Question: Season Choice Either Sex Tag

[Fishingnerd33]

Another thing to think about is that when a landowner charges to let someone hunt on their land, the landowner is then liable for any injuries to the hunter.



Huh....I'll be dipped, I did learn something in school.

[Matt Watson]

Its the Nebraska Recreational Use Statute, can be found here: Nebraska Recreational Use Statute

(1) Land includes roads, water, watercourses, private ways, and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment thereon when attached to the realty;

(2) Owner includes tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises;

(3) Recreational purposes includes, but is not limited to, any one or any combination of the following: Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, waterskiing, winter sports, and visiting, viewing, or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, or otherwise using land for purposes of the user; and

(4) Charge means the amount of money asked in return for an invitation to enter or go upon the land.


§ 37-730. Limitation of liability; purpose of sections.

The purpose of sections 37-729 to 37-736 is to encourage owners of land to make available to the public land and water areas for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon and toward persons who may be injured or otherwise damaged by the acts or omissions of persons entering thereon.

§ 37-731. Landowner; duty of care.

Subject to section 37-734, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.


§ 37-732. Landowner; invitee; permittee; liability; limitation.

Subject to section 37-734, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby (1) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose, (2) confer upon such persons the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of such persons.

[centerx]

The problem does not lie in the fact that a person may try to sue and not win based on state statute. The problem is that they are able to try and sue in the first place which many people do. As soon as you are named in a lawsuit it's a $5,000.00 or much more attorney bill to defend yourself against what you know will be a positive outcome anyhow.

You can ask for attorney fees but at best you have a 50/50 chance of recovering those. Just easier to say no to the next hunter that ask or stick to family who won't sue.

The law needs to be changed so that in these cases if it meets the states criteria of a frivolous lawsuit reimbursement is a guarantee and a judgment ordered at the time of the case termination. I would also support some type of fee/permit surcharge ( $1.00 enough?? ) for a trust that funds the defense for landowners. This fund should be reimbursed from the judgment ordered.

With as many attorney's that hunt/fish I am surprised that a few do not band together to do free legal work against these kinds of lawsuits. Of course every attorney I know that hunts leases up land or spends big bucks on outfitters so maybe they don't care?

IMO these kinds of things start to get serious in addressing landowners desire to open up more access. Putting the law on the books is not enough. Putting some serious muscle behind those laws is a start

[Ty S]

I know of a few attorneys on this site. Any truth to this? What can we do?

[fish_hedd]

Originally Posted by obert

The instance I gave was actually the hunters he gave permission to and he was inside the shed. But I agree 100% with the depridation statement gw. But in their defense how do they know if they are going to get a respectful good hunter or some slob leaving gates open, inviting friends w/o permission, driving over areas they have no permission, etc. I hear to many of those stories as well.

i actually have a short resume, with my biology education, number of years hunting, number of deer shot, and three references of land owners who i've hunted deer for in the past. its one of the first things i hand people when i'm inquiring about hunting new pieces of land. just like a job interview, dress to impress, and be as pleasant as possible. doesn't always work, but i have had people call me back to hunt after they've checked up on me a bit.

[elkstalkr]

I posted this on another thread so I figured I would post it here also, as it seems to fit:

I personally don't see the problem with making some form of season choice buck tag. It might actually benefit the NGPC.

1.) They could charge the same price for a SC as they do the statewide tag. $73.

2.) If someone only bought one SC buck tag to hunt all seasons, the NGPC would still get more money than if someone bought 2 of the "cheap" individual season tags.

3.) With this option many people would by an expensive SC buck tag AND a individual season buck tag. The NGPC would make MORE money.

2.) They could still limit hunters to 2 buck tags a year

3.) Hunters who archery, rifle, and muzzleload hunt could now enjoy all 3 seasons with a buck tag, in case Mr. Big walked by.

Its a WIN-WIN. I just can't see any negatives here that aren't already a "problem" with our current tags and regulations. Why does the NGPC force hunters to choose what 2 methods they want to take thier bucks with?

[south of 41]

Originally Posted by gwhunter

I always give my name offer my address and phone number am polite and still get turned down. If he knew who shot his shed than he should charge them for the damage or take them to court. Too much stereotyping going on. I guess I got a little off topic. Sorry

You need to get rid of your OBAMA bumper stickers