'No other choice' but to kill bison, lawyer says
By Julie Poppen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
An attorney representing one of the owners of the land where at least 32 bison were slaughtered last week after straying off their ranch said that his client "had no other choice" but to get rid of the animals.
"He had to protect himself at that point," Denver attorney Steve Csajaghy said Monday of his client, Jeff Hawn, of Austin, Texas.
Hawn is a 50 percent shareholder of Watersedge Properties, which owns ranchland a few miles south of Hartsel in Park County. Locals say that Hawn has a vacation home on the property.
On March 10, he filed a complaint against the owners of the bison - Monte Downare and his father Vaughn Downare - saying that their animals had broken through his fence on numerous occasions, turning his once pristine rolling pasture into a "feed lot" covered in dung, tracks and hair.
The Downares declined to comment while the investigation into the killing of their buffalo and litigation are under way.
In the complaint, Hawn says that he installed a "sturdy" fence in 1995 to keep the buffalo out. In December 2007, the complaint alleges, Hawn began to notice that the buffalo had broken through the fence and he called the sheriff's department.
The Downares removed the buffalo, but the animals returned several times and broke the fence in 50 places, the complaint said.
In the complaint, Hawn alleged that the bison have killed hundreds of recently planted trees and knocked over a TV and satellite dish. It accuses the Downares of refusing to pay for fence repairs or new trees.
Park County Undersheriff Monte Gore said that the animal slaughter remains under investigation. He said that aggravated animal cruelty charges are being pondered against various people. Investigators have interviewed 14 hunters and more may be contacted, he said. The hunters have told authorities that they were given permission to shoot the animals.
Plumbing contractor Bob Agosti, 60, who lives near Fairplay, said that those who did the shooting shouldn't be described as "hunters" because they left the carcasses and skins of the animals to rot.
"It's wasteful; it's not what you do," he said, as he stopped by the Silver Heels Truck Stop, a local gathering spot filled with animals preserved by taxidermy in Fairplay. "People who move here from out of state should adapt and honor the traditions. It's a ranching community."
The Downares own the Elk Mountain Cattle Co., which allows buffalo hunts, but the animals are immediately processed for meat, Agosti said.
The value of a weaned calf is about $600, but a bull ready for slaughter can fetch $2,500, said Dave Carter, executive director of the Westminster-based National Bison Association.
Carter said that details of the slaughter are "murky" but that from what he has heard, the killing was not handled humanely.
"The fact that 32 animals were scattered makes me think they were probably chased," Carter said. "These are not the normal protocols that were used."
March 25, 2008
7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
"The fact that 32 animals were scattered makes me think they were probably chased," Carter said. "These are not the normal protocols that were used."
Add to that all these bison watched their fellow herd being slaughtered right in front of them. Imagine the fear they felt.
All because they wandered onto some out-of-stater's vacation property.
March 25, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Firefox writes:
The law is the law and though this mans property was being trampled by these buffalo it gives him no right to slaughter these animals and leave them lay where they fall. This person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, than take this jerks property and banish him back to Texas forever where he belongs.
March 25, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
This appeares to be a clear case of someone takeing the law into his own hands and then getting unsuspecting "hunters" to do his dirty work for him. I understand the frustration a property owner may feel but this is not the route he should have taken. A better compramise would have have been to work out a deal with the bison owner to allow graising on his property in a temporary lease agreement. I'm not sure but I believe buffalo grazing is actualy good in the long run for the natural flora.
March 25, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
pjmich writes:
The fact that he blew them all away as opposed to one just to get his point across is telling. It is hard to believe he never reported the problem to the authorities, so they must have told him to work it out with his neighbor.
My guess is this guy was seething and could only see red after putting up with this for what sounds like a while, and I bet he imagined that each one of those bisons was his neighbor. It still doesn't make sense to waste all of that meat and just let it rot. Not to mention, he is now a marked man with "PETA" and the other jobless loons out there.
March 25, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
peachy0301 writes:
While I agree that the land owner from Texas should not have taken the course that he did and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, he is not the only one at fault here. The owners of the buffalo also share some of the responsibility for not keeping their buffalo on their own land. Both parties in this issue should be prosecuted.
March 25, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
please send mr hawn my way as we have a very speical way to teach him how to respect his neighbors herd.
March 25, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Install a sturdy fence in South Park and the weather alone will break it down. As an absentee landholder, Hawn did not see what damaged his fence or his satellite dish. The view from Texas is obstructed by the Sangre de Christos.
Blowing snow and winds in our region eventually destroy everything made by human hands. Summer visitors have difficulty imagining the power of a blizzard here when gales can pack your windward ear with snow in a few seconds. If you think winter is fun, spring can bring heavier sloppier snows that stick to things like wire. Winter wind drifts can bury pickup trucks with snow packed so hard that another truck may drive over it and not even know unless they hit a soft spot. Then the folks who arrive in summer might wonder how the latter truck got on top of the former.
So, if you built a fence in 1995 be proud of yourself for each of the pieces that are left 12 years later. Ice and bison aren't the only things that tear up fences, elk do it, and so do cows when they have a good reason. It's the responsibility of the landowner to maintain his own fence and fence out livestock if he doesn't want them. That's the law. Hawn's own negligence doesn't give him a license to market a shooting of his neighbor's livestock.
Hawn is going to need that lawyer.
March 25, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Jeff Hawn should have introduced a pack of wolves to defend his property...clearly there are no property rights left in Colorado.
March 25, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
RoughlyRight writes:
The Hawns are cowards! What's happened to fistfights among manly men. No huevos?
March 25, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
Texans!
March 25, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Marshdale: "A better compramise would have have been to work out a deal with the bison owner to allow graising on his property in a temporary lease agreement."
Exactly, an absolutely logical and mutually beneficial alternative. The out-of-stater, however, sounds like a person who is anything but logical. I hope he sells his property and gets the hell out of our state.
