friend do not know the words "Love Thy Neighbor" do ya?
> If you did you would not even posted the pic because it is demeaning and causes SIN @ every turn!
> You need to remember why you even have property, its not because of your sweat, its not because you worked so hard to get it, its because of the Grace of God, if you dont believe me then check how much you bring with you when you die!
> ...



Nice looking family there Bass:lol:.

I can't believe the number of people on here that have so little respect for landowner's rights. Plenty of people make huge sacrifices to own a piece of land, and the bottom line is, yes, it is "mine, mine, mine." You buy it and pay the taxes every year and it is "yours, yours, yours"--and I will respect that. Somehow, I think Bass would think differently if I just hung out in his house whenever I felt like it, or let my dogs run all over his yard whenever they wanted to. I will be the first to admit this family on cam could be an innocent mistake, but frequently it is total disrespect for property rights.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

bassdisaster said:


> You have to love the Mine Mine Mine mentality, Id reason the only thing you own is what you take with you when your dead, ya Nothing!
> This earth is not for private use only, You my friend do not know the words "Love Thy Neighbor" do ya?
> If you did you would not even posted the pic because it is demeaning and causes SIN @ every turn!
> You need to remember why you even have property, its not because of your sweat, its not because you worked so hard to get it, its because of the Grace of God, if you dont believe me then check how much you bring with you when you die!
> ...


What the hell are you smoking?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

hartman756 said:


> Here is the law for retreaving a hunting dog from private land
> 
> (4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively.
> 
> c hartman


 
I'd like to take this opportunity to prohibit, in writing, Outdoorsman17 and justin from stepping foot on my property in an attempt to illegally **** hunt...oops... I mean retrieve they're wayward pooch on MY PROPERTY!
As for bassdisaster...some people leave this world with more than they came into it with...like 1.5 oz. of "00".


----------



## explodingvarmints (Jul 1, 2004)

Some of these people HAVE to be kidding......HAVE to be. It's been laid out pretty plain and simple that the chances of Cletus and his family being on this property "by accident" is slim to none. Pretty obvious how Cletus learned how to trespass.........the same way he's teaching his kids. "just tell em were here huntin' **** and lost our hound. that way we can't get in trouble for doing wrong." .:rant:


----------



## johnhunter247 (Mar 12, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> I'd like to take this opportunity to prohibit, in writing, Outdoorsman17 and justin from stepping foot on my property in an attempt to illegally **** hunt...oops... I mean retrieve they're wayward pooch on MY PROPERTY!
> As for bassdisaster...some people leave this world with more than they came into it with...like 1.5 oz. of "00".


X2! Don't forget the dog!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Well, they were both **** hunters AND trespassers. What are the odds of them NOT being inbred derelicts?


I think the chances that they're Hillsdale County residents qualifies them automatically.:evilsmile:lol: Sorry NS.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Just curious............flash?


----------



## mcfish (Jan 24, 2010)

Heck, I wish I had a few coonhunters killing **** in my area. We are overrun with 'em here in Muskegon county. 

It is almost impossible to grow sweet corn and most of my fellow farmers blame the deer for the **** damage in their cornfields. 

If you do confront the guy in the pic, tell him he can hunt my land anytime he wants. And he better kill every damned **** he trees. 





Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

mcfish said:


> Heck, I wish I had a few coonhunters killing **** in my area. We are overrun with 'em here in Muskegon county.
> 
> It is almost impossible to grow sweet corn and most of my fellow farmers blame the deer for the **** damage in their cornfields.
> 
> ...


Yep, that's the way it used to be with most folks, before all this antler worshiping started. Out of the hundred of times I **** hunted with my grandfather we were only asked to leave once. Some people would ask what we were doing and even wanted to go with us. From the sounds of some of the posts things may be a lot different in southern mi compared to central and northern Michigan. The law was already posted here, if you don't like it try and change it:lol: That seems to be the latest trend lately.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> As for bassdisaster...some people leave this world with more than they came into it with...like 1.5 oz. of "00".


And some people finish their time on this planet in prison for murder or attempted murder...


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

FL
Seeing your persistance on these matters i have a feeling this might occur on Sept 4, the first day of school. You will be canvasing the area bus stops passing out this picture. All the local bus divers will be equiped with this photograph trying to identify the culprits. Reward photos posted on local school door entrances.

However, if by slim chance they are home schooled you might be screwed.


----------



## deepsleep (Aug 16, 2009)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Yep, that's the way it used to be with most folks, before all this antler worshiping started. Out of the hundred of times I **** hunted with my grandfather we were only asked to leave once. Some people would ask what we were doing and even wanted to go with us. From the sounds of some of the posts things may be a lot different in southern mi compared to central and northern Michigan. The law was already posted here, if you don't like it try and change it:lol: That seems to be the latest trend lately.


