A Big Win for Sportsman!

[shoots-straight]

Check this article out. PLWA are a great organization. Please take the time to look, and if you have a extra buck or two, toss some their way.
Great organization, and great people.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ar...les-landowner-must-allow-Boadle-Road-crossing

 

[Bowhuntrben]

Seems like a screwy deal to me. Since he didn't destroy the original bridge, it should not be his responsibility to replace it. Maybe he should be required to provide access, since it had been provided for so long, but the government should be required to replace the bridge. I guess in MN, we prefer to have a professional design and build a bridge rather than forcing a landowner to build one that has not been designed to a code on a public road.

 

[Frenchy]

I was thinking the same Ben. The original bridge was rebuilt and maintained by the county, then it burned in a wildland fire. Owner puts in a bridge at his expense off of the public right of way for his personal use. Good for him, no public access that's his right.

Now if the county comes in an rebuilds the bridge over the canal along the public road / prescriptive easement then the public has its access over the canal that it has historically enjoyed. Seems pretty simple to me. It shouldn't be on the land owner to provide the bridge for public use.

 

[jlmatthew]

He got screwed

 

[shoots-straight]

Seems like a screwy deal to me. Since he didn't destroy the original bridge, it should not be his responsibility to replace it. Maybe he should be required to provide access, since it had been provided for so long, but the government should be required to replace the bridge. I guess in MN, we prefer to have a professional design and build a bridge rather than forcing a landowner to build one that has not been designed to a code on a public road.

He took it out!

 

[jlmatthew]

He took it out!

The article said a fire took out the bridge.

 

[mdunc8]

The original bridge was burned and never replaced until he put a railroad car in the ditch.

 

[shoots-straight]

The original bridge was burned and never replaced until he put a railroad car in the ditch.

He gated off the original bridge before the fire. A law suit was filed for access, and went through a district courst case and then to the supreme court. It burned, then he took it out. The fire didn't remove the bridge. The county had maintained it up until then. Maybe once the court case was decided they county could have fixed what remained.

I doubt the court screwed this guy. This was a supreme court ruling.

I've got a call in to find out more, from the sportsmen that were involved.

 

[Dinkshooter]

"PWLA has been fighting Jones since the early 2000s to regain access to Boadle Bridge. The original bridge had been maintained by the county and rebuilt by the county in 1990. Boadle Bridge had been used by the public since the early 1900s.
The landowner who sold the land to Jones in 1999 or 2000 erected a gate and posted the road as closed to the public, according to Wednesday’s decision".

Reading Comprehension, gate first, then fire. Fire bad.

Take it easy on SS, he is only the messenger.

 

[huntme]

He gated off the original bridge before the fire. A law suit was filed for access, and went through a district courst case and then to the supreme court. It burned, then he took it out. The fire didn't remove the bridge. The county had maintained it up until then. Maybe once the court case was decided they county could have fixed what remained.

I doubt the court screwed this guy. This was a supreme court ruling.

I've got a call in to find out more, from the sportsmen that were involved.

put ther rail car back across the access way,and if something happens to the bridge,let the county take care of it.:hump:

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Nice post. This IS a win!

Dinkshooter

 

[shoots-straight]

Nice post. This IS a win!

Dinkshooter

You'll always have the tin-foil hat crew that thinks everything is a conspiracy. If your a sportsman your happy with the decision.

 

[jlmatthew]

I agree this is a win, I'm just saying he got screwed if it cost him money (rail car).

 

[mdunc8]

Tin-foil hat crew? Screw you. You, or the author of the article, should learn to articulate the point you're trying to make a little better. Yes, he had a gate up. They should have ripped it out and placed signs all over the state directing people to the reservoir through his property. However, the article states that the bridge burned, which I assumed to mean that the bridge was no longer useable. Sorry for making such a ridiculous assumption.

PS. Thank you for your time in Helena

 

[upper deck]

This article seems to leave a few key pieces out. First off was the bridge so Badly burned that it was unusable? I would assume it was, so when the landowner removed it didn't he save the county money? I don't think it is his responsibility to provide any of his property for the public to use. I'm sure it is cheaper for the county to rebuild the bridge than to defend the suit if someone would have died crossing the burnt bridge. I guess I'm confused on what the difference is between no bridge or one that is unusable because of fire.

 

[shoots-straight]

Tin-foil hat crew? Screw you. You, or the author of the article, should learn to articulate the point you're trying to make a little better. Yes, he had a gate up. They should have ripped it out and placed signs all over the state directing people to the reservoir through his property. However, the article states that the bridge burned, which I assumed to mean that the bridge was no longer useable. Sorry for making such a ridiculous assumption.

PS. Thank you for your time in Helena

I didn't write the article. I was articulating nothing. If your looking for a conspiracy then your part of the tin foil hat crew.

I would assume your smart enough to know that if this thing went to the supreme court, that there wasn't much to hide. This thing has been vetted out in pretty good fashion. My bad for thinking you didn't need led by the hand, or a picture drawn for you. So I'm sending some pictures just for you.

You see, just because you claim a fire burnt the bridge out, you have no right to tear the public bridge down. Then afterwards put a bridge up that the public can't access. He wasn't saving the public anything, he was trying to circumvent the order.

 

[shoots-straight]

Here's the rest of the pictures

 

[shoots-straight]

Now I hope that clears things up. Was the poor landowner picked on? Did the bad gubermunt (Sportsmen in this case) cause this poor fella heartache he didn't deserve?

There's even a question as to the fact that the bridge ever burnt. There was no report of any fires in the area.

This dude just took the bridge out and tried to lock the public out, and it happens all the time.

If you sympathize with this guy, then you can just kiss my ass!

 

[mdunc8]

I was articulating nothing.

Then what was the point of the post?

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the guy is probably a DB and that he was illegally preventing access. I'm just saying that it sounds like he got screwed if he has to pay for a new bridge when the old one supposedly burnt up. It's a bit of a stretch calling it a conspiracy when the article you provided said the bridge burnt. That's not a small detail. If you disagree with the fact that it burnt, don't cite the article or provide a special little footnote saying otherwise.

He actually saved us some money. Anyone know how much it would have cost the state to demolish and dispose of the bridge (assuming it didn't burn)?

Your attachments aren't showing up (at least on my computer).

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Shoots-straight---Your picture posting is about as poor as your reading comprehension! There are no pictures in either of your posts and the article says the bridge burned while litigation was in progress. It did say there was a gate put up to block the bridge, but nothing in the article says he took the bridge out. He did put a railcar in and then took it out and put it back on his property for his own use. He got screwed if he is told to rebuild a bridge that he didn't destroy, but the article also doesn't say there was any order for him to do so. If a fire that was of natural origin took the bridge out, the county should replace it at taxpayer expense even though the guy was originally trying to keep people from using the one that burned. Before you say anything else I would suggest you go back and reread that article real slow to get your facts correct. PS: I'm not going to kiss yours or anybody else's ass either!!!