A Big Win for Sportsman!

[shoots-straight]

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).

Your really not that stupid are you?

First off the point of the post is obvious to anyone with a 2 grade education.

Secondly, you just can't take public property, and on you own remove said property. If you believe he was helping us, your an idiot.

Thirdly, I never knew whether the damn bridge burnt or not, still don't, that little matter is irrelevant. You don't have the right to remove public property. Duh!

 

[Bowhuntrben]

No doubt this guy was trying to screw the public, but why do you think the Supreme Court is right and all the other courts below it are wrong? Are these people Godly? The fact that they think it is acceptable (according to the article) to just put the rail car back rather than replace it with a real bridge suggests that they might not know as much as you would like to think. Without evidence that he destroyed the bridge, it should be the county's responsibility to replace it. I don't feel bad about him removing it. The county does not own the land, they have an easement. It was on HIS land, and it was supposedly destroyed. Does he not have the right to continue access across his own land if the county wasn't replacing the bridge fast enough? The county should just stop being cheap and buy the right-of-way.
Do you know if he destroyed the bridge after he removed it?

 

[Bowhuntrben]

hmm..seems part of my message didn't show up...

 

[JLS]

Let's remember that this is the Montana Supreme Court. Anyone that thinks this court is going to blatantly trample private property rights and shaft a landowner as some of you are suggesting need to check back in to reality here.

 

[JLS]

why do you think the Supreme Court is right and all the other courts below it are wrong?

Because that's our appellate court system works? You can't just pick and choose what ruling suits your fancy.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

s-s---You are being more than a moron on this one buddy! The article says the bridge burned in a wildfire! The railcar he put in was his to do whatever the hell he wanted to and he removed it and put it back on his own property. There is no way that he should be oredered to replace a bridge on public property that he didn't destroy in the first place. He was a DB for blocking access to the bridge that burned, but that doesn't mean he should replace it if he had nothing to do with it's demise and until you come up with proof that he burned it then you are out to lunch. The statement by the guy at the start of the article is talking about him taking his railcar out from where he originally had it and thinks he should be made to oput it back. READ the GD article slow and don't tell any of us that we can't understand what is going on when it's YOU that can't comprehend what is in the article YOU provided!

 

[Bowhuntrben]

maybe we should all just take a deep breath

 

[Topgun 30-06]

The one who needs to take a deep breath is the OP, who needs to go back and keep rereading the article until he can understand what it actually says and not what he is saying. What we have stated is based on the article and that's all we can go on and it says the bridge burned down in a wildfire. The railroad car he put is his property to do whatever he wants and if he took it back out and put it on his own property to access the other side of the ditch he is fully within his rights to do so. The friggin county should put a new bridge in and be done with it if everything in the article is correct as written.

 

[JLS]

The one who needs to take a deep breath is the OP, who needs to go back and keep rereading the article until he can understand what it actually says and not what he is saying. What we have stated is based on the article and that's all we can go on and it says the bridge burned down in a wildfire. When he put the railcar in that is his property to do whatever he wants and if he took it back out and put it on hos own peoprty to access the other side of the ditch he is fully within his right s to do so. The friggin county should put a new bridge in and be done with it if everything in the article is correct as written.

Because newspaper articles are never factually off base?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

You obviously also can't read and comprehend simple English! We are going on what the article says and that's what the OP should be going by since he's the one who posted it and is now pissed because we are telling him what it actually states, LOL!. If he has facts that differ from what the article has in it, then those facts and where they came from should be posted! Telling any of us off like he did got this started and he is off base doing that based on what the article actually says.

 

[Dinkshooter]

The friggin county should put a new bridge in and be done with it if everything in the article is correct as written.

Sounds to me like they do not have the option of doing that as they put a freaking GATE in front of the first bridge.

I double dog dare anyone to put on hip waders and walk across said water way where the old COUNTY bridge once stood and see what happens to you. THAT is the point. He is being crafty about blocking a public easement.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Dink---He was blocking the access, but the article doesn't say it's being blocked any longer with a gate. If it's just that there is no bridge there now because the county one burned down why should he be the one to have to replace it? He was obviously being a DB by allowing the gate to block access, but the article doesn't say he's still blocking access now where the bridge should be for the connection from one side to the other.

 

[Dinkshooter]

I'm thinking SS's pictures tell the other side of the story.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I'm thinking SS's pictures tell the other side of the story.

That would be nice, but all BB and I are seeing are a bunch of red xes. Are you able to see pictures in his posts when we can't?

 

[sweetnectar]

The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” [When this happens] Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not”, lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift

 

[shoots-straight]

The file I got was from a power point viewer file. So I had to do some other things to get the pictures posted. Maybe Topgun 30-06 next time I'll send the file to you and you figure it out.

 

[shoots-straight]

The file containing the pictures came in a power point file. I'm sure you would have had not problem posting them, right 06?

 

[shoots-straight]

The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” [When this happens] Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not”, lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift

That's really great Sweet, but I missed the connection of that to this thread.

 

[Dinkshooter]

The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” [When this happens] Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not”, lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift

What did you do to receive your HAVE? I'm guessing you were born into a ranching family. Just a guess. Luck is a funny thing.

For the first time in my entire Hunttalk observation I finally have seen a complete DOUCHE BAG post.

What a A-wipe, seriously. Talk about tin foil hats.........................

 

[shoots-straight]

s-s---You are being more than a moron on this one buddy! The article says the bridge burned in a wildfire! The railcar he put in was his to do whatever the hell he wanted to and he removed it and put it back on his own property. There is no way that he should be oredered to replace a bridge on public property that he didn't destroy in the first place. He was a DB for blocking access to the bridge that burned, but that doesn't mean he should replace it if he had nothing to do with it's demise and until you come up with proof that he burned it then you are out to lunch. The statement by the guy at the start of the article is talking about him taking his railcar out from where he originally had it and thinks he should be made to oput it back. READ the GD article slow and don't tell any of us that we can't understand what is going on when it's YOU that can't comprehend what is in the article YOU provided!

Who's comprehension skills need work? He took out the public bridge claiming it burnt. Then put in his own, on his own land. You don't have the right, whether the bridge burnt or not, to remove public property. If he was such a good guy, he would have replaced the (allegedly burnt) bridge in the same spot. He tried to stop access.

I'm not your buddy!