I can see your point of view, if permission is asked. The problem is nobody asked FL if they could use his property. I suspect if I showed up unannounced and put a blind on your property to hunt opening day of deer season, you would be okay with that. If you kicked me off would that make you an anterphile?


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

We don't know if they were hunting there. They may have started out in a different location but ended up there to retrieve their dogs. You don't have to ask for permission to retrieve your dogs only if you have previously been warned before verbally or written.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Isn't a "No Trespassing" sign a written warning that an individual is to stay off a parcel of land, no matter what? Doesn't "No", mean No? Should all No Trespassing signs contain "even to retrieve your dog"? Just seems like "in writing" to me but I guess not? 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Yep, that's the way it used to be with most folks, before all this antler worshiping started. Out of the hundred of times I **** hunted with my grandfather we were only asked to leave once.


:lol::lol::lol:

Most instructive, and perhaps funniest, post on this thread. It appears your long-demonstrated contempt for property rights can be traced to an early age, when your grandfather took you out on nighttime trespassing jaunts across the lands of...well, who knows, who cares, your land is my land. 

Of course you were only asked to leave once; this nefarious activity is practiced at NIGHT, when most regular folks are home in bed resting up so they can go to their jobs the following day. Chances of getting caught were low, just as they are now. Oh, how modern day criminals (oops, I mean **** hunters) must lament the development of inexpensive infrared trail cameras. Why, it's an invasion of their privacy.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Aside from being July, four kids(one for sure with trapping/**** running boots) and one adult with a leashed dog AND A HEADLAMP THAT IS ON...it looks like to me, its every bit of a lost dog episode.

BUT, I guess the other question is...if it was Oct or Nov...I can see how one might be upset with deer hunting going on etc..what do you think they woudl be doing in the woods like that with all the tell signs of lost dog mentioned above???

ps. If there has been no rain in 17 days, the human scent woudl be so scarce after that long of period, no deer could detect that escpecially that far away in the pic. That is kinda funny.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Sasquatch Lives said:
> 
> 
> > I have deer hunted for over 30 years and had several experiences with **** hunters. Every single one was negative.


When I was working to unite my neighbors in our deer management co operative I approached one neighbor that was an avid **** hunter. When I expressed to him what we were attempting to do he stated that he would comply as long as everybody would grant him permission to **** hunt otherwise he couldn't guarentee "where his dog might run".
I informed him that the first best way to get permission is to ask.:idea:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

RedM2 said:


> Hardworking farmers with their GPS driven tractors and welfare subsidies. Ha!
> 
> As for extending the Castle Doctrine... Be careful what you ask for.


I've seen FL's tractor and it doesn't have GPS.
I'm glad you're familiar with the Castle Doctrine. It's better to be reminded than retaught.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

If the guy in the picture is in fact, retrieving his **** dog because it got off track, than that IS perfectly legal and is not considered trespassing. What we have here is a small percentage of people who believe that is trespassing no matter what. 

I have personally witnessed dog hunters, multiple times, pull thier dogs off the track once they realized private property was ahead of the track....sometimes they got in front of them, other times they made the best effort but the animal and dog got past them. This was both bear and bobcats hunters. Never experienced any **** hunters.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Lumberman said:


> Let me get this straight. There is a faction of you that believe trespassing is perfectly fine? You will go as far as to attack the land owner who is a little ornery about people trespassing on his property.
> 
> That would be a lot of whiskey FL. I hope you haven't drank it all.


Not as much booze as you think, LM, as I do drink good stuff. Come on over for a belt some time.



beer and nuts said:


> If the guy in the picture is in fact, retrieving his **** dog because it got off track, than that IS perfectly legal and is not considered trespassing.


In point of fact, in the scenario you described, he would be trespassing, though not committing an illegal act.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

beer and nuts said:


> If the guy in the picture is in fact, retrieving his **** dog because it got off track, than that IS perfectly legal and is not considered trespassing. What we have here is a small percentage of people who believe that is trespassing no matter what.


 
^^^^^

And I noticed that FL stated they were not heading toward a road. I can't remember how many times I've been turned around in the dark and heading in the opposite direction I thought I was...:yikes:


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

farmlegend said:


> In point of fact, in the scenario you described, he would be trespassing, though not committing an illegal act.


No, trespass require "wrongful interference".

It would be neither trespass nor illegal, merely unauthorized entry.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> *Any of 'em look familiar?*


Maybe this will help?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> FISHMANMARK said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^
> ...


Maybe subsidies for trespassing **** hunters is in order. I move we buy them all a GPS, you know...like the ones they have on their dogs!:idea:


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> I've seen FL's tractor and it doesn't have GPS.


He wouldn't know how to operate one with a GPS anyway.:lol: I remember when he first got that tractor, he was asking how to change the rear wheel spacing. :evil:



Just messing with ya FL. Kudos to you for all you learned and done on your property. :coolgleam


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

pescadero said:


> No, trespass require "wrongful interference".
> 
> It would be neither trespass nor illegal, merely unauthorized entry.