March 25, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
I note that the lawyer used a moral argument, not a legal one. That is a pretty good clue that there was no legal basis for the action and now the lawyer is trying to spin this. If you have a legal defense, lawyers tend to lead with that. Trying to get sympathy for a Texas owner is a hard sell though.
While I can understand the frustration of a landowner with a neighbor's livestock, the reality is that I can find no law that allows this kind of "self help". Contrary to the lawyers "he had no choice" argument, the solution is to have the animals seized and to sue for damages. If the landowner could prove he put up an adequate fence and the animals broke it, he could then get damages and sell the animals for the judgment. Instead of acting within the law, he and his gun happy buddies took the law in their own hands and now they have a problem.
Cruelty to animals may be the least of the problems. Deliberate destruction of someone else's property is a felony if the value is over $600.00. Multiply that by 32 animals and you have some serious charges.
March 25, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
ROFLMAO.... "Add to that all these bison watched their fellow herd being slaughtered right in front of them. Imagine the fear they felt." Obivously, some morons have no idea about the behavior of bison.
Of course, the same 'people' that are whining about some dead bison (as they munch down on their breakfast burritos before heading out to Ted Turner's Montant Grill from some bison steak lunch) would be the first to do the same thing if these idiot animals was destroying their property.
March 25, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
duagreen writes:
What does the fact that this fella lives in Texas most of the year have to do with it? I grew up in Arvada, lived there for 25 years, and have been living in Dallas for the past 13 years. Jerks are jerks, regardless of their place of residence. What would you have said about him if he was from Ft Collins?
Would it have been different if this guy had shot 32 wild dogs that were tearing up his property? 32 kittens? An animal is an animal. These poor buffalo are no worse off than those that are killed then quickly processed for eating. They're all dead. Some are being eaten by humans, some by varmints. Didn't Josey Wales say it something like this: "buzzards gotta eat, same as worms."
March 25, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Building a fence in 1995 and expecting it to last until now? Maybe had it built it like the Great Wall of China or something but seriously, in South Park a regualr fence has to be maintained annually.
He actually was upset because there was hair on his property then he hired some assasins to kill and abandon full carcasses there?
I think this Texan is going to jail. Yee Haw!
March 25, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
duagreen,
"Didn't Josey Wales say it something like this: "buzzards gotta eat, same as worms."
One of my favorite movies of all time!!!
March 25, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Jeff Hawn probably read about what happened in Boulder and figured he had better take action fast before the Buffalo made a path and owned his property!
March 25, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Mr. Hawn is the CEO of Attachmate. I doubt very seriously that Attachmate wants its name attached to this type of behaviour.
If you agree, please contact Attachmate at salesrecept@attachmate.com or any other contact info you can find, and make sure they know how many people are outraged by their CEO's treatment of neighbors and livestock.
March 25, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Contrary to your perception rickg, very few people would simply start shooting to solve their problems, as most have more respect for society and the law than you. The days of "Josey Wales" are long past.
While rational people know that eating meat entails killing animals, most of us still would appreciate some reasonable effort to make that death less painful. We do not know how these animals were killed, but it is reasonable to assume that it was not a quick or efficient as in a slaughterhouse. I have known lots of hunters and been one for years. The good ones do not enjoy the kill or slaughter. One of the issues here is that there seems to be a level of bloodthirstyness involved.
As to the "wild dogs' argument, the difference here is that the landowner apparently knew that he authorized the destruction of someone else's property. Colorado law actually allows the shooting of wild dogs in some limited instances, like to defend livestock. All these animals were doing was, at most, damaging property. There is just no legal justification for that, whether you live in Texas or Colorado.
March 25, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
rickg: "Of course, the same 'people' that are whining about some dead bison (as they munch down on their breakfast burritos before heading out to Ted Turner's Montant Grill from some bison steak lunch) would be the first to do the same thing if these idiot animals was destroying their property."
rick, you quoted me, and you know I'm a vegetarian and animal rights activist. In fact, you've called me everything from an animal rights nut to an envirowhacko to a Rolonut (my all time favorite).
March 25, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
"No other choice?" What a lame-o defense.
March 25, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
BobtheBob writes:
"All these animals were doing was, at most, damaging property."
This is easily said when not face to face with a bison. Or maybe you think one could walk up and pet a herd of them. I'm sure they are as friendly and tame as baby rabbits.
Bison are notorious for not being friendly and I for one would not want to be waiting for one to run me down on my own property. People keep complaining that he did not take care of his fence to keep someone else's animals off of his property. If I told my neighbors that I was going to let a dangerous animal run around and if they wanted to keep their stuff safe they'd better build a good fence and take good care of it, I guess that would make me a great guy? If you own Bison, and they are a source of revenue, it's your job to maintain them, not your neighbors.
March 25, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
I think what people are missing here is that the rancher is responsible for keeping his livestock on HIS property. My family have ranched for years. The electric fences are maintained daily to prevent the livestock from crossing into neighboring ranch land. Yes, occasionally, a cow makes it past the fence. However, these instances are dealt with in a timely manor. The owner of these Buffalo was negligent as a rancher. If Jeff Hawn in fact discussed this with his neighbor for 13 years, and the Buffalo were still escaping then something should have been done long ago. I don't particularly agree with the shoot-fest, but we must respect the property rights of Jeff Hawn. I would be pretty agitated if livestock grazed on my property, and I would take some action against it. Jeff would have been better off taking pictures and filing a civil suit against the rancher.
March 25, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
I feel sympathy for Hawn. He went through legal channels, talked to the owner numerous times, and was forced to pay thousands out of pocket (fence, trees, etc) that he shouldn't have to. Yet he still had dangerous animals on his property due to the negligence of his neighbors. If I see a rapid dog on my property and feel endangered, I'm not allowed to defend myself because it's someone's pet?
March 25, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
PJM writes:
BobtheBob, if you own property in rural Colorado the law says "Fence Out". If you don't want your neighbors animals on your property it is your job to maintain your fence.
