Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If only the state managed these lands we could prevent this...
I may be part of the minority, but I don't think that state control is necessarily the answer. I know that here in Utah, one of their plans would be to turn federally governed lands over to private interest groups to control. The SFW and BGF are BIG fans of this idea.
That is what I will find interesting and will probably be determined on how the range/fence law is written. In the cases I dealt with, it never came up if the cows were legally on the adjoining land, just who owned them. It's not that hard to see how in a open range, fence out state that trespassing livestock could be treated the same as ones not trespassing. The trespass issue on BLM lands is a seperate issue with the two falling under seperate jurisdictions, so maybe not an issue?JLS, I was wondering the same thing about his trespassing being a game changer, since the BLM tried to remove his cattle. If there is no current lease, then what protection does he think he has?
NRS 568.360 Duties of owners of domestic animals with respect to domestic animals upon highway.
1. No person, firm or corporation owning, controlling or in possession of any domestic animal running on open range has the duty to keep the animal off any highway traversing or located on the open range, and no such person, firm or corporation is liable for damages to any property or for injury to any person caused by any collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on such a highway.
2. Any person, firm or corporation negligently allowing a domestic animal to enter within a fenced right-of-way of a highway is liable for damages caused by a collision between a motor vehicle and the animal occurring on the highway.
(Added to NRS by 1965, 644; A 1983, 235).