I'm using the biblical definition. It is most definitely trespass.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> I'm using the biblical definition. It is most definitely trespass.


Well at least bassdisaster can relate.:evil::lol:


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

farmlegend said:


> I'm using the biblical definition.


No, you aren't.

The Hebrew word used biblically applied specifically to two things:

1) A transgression against God.
2) A transgression against another individual when a monetary value can be established for the result or consequence of the transgression.



farmlegend said:


> It is most definitely trespass.


You might have an argument for it being common law trespass - but it isn't legal trespass in Michigan, nor is trespass as used in the Biblical sense.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> I'm using the biblical definition. It is most definitely trespass.



Funny you would go there. Ever hear the lords prayer, "Forgive those that trespass against you"

Keep drawing your welfare funded subsides and your cocky, arrogant attitude. Sooner or later you will hang yourself or fall off your high horse. It's no wonder one of your neighbors did not burn your woods down during the bad drought you had.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> Maybe this will help?


What the bleep is that second from left? A gungan? "Meesa think we lost".


----------



## hartman756 (Nov 21, 2008)

farmlegend said:


> What's your point? I've spent more than that on whiskey since '95.


 

Again FL your only an amateur ..................when you spend that much to charter a private jet to fly just that bottle of that whiskey (and nothing else) across the US just to impress everyone, then you can be considered a pro!!!

c hartman


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Holy crap FL. 7 pages so far. seems like the family in the pic might have some family members on here


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

brookie1 said:


> What the bleep is that second from left? A gungan? "Meesa think we lost".


Ok, that one was worth the price of admission! :lol::lol:


----------



## encoreshooter (Aug 5, 2012)

QDMAMAN said:


> When I was working to unite my neighbors in our deer management co operative I approached one neighbor that was an avid **** hunter. When I expressed to him what we were attempting to do he stated that he would comply as long as everybody would grant him permission to **** hunt otherwise he couldn't guarentee "where his dog might run".
> I informed him that the first best way to get permission is to ask.:idea:


Al?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> It's no wonder one of your neighbors did not burn your woods down during the bad drought you had.


Not likely. My neighbors love love love me.



Outdoorsman17 said:


> Keep drawing your welfare funded subsides and your cocky, arrogant attitude. Sooner or later you will hang yourself or fall off your high horse.



So much bitterness. Especially since I'm the aggrieved party here.

I forgive you.



brushbuster said:


> seems like the family in the pic might have some family members on here


I was thinking the same.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

It is clear that Michigan's recreational trespass laws are flawed and are in need of significant revision. The law must reflect that the greatest rights are extended to the landowner. Everybody and every thing after that are secondary, including the rights of an individual to recover some wayward dog. And,there are no rights for those that simply trespass.

The solution is very simple and twofold.

1. The law should be amended that you cannot enter on to the land of another without de-facto permission. If you are unable to obtain permission, either because it is denied and/or one can not locate the landowner, one is forbidden from entering on to the property. PERIOD!

There will be those who will take the attitude that they will go on to the land of another to retrieve a dog no matter what. That should be expected however, one must know and accept that for every action, there is an equal consequence and/or reaction. Which brings us to the second point.

2. Fines and punishments must be increased to the point that awareness and consideration of their severity will stunt illegal behavior before it occurs. However, if it does not, then these fines and punishment should commence with the first offense and INCREASE exponentially with every subsequent offense. We must obliterate this mentality "that boys will be boys" as it relates to trespass. The focus must be on the landowner, who ultimately, is the victim surrounding these events.

I'm now going to articulate a formula for monetary punishment that hopefully scares the crap out of every would-be violator and make them think before deciding to violate the law.

The law as it is currently written is essentially, "one fine fits all". However, it is written solely with the punishment of the violator in mind, with no consideration of the person violated, the landowner. I propose that monetary punishment be tied to property taxes. Specifically, upon conviction of trespass, a fine be assessed using a formula based upon a percentage of the landowner's annual property tax. 

For example, for a first offense, the violator will pay $1,000 or 
100% of the owner's tax, _*whichever is greater.*_ Furthermore, the law would stipulate that 50% of the fine goes to the court, with the other 50% given to the landowner (or paid directly to the county treasurer). 

For subsequent offenses, the formula increases to $5,000 eventually up to 200% of the annual tax, whichever is greater. 

This would put teeth and structure in to trespass law as now, every person that has even the most remote inclination towards trespass will be aware that if caught, they will be paying, at a minimum, a fine equal to the landowner's annual property tax. 

There are violators and there are those who are violated. It's time to stop coddling to the violators and give restitution to those violated.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Riva said:


> It is clear that Michigan's recreational trespass laws are flawed and are in need of significant revision. The law must reflect that the greatest rights are extended to the landowner. Everybody and every thing after that are secondary, including the rights of an individual to recover some wayward dog. And,there are no rights for those that simply trespass.
> 
> The solution is very simple and twofold.
> 
> ...