March 25, 2008
10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
Why didn't Mr. Hawn call the Sheriff? If there was property destruction, I would call the law, get pictures, call my insurance agent and lawyer. If the bison's owners refused to make resitution, then sue. There are legal means to handle this. Just because Mr. Hawn was frustrated isn't reason to blast away.
March 25, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
mark79trans - hear, hear! 13 years is ridiculous for anyone to have to deal with this garbage. If Hawn is prosecuted, than Downare needs to be too for the amount of damage (ex trees, sod) caused over the years, cost of fencing, loss of revenue, decreased property value, as well as mental anguish and suffering.
March 25, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
BroncoDan writes:
Let's see...isn't Colorado a free range state??? You have to fence livestock OUT of your property!
March 25, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
"On March 10, he filed a complaint against the owners of the bison - Monte Downare and his father Vaughn Downare - saying that their animals had broken through his fence on numerous occasions, turning his once pristine rolling pasture into a "feed lot" covered in dung, tracks and hair."
So he would rather have his "pristine" rolling pasture littered with rotting animal carcasses?
March 25, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
CWW- in case you didn't read it, he did call the sheriff several times. He also filed a lawsuit. But neither law avenue did anything prior to this latest escapade.
March 25, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Fiesty and bob
Where do you see that any person was being threatened. Hawn was apparently not even in the state when the killings occurred. Hard to see that his life was threatened. Whether we have a right to defend ourselves against a dangerous animal is irrelevant to this situation, where there was a wholesale slaughter of animals who were no threat.
Colorado is a "fence out" state. CRS 35-46-102 provides that:
"(1) Any person maintaining in good repair a lawful fence, as described in section 35-46-101, may recover damages for trespass and injury to grass, garden or vegetable products, or other crops of such person from the owner of any livestock which break through such fence. No person shall recover damages for such a trespass or injury unless at the time thereof such grass, garden or vegetable products, or crops were protected by such a lawful fence. Even though such land, grass, garden or vegetable products, or other crops were not at such time protected on all sides by a lawful fence, if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that livestock have broken through a lawful fence on one side of such land to reach such land, grass, products, or crops, recovery and the remedies under this section may be had the same as if such land, grass, products, or crops had been at such time protected on all sides by a lawful fence."
If you have a good fence and the animals break it, the landowner has the right to seize the animals as security for the damage.There are plenty of legal solutions that do NOT include killing the animals. Frustrated or not, the solution is not to break the law.
March 25, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
fiesty, I do somewhat agree with you, but he filed a complaint on Mar 10th. He apparently didn't give much time to go through the legal channels. But this article doesn't state what he was told when he filed the complaint. And we don't know what the sheriff's dept. told him when he called in Dec.
March 25, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Its a bummer for Jeff Hawn. Under Title 35 Article 46, he had grounds to seize the Buffalo and hold them until compensated. Now, under 35-46-106. Care of stock taken into custody he is toast.
March 25, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
Even if Mr. Hawn DID call the Sheriff before, he should have kept on calling and get documentation. His lawyer should have told him he could keep the animals in lieu of damages. Having a shoot-a-thon was not the answer. Now Hawn is the one in trouble with the law, not the bison owners.
March 25, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
BobtheBob writes:
He did fence it. Several times and at personal cost. At what point does the owner of the bison become responsible for his animals and the destruction they cause?
March 25, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
buffsblg,
Statute 35-46
The intent of this law was to support free range land on public property such as BLM land so if you own property near free range land, then the property owner is responsible for the fence. This is common in the west and goes back to the 19th century. To use this statute as a rancher on private land with private held land surrounding your property is highly irresponsible. My family of ranchers would never do such a thing...most responsible ranchers that we know on privately held property would not permit this...electric fences are used to contain the animals. My family uses solar powered transmitters on the more remote areas of their property.
March 25, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
A few miles south of Hartsel means the area is full of ranchs. As I remember from my childhood at my grandparent's ranch there were numerous instances of livestock not being where they should. This happens. Never once did the neighbors shoot the livestock, never. In fact the neighbors were typically very understanding, and even helped to round up the cattle.
The fact that the livestock entered Hawn's property is not in dispute. The issue of dispute is whether or not Hawn had the right to kill 32 bison rather than using available legal means to force the ranchers to comply with his demands.
Put this in terms everyone can understand, what if your neighbor's cat consistently found it's way into your yard, and sharpened its claws on your favorite tree, stripping its bark. Would you hire one of the local kids to shoot the cat, and then leave it in the yard rotting? Would that be illegal?
March 25, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Hopefully the shooters will be fined, Hawn will be fined more and given mandatory community service, and the owners of the buffalo will NOT receive any compensation for them, due to their negligence in letting them roam off their property.
mytwocents: You are just too funny. I guess you think the remaining buffalo are now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. You will need some long arms in order to give these animals hug therapy. Buffalo are about as smart as a box of rocks. They grazed before the shootings, they probably grazed during the shootings, and they are no doubt grazing now, after the shootings.
March 25, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Patriot writes:
Hey Fiesty, what is a rapid dog? Is that a fast moving poodle that scares the hell out of you?
March 25, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Hawn did everything he was supposed to- put up a fence to keep the animals out, called the Sheriff, started legal action, etc. While I can understand he should have acted otherwise, I can also understand his frustration after dealing with this crap for 12 years, having spent thousands of dollars, his neighbors continued and wanton refusal to be responsible owners or pay for the damage, and the law's inaction. He couldn't even use his own property without risk! I'd probably have the "it's my property, damn it" mentality too.
In contrast, Downare did not. For 12 years, he has wantonly neglected his legal responsibilities as an owner, and violated the law. His negligence cost Hawn thousands of dollars.