Epic post. I like it, and I believe the penalty ought to apply to each and every transgressor. In the case of the crime against me, that would be a minimum, first offense penalty of 6 X my annual property taxes for that parcel I.D. (4 humans, 1 gungan, 1 canine(paid by its owner)).


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

Riva said:


> It is clear that Michigan's recreational trespass laws are flawed and are in need of significant revision. The law must reflect that the greatest rights are extended to the landowner. Everybody and every thing after that are secondary, including the rights of an individual to recover some wayward dog. And,there are no rights for those that simply trespass.
> 
> The solution is very simple and twofold.
> 
> ...


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

encoreshooter said:


> Al?


No. Al was all for it and has been a great partner!


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

farmlegend said:


> Epic post. I like it, and I believe the penalty ought to apply to each and every transgressor. In the case of the crime against me, that would be a minimum, first offense penalty of 6 X my annual property taxes for that parcel I.D. (4 humans, 1 gungan, 1 canine(paid by its owner)).


Thank you FL.

There is not a legislator in Lansing who would not support this type of legislation or a land-owner who would sign a petition to have it put on a ballot. All depends on what is the most expeditious path.
At the very least, perhaps this notion is worthy of it's own thread.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

farmlegend said:


> Epic post. I like it, and I believe the penalty ought to apply to each and every transgressor. In the case of the crime against me, that would be a minimum, first offense penalty of 6 X my annual property taxes for that parcel I.D. (4 humans, 1 gungan, 1 canine(paid by its owner)).


Kick in something for the game and fish fund and you have a winner.


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

I immediately begin to wonder what the NRA's position on this issue would be.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

brookie1 said:


> Kick in something for the game and fish fund and you have a winner.



That can come out the court's 50%.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

farmlegend said:


> Epic post. I like it, and I believe the penalty ought to apply to each and every transgressor. In the case of the crime against me, that would be a minimum, first offense penalty of 6 X my annual property taxes for that parcel I.D. (4 humans, 1 gungan, 1 canine(paid by its owner)).


Now, just to be clear, is that 6X the ACTUAL tax bill. OR is it 6X the tax bill after the Ag Exemption (farmer welfare if you will)?

Sorry FL but I know you won't really mind. Day is dragging a little bit and I felt the overwhelming desire to toss on a little gasoline!

$86,000 on whiskey. So what have you blown the 18 mills on over the years? Maybe you could use a little of it to buy some rubbermaids, filled with Scentbuster Dust and rubber boots, and scatter them along your property lines for all future misdirected souls to don before entering your property to perform various misdemeanors.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

beer and nuts said:


> Ouch!! FL is definitely on welfare farming...."I'll take your tax payers money but no tax payer is going to come on my land." Mine mine mine..untill I need help from you you you!!


Wow... so Mr. "Hunting should be reserved for the landowner that can afford it" is on government welfare.

Sounds like the taxpayers are affording it.



farmlegend said:


> As many know, I've long been an advocate of european-style game management, where game animals are considered the property of the landowner on whose property they happen to reside, as opposed to the peculiar American model, where game is somehow contrued to be public property. It's peculiar insofar as property rights were at the core of the reason our republic was created.


Private profit, public risk...

Wants the deer on his property to be private profit, wants the public to assume his farming risks...


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Originally Posted by farmlegend
As many know, I've long been an advocate of european-style game management, where game animals are considered the property of the landowner on whose property they happen to reside, as opposed to the peculiar American model, where game is somehow contrued to be public property. It's peculiar insofar as property rights were at the core of the reason our republic was created.


Well then, given the above, when someone in a motor vehicle drives past your farm and hits one of your deer, you can assume all responsibility for damages including an accident that results in the death of someone...since they would be YOUR wayward deer! Have fun fighting the wrongful death lawsuit.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

RedM2 said:


> Originally Posted by farmlegend
> As many know, I've long been an advocate of european-style game management, where game animals are considered the property of the landowner on whose property they happen to reside, as opposed to the peculiar American model, where game is somehow contrued to be public property. It's peculiar insofar as property rights were at the core of the reason our republic was created.
> 
> 
> Well then, given the above, when someone in a motor vehicle drives past your farm and hits one of your deer, you can assume all responsibility for damages including an accident that results in the death of someone...since they would be YOUR wayward deer! Have fun fighting the wrongful death lawsuit.


Someone would have to be trespassing on his property using their vehicle to hit one of his deer. If a deer leaves his property (enters a nearby road for example), it's no longer his deer or his responsibility.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

RedM2 said:


> Originally Posted by farmlegend
> As many know, I've long been an advocate of european-style game management, where game animals are considered the property of the landowner on whose property they happen to reside, as opposed to the peculiar American model, where game is somehow contrued to be public property. It's peculiar insofar as property rights were at the core of the reason our republic was created.
> 
> 
> Well then, given the above, when someone in a motor vehicle drives past your farm and hits one of your deer, you can assume all responsibility for damages including an accident that results in the death of someone...since they would be YOUR wayward deer! Have fun fighting the wrongful death lawsuit.


Actually it works the other way around. Hit a cow on open range in Wyoming or a horse on Reservation lands and YOU are the one that pays THEM. No different than hitting a pedestrian, the driver is going to be at fault.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

How does it work when you get the welfare money. Do you get a bridge card or sell it to your Dear lick, inbred neighbors for pennies on the dollar because your to proud to use it yourself:lol:


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

pescadero said:


> Wants the deer on his property to be private profit, wants the public to assume his farming risks...


The public has never assumed responsibility for my farming risks. And the proof of this is publicly available, if anyone wishes to look it up.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Outdoorsman17 said:
> 
> 
> > How does it work when you get the welfare money. Do you get a bridge card or sell it to your Dear lick, inbred neighbors for pennies on the dollar because your to proud to use it yourself:lol:


It's posts like this that make me think you're _closely_ related to the perps in the OP.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

That's the problem, when you start assuming, I'll give him 40 cents on the dollar. After-all he has raped the system for how long. Hell, maybe I''ll go turn my dogs loose on his property because I feel part owner after giving him my tax money


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> That's the problem, when you start assuming, I'll give him 40 cents on the dollar. After-all he has raped the system for how long. Hell, maybe I''ll go turn my dogs loose on his property because I feel part owner after giving him my tax money


Outdoorsman17....please explain, if you are able, how somebody has "raped the system"? I am beginning to think that you are a communist. Perhaps you should quit while you are behind because you are rapidly running out of spit!


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> That's the problem, when you start assuming, I'll give him 40 cents on the dollar. After-all he has raped the system for how long. Hell, maybe I''ll go turn my dogs loose on his property because I feel part owner after giving him my tax money


ALRIGHT! Enough is enough. How much did you pay for your last loaf of bread? Now, How much do you think it takes to actually provide the grain that goes into that loaf? I can gaurantee with the cost of fuel, seed, fertilizer, and other business expeditures it is MUCH more than what you paid for that loaf.

EVERYBODY benefits from the farm subsidies when they go to the restaurant or grocery store, not just the farmers!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Riva said:


> Perhaps you should quit while you are behind because you are rapidly running out of spit!


Riva, why the wet blanket man?:evil::lol:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Funny you would go there. Ever hear the lords prayer, "Forgive those that trespass against you"
> 
> Keep drawing your welfare funded subsides and your cocky, arrogant attitude. Sooner or later you will hang yourself or fall off your high horse. It's no wonder one of your neighbors did not burn your woods down during the bad drought you had.


TommyN is that you?
Stop using your kids account you are giving him a bad name. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> How does it work when you get the welfare money. Do you get a bridge card or sell it to your Dear lick, inbred neighbors for pennies on the dollar because your to proud to use it yourself:lol:


TommyN? 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Actually why don't we all let FL explain.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

beer and nuts said:


> Actually why don't we all let FL explain.


I know nothing about TommyN resurfacing as Outdoorsman17.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

jatc said:


> ALRIGHT! Enough is enough. How much did you pay for your last loaf of bread? Now, How much do you think it takes to actually provide the grain that goes into that loaf? I can gaurantee with the cost of fuel, seed, fertilizer, and other business expeditures it is MUCH more than what you paid for that loaf.
> 
> EVERYBODY benefits from the farm subsidies when they go to the restaurant or grocery store, not just the farmers!



I paid for my own, nobody helped me pay for it:lol:


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

Take a look at FL's original photo.









Now, compare it to the same pic utilizing x-ray technology.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

brushbuster said:


> Holy crap FL. 7 pages so far. seems like the family in the pic might have some family members on here


I think FL walked in front of his own camera and all that whiskey has fogged his memory:lol::lol:


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

Very funny, FL has a strange sense of humor, I was wondering the same thing :yikes:

Riva your post is very funny


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Riva said:


> Take a look at FL's original photo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Too funny...:lol:


----------



## Whitetail_hunter (Mar 14, 2012)

This is a great thread. Alot of over the top responses from both sides, good stuff.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## HAFSHOO (Nov 21, 2007)

Could be ginseng or golden seal hunters ,that's why all the small kids are there(PICKERS). I was told they get a good price for the plants for medical use. The reason I am saying this is about ten years ago i would come upon places on my property that looked to have had small plants selectively picked, pulled out of the ground.I think it's illegal. Feel your anger about the intruders. GOOD LUCK!!!


----------



## little gassy (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm sure there was a good reason


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> I paid for my own, nobody helped me pay for it:lol:



Apparently you still are not grasping the whole concept.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

HAFSHOO said:


> Could be ginseng or golden seal hunters ,that's why all the small kids are there(PICKERS). I was told they get a good price for the plants for medical use. The reason I am saying this is about ten years ago i would come upon places on my property that looked to have had small plants selectively picked, pulled out of the ground.I think it's illegal. Feel your anger about the intruders. GOOD LUCK!!!