Everyone is up in arms over Downare's rights (not his negligence) as the bison owner, but make no mention of HAWN's rights. Does he have no rights as a property owner? His vacation property is on his land- if there, he doesn't have the right to defend himself? (We don't know whether or not he was there.) Really, if I'm a property owner and I can shoot a rabid dog, fox, trespasser, or whatever, that's on my land, why is this any different? Doesn't a property owner have the right to defend themselves and their property?
As stated, they are both in the wrong. If Hawn is prosecuted, than so should Downare. Even at the max cost, I calculate the loss of the bison at $32K, most likely 1/2 that though. Given how much damage Downare has cost over the years as well as the other issues mentioned, they'll either break even or Downare will end up owing Hawn. It'll be a costly lesson to both.
March 25, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
davies on March 25, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"mytwocents: You are just too funny. I guess you think the remaining buffalo are now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. You will need some long arms in order to give these animals hug therapy. Buffalo are about as smart as a box of rocks. They grazed before the shootings, they probably grazed during the shootings, and they are no doubt grazing now, after the shootings."
This is rather amusing. When they were hunted by Native Americans and finally fell to the ground, they bled to death over a period of time from arrow wounds. The remaining Buffalo ran to a new field and ate some more grass.
March 25, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Patriot- don't be an idiot or do you actually have anything to CONTRIBUTE to the discussion? I was attacked by a rapid Doberman back in 1998 while carrying my 1 1/2 year old son. Thank God for steel-toed combat boots! As scared as I was then, I can only imagine what it would be like to be on vacation, maybe going for a walk, and coming up to a bison. Not only are they huge, but they can be MEAN.
March 25, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
buffsblg & mark79trans - thanks for the research.
Good fences make good neighbors & two wrongs don't make a right.
The folks that pulled the triggers also should have known better - may all responsible parties be visted by the angry ghosts of tatonka.
March 25, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I am wondering whether the bison went to heaven or hell when they died. After all, besides breaking the law, they committed an immoral act. The "forbidden fruit" was on the other side of the fence.
March 25, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
For doublechucky, eat more bison burgers!
March 25, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
jibbons- back then the owners would have taken RESPONSIBILITY and ponied up to replace the fence and damage. Downare has refused to take responsibilities either morally, legally, or financially.
And a cat isn't the same as a 500lb bison, which is dangerous sheerly because of its size and temperament. If the cat's feral (i.e. actually dangerous) then you are right to shoot it. If the owner cared about it, they would keep it INSIDE.
March 25, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
IMO the owners should be compensated by this CEO because while the Bison were in his custody (his legal right), he could have leveraged the live Bison to acheive his goals. Instead he killed the Bison while they were in his custody.
He had a clear opportunity to settle his greivances through existing legal channels. This means that he had at least ONE OTHER CHOICE, which he chose to ignore.
Again, faced with two possible actions, Mr. Hawn chose to pursue the illegal action. He should be punished according to the law.
March 25, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Most of the above making comments apparently have no concept of Colorado's open range laws and how they are abused by ranchers to obtain free grazing. It is routine for ranchers in Park County to dump animals on land they don't own and point out it is the property owner's responsibility to fence them out regardless of whether they are cattle that can be held with a simple fence or bison that need special very expensive structures. It matters little to ranchers if the property is rangeland, national forest or a residential community. These cowboys are welfare ranchers getting a free ride and the law is on their side.
March 25, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
All buffalo and other furry things go to heaven when they die. Sheesh, don't you know anything?
March 25, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
jbowen43, yes, even on federal lands, there is an agreement set up with the rancher and they pay grazing fees!
March 25, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
jbowen43
The abuse that you refer to is where I am trying to go with my posts. Often the irresponsible ranchers out their get a slap on the wrist instead of a more severe penalty. Too often, animals are allowed to graze on privately held property completely removed from BLM land...it is a mess. If this particular rancher is using the statue to create a menace for the surrounding property owners, that needs to be identified! I don't know...maybe the people in Garfield County are more civil...it is farther from Denver.
March 25, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies,
So when I go to heaven (I hope) will the bison be nice to me? Or is there a separate heaven for animals?
March 25, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
PJM writes:
jbowen, you are right about one thing. The law IS on their side!
March 25, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
drew writes:
Let's put up a border fence to keep the Texans out. Have it patrolled by "rapid" bison & rednecks with guns.
March 25, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Whether or not the Downare's were responsible in caring for their fence is irrelevent. The issue is what Hawn did while the Bison were IN HIS CUSTODY.
If Hawn had truly attempted to legally settle the issues of the fence and the property damage, what were the results of those efforts? Did he win his lawsuit (was there one)? Did he exhaust every legal means available? If he did, then the law seems to have told him, 'you are not reasonably entitled to damages,' or 'we are currently assessing the validity of your claim of damages.'
Either way Hawn killed Bison that were legally in his custody, an illegal act. On top of that he left the carcasses to rot. Whether or not you agree that leaving them to rot is wasteful, doing so eliminated Mr. Hawn's ability to use the money from the meat to pay for the damages he could possibly owe the Downares. So in his angery response to his allegedly irresponsible neighbors, Mr. Hawn brought his current legal troubles upon himself. He probably should have consulted with his lawyer before killing livestock valued at between $19,200 and $80,000. That is a serious chunk of change to take from a rancher. He probably could have acheived his goals by simply threatening to sell the livestock that wandered onto his land in lieu of payments for property damage. Or even better, he chould have claimed the Bison as his own, sold them, repaired his property and bought a gas guzzler. Now instead he will likely pay for the whole event, minus the cost of property damage, depending on how things turned out with his March 10th complaint.
March 25, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Heidi, I've read some of your mischief before, and I think your heaven will probably only have snakes. Maybe nice snakes though.
March 25, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies,
Snakes! Nice or not, I would not like it. Maybe I won't be going to heaven after all. Nor Valhalla.