I think you're onto something, I didn't think about that... Maybe they were just checkin' out FL's crop of "medicine"...:16suspect


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

jatc said:


> Now, just to be clear, is that 6X the ACTUAL tax bill. OR is it 6X the tax bill after the Ag Exemption (farmer welfare if you will)?
> 
> $86,000 on whiskey. So what have you blown the 18 mills on over the years?


jatc, I'm impressed that you know about the Agricultural Exemption as is applies to property taxes, and that it indeed is worth 18 mills. For those unfamiliar, this reduction in the applicable millage rates applies only to qualified ag land, for which the landowner must sign an affidavit (a MI Dept of Treadsury form) at the time of purchase asserting that the land comply with specified agricultural standards.

In the interest of balance, it should be further mentioned that the ag exemption is no different than the 18 mill homestead exemption given to owners of their primary residence. In this regard, it puts ag land on even footing with residential property owned by homeowners. When it is suggested that the ag exemption amounts to "farmer welfare", one would have to likewise acknowledge that nearly all Michigan homeowners are likewise beneficiaries of "homeowner welfare", no matter how hefty their property taxes may be.

To answer your question on behalf of Riva, I'm confident he was talking about the actual tax bill. Still a hefty fine by current standards.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

farmlegend said:


> jatc, I'm impressed that you know about the Agricultural Exemption as is applies to property taxes, and that it indeed is worth 18 mills. For those unfamiliar, this reduction in the applicable millage rates applies only to qualified ag land, for which the landowner must sign an affidavit (a MI Dept of Treadsury form) at the time of purchase asserting that the land comply with specified agricultural standards.
> 
> In the interest of balance, it should be further mentioned that the ag exemption is no different than the 18 mill homestead exemption given to owners of their primary residence. In this regard, it puts ag land on even footing with residential property owned by homeowners. When it is suggested that the ag exemption amounts to "farmer welfare", one would have to likewise acknowledge that nearly all Michigan homeowners are likewise beneficiaries of "homeowner welfare", no matter how hefty their property taxes may be.
> 
> To answer your question on behalf of Riva, I'm confident he was talking about the actual tax bill. Still a hefty fine by current standards.


I know about it because I own farmland. I too am on the Gov't dole, just like every homeowner is as you've pointed out. I just get a chuckle out of people who don't understand why the exemption, or any other farm subsidies, work and their reactions when somebody looks up the amounts dispersed on the USDA website. It can be really fun to watch people freak out when they see $500,000 was granted to a local landowner over the last 15 years when they don't have a clue what grain or dairy actually costs to produce.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

jatc said:


> I know about it because I own farmland. I too am on the Gov't dole, just like every homeowner is as you've pointed out. I just get a chuckle out of people who don't understand why the exemption, or any other farm subsidies, work and their reactions when somebody looks up the amounts dispersed on the USDA website. It can be really fun to watch people freak out when they see $500,000 was granted to a local landowner over the last 15 years when they don't have a clue what grain or dairy actually costs to produce.


If the government is willing to give a little something back why not take advantage?
I bet all these guys doggin ' FL would gladly hold their hands out if they qualified for some sort of subsidies.
I know I would. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

I don't have a problem with farm subsidies. I believe FL gets "dogged" because he lacks any type of humility. Arrogance goes a long way in eroding the support a person would otherwise generate in the situation(s) discussed in this thread.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Riva said:


> It is clear that Michigan's recreational trespass laws are flawed and are in need of significant revision. The law must reflect that the greatest rights are extended to the landowner. Everybody and every thing after that are secondary, including the rights of an individual to recover some wayward dog. And,there are no rights for those that simply trespass.
> 
> The solution is very simple and twofold.
> 
> ...


So if I own a home in a subdivision and the neighbor walks onto my property to retrieve a cat or dog..........................,:help:


----------



## Playin' Hooky (Aug 29, 2002)

jatc said:


> I know about it because I own farmland. I too am on the Gov't dole, just like every homeowner is as you've pointed out. I just get a chuckle out of people who don't understand why the exemption, or any other farm subsidies, work and their reactions when somebody looks up the amounts dispersed on the USDA website. It can be really fun to watch people freak out when they see $500,000 was granted to a local landowner over the last 15 years when they don't have a clue what grain or dairy actually costs to produce.


Maybe you can help me understand this:

If Republican candidates want smaller govt with less spending, and the Farm Bill includes so much spending...how can agricultural producers (farmers) vote for Republicans? 

Or are those that want less spending just Tea Party Repubs? If you farm, can you vote for a true "reduce the size of gov't by cutting programs" Tea Party Republican?

Or do Republicans keep the farm spending due to the large corporate interests involved in agriculture while cutting other programs? As in, "subsidies keep the price of food affordable but if you are poor you won't have the food stamps to buy it"?


----------



## specificgravity (Mar 12, 2008)

It has excuse posts.

It has religious posts.

It has political posts. 

This thread has been all over the road..........AND DELIVERS!

What I want to know is: have you tried ID'ing them yet?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

riverman said:


> There is so much crap in this thread I could wear my fingers off, but as far as running dogs on yotes during the winter, the folks that have lived in the country, made a living off the land, and view orange signs as eye pollution welcome those sportsmen.


A rather general conclusion you've drawn, which is at odds with my observations. I know guys who farm for a living that view trespassing houndsmen running yotes across their properties in the winter quite differently.




riverman said:


> a true farmer would handle his problems on his own, and not post to the world for sympathy.


Occasionally, handling one's problems on one's own can best be accomplished by posting the crime to the world. There's someone behind bars right now because of actions I took which involved posting pictures, both here and elsewhere. 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=386038&highlight=felony

And, think about it - if I was after sympathy, I wouldn't be displaying that distinctive personna of "arrogance" and giving strangers the impression that I thought myself "holier than thou". Not the most effective tactic if that's your objective.

RMH, killer link!


----------



## upnut (Aug 31, 2004)

RMH said:


> Hate to interupt some msfers having a moment, but check this out fresh off the press.....pulled from the general hunting section.
> 
> http://trailcamtrespasser.com/


So, it wouldn't be difficult to lift a photo, doctor it up, and post it here to create an instant "controversy" would it?....Just asking.....

Scott B.


----------



## casscityalum (Aug 27, 2007)

jiggin is livin said:


> 86k in 12yrs isn't a drop in the bucket even for a hobby farmer.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine



Exactly. 300 acres will cost you about 30,000 and if your running 500 acres of corn your looking at 54000 in seed alone. Prices are high. Most just blanket others and label even small guys as lazy welfare farms. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Most of these whiners fail to understand that without subsidies to those whom grow our foods, it is they themselves who would be on welfare and food stamps because they would not be able to feed themselves or their families.
All one has to do is look at the subsidies that go towards gasoline producers in order to keep gas prices depressed. You want to hear some squealing, some of these guys heads would explode, and they get nuts over .30 cents a gallon increase.:lol:


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

upnut said:


> So, it wouldn't be difficult to lift a photo, doctor it up, and post it here to create an instant "controversy" would it?....Just asking.....
> 
> Scott B.


Yeah it,s really fun over in Hugh Hefners forums.....you should give it a try.....just sayin....


----------



## Rainman68 (Apr 29, 2011)

soggybtmboys said:


> *Most of these whiners fail to understand that without subsidies to those whom grow our foods, it is they themselves who would be on welfare and food stamps because they would not be able to feed themselves or their families.*
> All one has to do is look at the subsidies that go towards gasoline producers in order to keep gas prices depressed. You want to hear some squealing, some of these guys heads would explode, and they get nuts over .30 cents a gallon increase.:lol:


How much food on the farm in question is sold for human consumption?

I'm sure fattening up the wildlife for later consumption doesn't count.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Rainman68 said:
> 
> 
> > How much food on the farm in question is sold for human consumption?
> ...


Ignorance abounds!


----------



## Rainman68 (Apr 29, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> Ignorance abounds!


What's wrong with a simple question Mr know it all?

What did he grow for human consuption? 

Others have called FL out and all we get out of him is that he can afford to buy expensive booze.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> I have nothing against real farmers taking advantage of government programs. It's the hobby farmer and property manipulators that are taking advantage of the system:sad:
> 
> Maybe the criteria needs to be changed to stop some individuals from taking advantage of the system


I'm looking into this right now.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Rainman68 said:


> How much food on the farm in question is sold for human consumption?
> 
> I'm sure fattening up the wildlife for later consumption doesn't count.


Most crops grown in Michigan or the Midwest for that matter are not grown for human consumption directly. The crops may end up in our food in some manner but they are also used in conjunction with many other ingredients to help create many other products used by humans and livestock.
Not exactly sure but as I have seen the crop land on FL 's farm that is not planted with wildlife in mind and it looks to be a good 35%-40% of his total property.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> I'm pretty sure he is a hobby farmer. If there is any real farming done I'm pretty sure it would be leased out.
> 
> I have nothing against real farmers taking advantage of government programs. It's the hobby farmer and property manipulators that are taking advantage of the system:sad:
> 
> Maybe the criteria needs to be changed to stop some individuals from taking advantage of the system


How is he taking advantage of the system? Do you even know what program his property is in? You do realize there are programs out there where landowners are encouraged and paid to not farm their properties for cash crops. They are encouraged and paid to plant many of the same things us "deer farmers " are going to do anyway. Its not taking advantage of the system it using it. 
To say he is taking advantage if the system would be no different than saying a homeowner is taking advantage of the system when the file their taxes using deductions. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Rainman68 said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with a simple question Mr know it all?
> ...