March 25, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
If this was an isolated incident, burn the shooters. However, the owner of the bison let this go on and on, over and over again, destroying the neighbors property. If the bison owner would have compensated the loss, but he didn't. If the neighbor suffering the damage called the state, and exhausted every means to seek a remedy, he should get a good lawyer, and completely turn the tables on both the state and the bison owner. As long as he sought out several remedies to no avail, it sad, but send the meat to charity, tell the bison owner to pay for the damages. How many times did the property owner eat the damages caused by his neighbor's flagrant disregard for his property; when ever did the bison owner ever recognize his responsibility? The meat should go to the homeless, orphanages, etc., don't waste it. The bison owner shouldn't be compensated a dime, he should be hailed into court likewise, so both party's are forced to reconcile this dispute, perhaps under court supervision if necessary. Sad that it was allowed to go on this long, but I think the property being repeatedly damaged by someone who did not compensate or remedy the damages his animals repeatedly inflicted got his justice served up to him. Especially if it was being reported and documented by the law enforcement available.
March 25, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Oh, now we care b/c these are buffalo?
This paper ran a story about the same action taken against prairie dogs. There was overwhelmming support to shoot the lil' critters and just leave them to bloat and rot in the sun. They're really annoying everyone said.
There's nothing more hypocritical than feigned, selective indignation.
March 25, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Fiesty,
Maybe you think that shooting the cat would have been the right choice. But everyday hundreds of people call the pound to have the matter dealt with effectively and legally. This method of response is very effective. If the cat keeps showing up, then it is time to take the owner to small claims for the value of the tree.
Shooting the cat, on the other hand, saves the tree, but now you are in trouble for firing a weapon in city limits, and who knows if your irresponsible neighbor will sue you. The law will have something to say to you, thats for sure.
So, yes cats are less dangerous than Bison, that is a very astute observation. However there are better means for dealing with either intruding on your property.
Beyond that, bringing in a team of people to shoot 32 bison can hardly be called self defense. Did Hawn really think that the 32 Bison were going to do him harm?
March 25, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Heidi, maybe snakes AND prairie dogs in your heaven. You know, for the snakes...
March 25, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Bmat,
Your comparison to prairie dogs does not hold water. No one owns prairie dogs, no one counts on their value.
Some people here might be more angered about the inhumane slaughter of the Bison, but it seems the real argument is about the property rights of the two individuals involved.
March 25, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies,
So the snakes can thrive and grow bigger and badder? Do you really wish that on me, since you don't approve of my mischief?
March 25, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Heck, if the law is "Fence Out", I like that. Does that mean my dogs can dump in my neighbors yard, be a lot less for me to pick up everyday! Everyday, people let thier dogs crap on thier neighbors lawn. It's all up and down the streets of Denver, regardless of city ordanances. At some point when do we make animal owners responsible? I know, raise the annual dog license to cover the clean up of this unsanitary practice. I have no respect for the lowlifes who don't pick up after thier dog, let thier dog crap in the public domain without cleaning it up; makes me feel militant enough to pick up several sacks of dog crap and dump it on thier front lawn it the middle of the night. Can't do that though, we have "LAWS".
March 25, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Mark79trans
I agree with you on the moral responsibility to control your livestock and appreciate your being a good neighbor. As long as there have been landowners, there have been neighbors who abused the law to get free grazing. Buffalo are different than cattle and need special fencing and I agree that the owner of the animals should be responsible. If you were to propose a change to the fence out law as to buffalo, I would support you.
All of that said, my or your moral compass is not the law. Whatever flaws the animal owners may have exhibited, I cannot support "vigilante" justice. Hawn sued the Downares on March 10 so he knew the law and knew he had other options. Hawn just apparently did not have the patience to allow it to work. No excuse for that, no mater how frustrated he was. My concern is not so much the poor animals or sympathy for the animal owners, it is that respect for the law should be shown even if we disagree with it. I must also admit that rich folks who do not beleive the law applies to them tend to get my ire up.
March 25, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
jibbons- the parallel here is that you call the pound but no one comes or does anything. You file a lawsuit, and nothing happens. You try to talk to the owner numerous times and they refuse to restrain their cat or pay for the damage. What do you do then? Particularly if you feel you are potentially in danger and it's costing thousands (that you might not have) of dollars. I'm not saying it's right but I can understand why someone would do it.
March 25, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
buffsblg- I'm not for vigilante justice, but I'm not sure this qualifies. Vigilante justice would be Hawn going to Downare's land and shooting his bison there, but in this case it could be argued that Hawn had any legal grounds considering they WERE on his land and he had tried to do the legal thing more than once. Does the property owner have ANY rights, especially when the legal system is failing him?
March 25, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Fiesty, you remind me of my sister-in-law; when I found out she was allergic to cats, I fell head-over-heels in love with them, and started an orphanage for them at my place. This dame rolls her own tampons and kick starts her hairdryer; I love cats!
March 25, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Fiesty
The lawsuit, according to the Denver Post, was only filed a couple of days before the slaughter, so I disagree with your premise that he had done "everything" he could. Waiting on a ruling in the lawsuit might have been a good idea. The legal system had not failed him, he just lacked the patience to let it work. A short attention span is not grounds for destroying property.
Further, apparently some of the animals were killed on public land not owned by Hawn. Where do you find the legal grounds for killing animals not even on your land? That smacks more of revenge than trying to solve the problem.
Technically the solution is to round up the animals and have them held until the lawsuit is over. I do not claim that the process is swift, but it is fair to both sides.
If the facts are as Hawn claimed, he deserves damages from the owners. However, that was for a judge or jury to decide, not Hawn and his gun toting buddies.
March 25, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
buffsblg
35-46 needs over a century of updating. It should be zoned in places that make sense for open grazing.
In general, I am not in favor of absolving the rash act of killing the livestock. However, I do not want to see some emotional outcry cloud the assessment of abusive negligent behavior on the part of this rancher; especially in terms of changing an out-of-date law. It is unfortunate that the land owner didn't follow through with his petition.
feisty
As far as the cat. Even though I can legally discharge a weapon on my property, I would probably just let my two GSDs take care of business. ...there is more then one way to skin a cat :)
March 25, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Heidi, you're starting to make me feel guilty. I confess I don't really know how heaven works. Probably there are nice, clean, friendly, fluffy buffaloes there. Sorry.
March 25, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
mark79trans
More information on the lawsuit on the Post website. It was only filed a couple of days before the shooting started. I have less sympathy for Hawn if he did not even let the system try to work.
I agree that the fence out law could be updated, but there remains some strong lobbying strength by ranchers in the legislature. That might be a hard road.
March 25, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
Fiesty-
the term you want is RABID...not rapid...
as in your response..rabid..and vapid.
March 25, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
osahowler writes:
So some jackass from Texas that lives in a $4M house and thinks he's hot crap can come to Colorado and blast away at poor defenseless animals because they are damaging his property????? Puhlease - typical rich man that thinks he's above the law - get the rope.........
March 25, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
BiotchMAMA writes:
let me get this straight, nothing he did outside the law made the bison stop grazing, so why would he use the law to keep them off, just shoot the vermin. The so called "hunters" thought it was o.k. to kill animals that did not belong to the owner of the property.
I must be stupid
March 25, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jd writes:
It makes me wonder how much damage was really done previously. A buffalo walking through the grass doesn't really leave that much damage. Is this Texan talking about damages such as the buffalo scratched his head on my fence post and scratched the wood or paint and now has hair on it? I think you will probably find some of the damages frivilious and that is probably why the other person in the argument didn't do anything because the damage may have been frivilous. I've seen it before. Your dog's not allowed to bark for more than two seconds because it's a mut but my dog is a pure breed so it's ok for it to run free and bark all it wants type of mentality. I feel there's a whole lot more behind the scenes than anyone on this site will ever know.
March 25, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
davies, now that's a nice vision!
March 25, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
buffsblg
"I agree that the fence out law could be updated, but there remains some strong lobbying strength by ranchers in the legislature. That might be a hard road."
They are also fighting the environmentalists who are attacking open graze on BLM land...I think this is ridiculous. Removing room for abuse does not mean removing open graze. By the same token, open graze is not bad as long as it is done appropriately. The Cattleman's Association is fighting the don't give an inch because they will take a mile battle. Another example of common sense giving way to special interest non-sense.
March 25, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Opinionizer writes:
Hawn's lawyer said. he "had no other choice" "He had to protect himself at that point," Were the animals charging him at the time he arranged for 14 or more "hunters" to come out and destroy the animals? How did Hawn know they'd arrive in time to save him?
Sarcasm aside, the "hunters" are seriously sick individuals. Most of the animals were not killed for meat as the photos in the Denver Post show. Some had trophies - skins and heads - taken, but most of them appear to have been destroyed for the singular pleasure of ending another being's life.
If Hawn's judgment is any indication of a typical American CEO, no wonder our economy is in the shape it is in. His Board of Directors should suspend him without compensation till this is settled.
March 25, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Big_D writes:
Colorado is a "fence out" state and he does have recourse if the fence was in good repair. I wouldn't doubt he had problems with a Sheriff in Colorado. They are spread thin and only care about the next conquest in their department not doing their job. Colorado has a bunch of sheriffs that seem to be people that were not well suited enough to be meter maids for a city police department. Every time I have contacted the Sheriff in any county in Colorado I have been told either that it was a civil matter or I was a trouble maker including a breaking and entry complaint I had at a cabin in La Plata. They must be so isolated they are just afraid as far as I could tell. My sister would have arrested and taken somebody down in Utah for the same actions. My home in Weld is where I have developed the rest of my poor opinion of Sheriffs.
March 25, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
I like the "Rich man" attack. Damn the rich for making something out of thier life in America. I think I'll live in envy of them, and attack them for being more sucessful than me. Man, I'd hate to live in envy of wealth. Maybe it could be argued the other way and said people who aren't rich are worthless...literally! That texan's 4M dollar mansion was much harder to achieve than my pedestrian abode; so let me put him down for making something out of his life. The issue is not wealth, unless your lack of ability to achieve wealth is fair game also!
March 25, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
Man, I wish the RMN and the DP would stop referring to the shooters as "hunters". Harvesters, maybe; cullers; hired hands; heap macho buffalo assassins - anything but hunters!
I'm still wondering about exactly WHERE some of this happened, as some of the early stories said some of the dead bison were on adjoining USFS lands. I wonder what the excuse will be for following the trespassing bison onto federal land and then gunning them down there.
March 25, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The bison had been trampling some guy's property since 1995.
For the dweebs that are whining about some dead bison (funny how they don't whine when they pick up a package of bison meat at the grocery)..... how many decades does the guy have to put up with bison trampling his property before he can kill the "FREE ROAMING" bison?
March 25, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
rickg,
You have to wait forever before you destroy your neighbor's livestock, because that is illegal. Whether or not you agree with the law, the law says you cannot do what this guy did.
A better question might be, "how long does a guy have to complain to the sheriff about livestock before the sheriff does something about it?" The answer to that question seems to be, "longer than 10 days." That answer seems reasonable, unfortunately Mr. Hawn is unreasonable.
March 25, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
davecat writes:
hey Fiesty, how is a fast dog going to hurt you? Now, a rabid dog is probably more dangerous than a rapid dog......just guessing....
March 25, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
SaddleTramp writes:
Again, Co is a "fence out" state. I doubt that a wooden fence built 12 years ago is in much shape without any maintenance. I doubt if the Texan has any full time ranch hands to take care of that. The wind and rain and weather in South park will reek havoc with any type of fence. I've had problems with summer time "ranchers" myself. Years ago, I had a small 6 acre plot with a couple horses. The part timer next to us actually called the sheriff because some dried horse droppings blew onto his property!!! The sheriff told Tex he was lucky he didn't get charged for the free fertilizer. On a somewhat bigger spread, we know that fence maintence is a priority. Fortunatly, our neighbors are full time ranchers as are we, and we tend to look out for each other. Fences and all. This whole bison thing stinks of a long distance feud. BTW, I thought the line about "pristine rolling pastures" was a hoot. In South Park?