It's your assuption that the ONLY thing grown on Rancho-farmlegend is clover for consumption by deer, which IMO, is ignorant.
I never claimed to be Mr. know-it-all but I've been to FL's farm. Have you?

When you add this little gem to the end of your "simple question" 


> I'm sure fattening up the wildlife for later consumption doesn't count.


your question looses credibility.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

bucksnbows said:


> To say he is taking advantage if the system would be no different than saying a homeowner is taking advantage of the system when the file their taxes using deductions.


Of course homeowners are taking advantage of the system when they file their taxes using deductions - and as such they are being subsidized by those that do not.


----------



## hunterrep (Aug 10, 2005)

pescadero said:


> Of course homeowners are taking advantage of the system when they file their taxes using deductions - and as such they are being subsidized by those that do not.


Neither are taking advantage of the system, they are both playing by the systems rules set before them.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

its not as easy as they just hand over free money to farmers.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

Wow, more farmer-bashing, dang, ybd-bags.....ttt


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

itchn2fish said:


> Wow, more farmer-bashing, dang, ybd-bags.....ttt


I don't think it's the real farmers they are bashing.


----------



## hunterrep (Aug 10, 2005)

Justin said:


> I don't think it's the real farmers they are bashing.


Sounds to me like it is farmers, landowners, and homeowners being bashed for following the system. Apparently the bashers have never taken an entitlement of any kind.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Justin said:


> I don't think it's the real farmers they are bashing.


You don't have to farm. They pay you not to farm more times than not. 
Let me ask you non landowners what have you done to improve the habitat?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Rainman68 (Apr 29, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> It's your assuption that the ONLY thing grown on Rancho-farmlegend is clover for consumption by deer, which IMO, is ignorant.
> I never claimed to be Mr. know-it-all but I've been to FL's farm. Have you?
> 
> When you add this little gem to the end of your "simple question"
> your question looses credibility.


Who is ignorant.... I never said he ONLY grows clover, did I? 

I'm sure the RR corn, beets and turnups are a hit at the local produce stand. Claiming to be a farmer for your own personal hunting enjoyment is fine by me, but when public funds are involved questions should and will be asked.


----------



## Swampfoot (Dec 19, 2008)

Intentional trespassers that are intent on breaking the law,well,suck. In some cases,situations do arise that aren't what they seem.
The issue I have here is that some like to jump the gun like barnie-badass when situations like this come up.As a land owner myself,I know what it feels like to find that some wayward folks have made their way onto my land.That being said,if those folks were on your place intentionally violating,they must be incredibly dumb,or really bold (and not scared of you and whatever firearms you may have in the least).Look at em....huge bright headlight,dog,and some noisy kids that would make more noise going through the woods than a SINGLE poacher.Enough said about that.
Castle doctrine my god given butt crack. Michigan does not have a self defense clause that I am aware of. Pulling,pointing,using,and even threatening to use a firearm on/against someone in this state is illegal.I have worked with legal situations fitting the bill.But,if you are willing to give up your life,family,land,and everything else you hold dear,rather than simply calling 911,then have at it.The taxpayers are always willing to pay for another lifer.If you don't believe me,ask a MSP trooper,or CO next time you see one.They may be on your side from one perspective,but they will still haul you to the pokey.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

hunterrep said:


> Sounds to me like it is farmers, landowners, and homeowners being bashed


Indeed. Just look at this thread. Certain posters have attempted to put the landowner, a party aggrieved by a criminal act, on defense, asking for off-topic personal information that bears no relationship whatsoever to the crime or the thread. So they can play some "gotcha", in some cases, from their employer's computer.

I've done nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal, and owe no explanation to any of the nattering nannies. For those engaged in the gotcha game, no explanation will be satisfactory anyway.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

hunterrep said:


> Sounds to me like it is farmers, landowners, and homeowners being bashed for following the system. Apparently the bashers have never taken an entitlement of any kind.


Well I for one, would never bash farmers. They are only using a system that is provided for them. It's the system that needs to be put under a magnifying glass. I believe there are people taking advantage of it that shouldn't be allowed. I plan to research this and get involved with cleaning it up. No different than fighting welfare fraud.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Rainman68 said:
> 
> 
> > Who is ignorant.... I never said he ONLY grows clover, did I?
> ...


The word "clover" was used as a metaphor Rainman.
Considering the fact that you keep digging, it's safe to assume you've never been to Rancho farmlegend.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

farmlegend said:


> the landowner, a party aggrieved by a criminal act


So you've confirmed with a CO that it is indeed illegal for multiple people to retrieve their dog under the dog retrieval law? And even if it is illegal, it's a punishable offense for a minor (since giving a kid a recreational trespassing ticket is the only possible legal ramification you have here). 

I haven't seen where it's been confirmed that there was any illegal activity. 

Sorry if I've missed it, haven't read the whole thread.


----------