March 25, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
I just re-read the article, and the complaint indicated that, "Hawn began to notice that the buffalo had broken through the fence" in 2007. No mention of previous complaints, just that he put the fence up in 1995.
So, if I am reading correctly, that means Hawn noticed the problem sometime last year (must have been a massive amount of damage if it took him 12 years to catch on), complained 15 days ago, and had the Bison killed a few days ago.
These facts indicate that Hawn did not give this matter very much time to come to a resolution. That pretty much kills the, 'he waited for the law to resolve the issue,' claim being made in this thread.
March 25, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Feisty,
I promise to quit beating the dead cat after this.
A true parellel would be, you have noticed the cat doing this about a year ago, called the pound to complain, waited 12hours, and then paid a kid to shoot the cat.
For all Hawn knows, the sheriff might have been planning a Wednesday the 26th visit for this low priority. I am in no way saying that the sheriff was on his way, or wasn't, but Hawn did not give him a reasonable amount of time to take care of it. If he did not think things were coming together quickly enough, maybe another option would have been to ask the sheriff for status updates, and to call your lawyer to put the pressure on.
March 25, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
"I wouldn't doubt he had problems with a Sheriff in Colorado. "
Big_D- exactly. The Sheriff obviously wasn't doing his job else Downare would have gotten a ticket the first and every time, since he WAS breaking the law.
"Man, I wish the RMN and the DP would stop referring to the shooters as "hunters". Harvesters, maybe; cullers; hired hands; heap macho buffalo assassins - anything but hunters!"
JustSayin- hear, hear! They didn't use the meat. What a waste! Trophy hunters is what they are.
"how many decades does the guy have to put up with bison trampling his property before he can kill the "FREE ROAMING" bison?"
rickg19611- excellent point! If you can demonstrate *neglect* or *abandonment* in a court of law, the owner terminates all rights. And it CAN be after the fact. That's how parental rights are terminated btw. The property owner could go the route of "I shot dangerous, abandoned, wild animals on my property..."
"I am in no way saying that the sheriff was on his way, or wasn't, but Hawn did not give him a reasonable amount of time to take care of it. "
jibbons- I don't agree. 10 days is waaay too excessive for wild animals, particularly of that size. Look at the elk that got trapped on that lady's patio. Animal control was out there in less than an hour. If I was vacationing, had non-refundable tickets, and couldn't come out of my home (just an example) due to 30+ bison running around, 10 days would be ridiculous!!
March 25, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
"apparently some of the animals were killed on public land not owned by Hawn"
buffsblg- good point.
"Even though I can legally discharge a weapon on my property, I would probably just let my two GSDs take care of business. ...there is more then one way to skin a cat :)"
mark79trans- ROFLMAO! "Officer, it was a tragic accident!"
Grim_Reefer/davecat- grow up. Everyone has a typo now and then... like YOU misspelling my handle, due its unique spelling. If that's the best you can contribute to this conversation, than I feel sorry for you.
March 25, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
BangURHead writes:
Mr. Hawn has an MBA, what do you expect? He probably tossed the issue over to a project management team who determined through the business case suite it would be better to hire some good old boys to do his dirty work. In addition, the 'hunters' and I use that term very loosely, should have their rifles confiscated and banded from ever hunting another living thing in Colorado, and that includes fishing our streams. id10ts
March 25, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrCrush writes:
It is amazing how much response a story about dead animals always gets. This culture gives more respect, time and attention to it's animals than other human beings.
March 25, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Keno33 writes:
Again another Texas dumb sh_t. They think they can do anything they want in our state. Fry these Hawn and send his family back to Texas.
March 25, 2008
4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
home_on_the_range writes:
Oh give me a home!
Where the buffalo...uh roam <gulp>
And the deer and the...uh...antelope...uh play?...
Home, home, on the range.
The irony is suffocating.
March 25, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eagle5 writes:
The "people" who killed the bison are the same type that murders prairie dogs and other wildlife. In my view, they are the type that would also injure or kill other people - including their spouse and children. I admire true sportspeople who hunt because they enjoy it and use what they kill
March 25, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
"No other choice"? What, were these buffalo armed? Were they holding his children at knifepoint? Those darned buffalo- give 'em a few beers, and they go on a rampage! C'MON! That's a completely unsupportable defense. This is a VERY RICH GUY with all kinds of options. It was a cruel act, perpetrated by idiots. My Dad is a life-long hunter, and we owned a sporting goods store while I was growing up, and there was nothing "sporting" or justifiable about this action. My neighbor across the street makes me nuts- Social Security Disability recipient who pops a new baby every year with his mail-order wife, destroyed his property, ruining my property values, trash everwhere, very loud motorcycles and cars- he makes my life he!! and I plan on moving when my son graduates from high school next year- wait, maybe I don't have to- I'll get some "hunters" to "eliminate" them and then hire this lawyer to defend me! LOL! Oh, wait, again- I can't afford his lawyer- guess I'll just have to act like a law-abiding property owner and go through proper channels or move, like everybody else. Darn!
March 25, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
SaddleTramp writes:
MrCrush wrote:"It is amazing how much response a story about dead animals always gets. This culture gives more respect, time and attention to it's animals than other human beings."
Oh, I don't know. I think if 32+ human bodies were found on that ranch there might be a lot more responses. BTW, what are "other human beings"?????
March 25, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
MrCrush- I actually think it speaks well for people, especially in this country, that we find cruelty to animals abhorrant. It shows a depth of character that we are enraged by the abuse of the helpless creatures who are at our mercy. I don't think it lessens our caring about man's inhumanity to man- like SaddleTramp said, if it were PEOPLE on that ranch, can you imagine the horror?
March 25, 2008
5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
First of all this mr hawn has to obey the law just like everyone else.When you take the law into your own hands don't be surprised what becomes of it.If he was unhappy with the neighbors then use civil remediation to solve your problem.Also I grew up with cattle a majority of my life they do and will find a way to get out.Remember the bison was here long before the anglo-saxons arrived.To Mr Hawn please understand I have no sympathy for you.This is colorado and you can not impact a local community in a less then positive way and expect to make friends in that community.I understand youy were frustrated but remember that the legal system with its faults and flaws is there to handle sitations like this.Also this is not the old west of 100 years ago.Try to make your future iterpersonal relationships more positive in the future.You should feel ashamed at wasting god's animals in that manner.With all the people in this country who go to bed hungry,this was a truly disgusting act of gross misuse of nature's resources.Just because your from Texas don' act like the stereotype of the loud mouth gun toting bozo.So when you get arrested and prosecuted remember you should have obeyed the law.Also you robbed someone of their livelyhood I hope you plan on reimbursing them for their loss.If you find yoursef in a civil litigation good luck people are likely to have little sympathy for you in that case.
March 25, 2008
5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
MollysDad writes:
Oh let's crucify the Texans once again in the spirit of Easter.
A true story: I knew a rancher who lived next to a slaughter house. Occasionly one of the animals about to be slaughtered would sense what was about to happen and escape. These escaped animals, sometimes a cow or a pig, would venture onto this rancher's property. He would always call up the slaugter house and thank them for the newest edition to his freezer. I think it's a shame that in the case of these renegade buffalo that the meat was not put to better use, however; I must side with the rancher on this one. He tried using the proper legal channels, the authorities failed him. If you owned property out of state and the authorities were turning a blind eye to your property being destroyed what would you do? For those of you calling the shooting of buffalo animal abuse, go visit your local slaughter house. These buffalo in question had the opportunity of jumping back onto their property, unlike the cow that you just finished eating.
Another true story: I once owned a dog that ate my neighbors ducks, eventually this dog was taken to the local humane shelter because the neighbor said that if he saw my dog eat his ducks again he was going to shoot it. I didn't necessarily agreee with my neighbor as a child, but now I do after I have grown up. I see my neighbors right to protect what was his. Maybe that's what some of you need to do, take some time and grow up.
Colorado was once part of Texas. Pleae take the adequate time necessary to get over it. If you're not a Colorado native you can't complain about Texas or Texans. If you are a Colorado native, take some time to look at the census bureau and start judging people from other states as well. I for one am fed up with the blatant descrimination that takes place against Texas and Texans here and I will not tolerate it.
March 25, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
SaddleTramp writes:
A section of Colorado was once part of mexico, not texas.
March 25, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
"A section of Colorado was once part of mexico, not texas."
wrong. check your history books.
when texas became independant of Mexico they took that land with them.
part of colorado was, at one time, texas. like it or not.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/pi...
http://www.srttexas.org/Graphic/repub...
March 25, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
http://www.texancultures.utsa.edu/pub...
better map.
that said, molly'sdad... if so many texans didn't come to this state and act the fool, then maybe they wouldn't get such a bad rap.
lets face it, red mccombs is NOT a good person to have representing your state.
also, the part of colorado that most of us live in and enjoy was NOT part of texas. they can have take back pueblo for all i care.
summit county where these bison and this texan are, for example, was not part of teh republic of texas.
March 25, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
nimbusco writes:
I think the problem here is not that Mr. Hawn was a Texan, but that he was an absentee owner who apparently took matters into his own hands rather than working out the issues through the proper legal means.
This story only presents Hawn's lawyer's side of what happened. Did the bison owners really ignore Hawn's complaints about the roaming buffalo? Or did they undertake good-faith efforts to address his issues? Were the dung piles and such traceable to the bison? Or could they have been from some cows that wandered onto his land from another direction?
Since Colorado law does require at least a measure of "fence out", Hawn's position sounds difficult. It does sound like he should have paid some bison wranglers to collect the bison, then tried to charge the owners his costs. Instead, he apparently tried to make money by charging the hunters a fee to shoot the animals he knew were owned by a neighbor.
The law does seem to require landowners to at least show an effort at defending their property against animals, trespassers, etc. My (poorly educated) theory is that the English property law upon which our law is based assumed that a landowner was a powerful nobleman who would be expected to defend his land against other nobles. Even today, I think it is worthwhile to put at least some responsibility on landowners to protect their land. Isn't that the sort of self-reliance that is always preached in these parts?
March 25, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
This is hard. If a neighbors animals kept coming on to my property, despite my having a fence, and kept damaging it...even when I asked them to stop it...I might do what I had to to stop it as well. It's really up to the animal's owners to prevent this.
Also, why was Hawn required to have a fence? They weren't his animals. The people who owned the animals should be responsible for keeping them contained -- not the neighboring property owner. If my neighbor buys a couple of dogs, is it my responsibility to keep them off of my property or his? I didn't decide he should buy the dogs.
March 25, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
SaddleTramp writes:
ok mollysdad, I checked my history book and will grant you the fact that Colorado was briefly (14 years) a part of the Republic of texas.The key word here is WAS! There is a reason that texans have earned the dislike shown them by many Coloradans. Ask anyone that works in the tourist industry what their worst experiences dealing with people were. I think your own attitude exemplifies it:
" I for one am fed up with the blatant descrimination that takes place against Texas and Texans here and I will not tolerate it."
So what you gonna do, Tex, beat us all up?
March 25, 2008
7:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
"They are so dum as to just stand while being shot."
dumB.
March 25, 2008
7:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
MollysDad writes:
SaddleTramp,
No I'm not going to "beat you up". It seems that may be what you want. I have lived hear for over 13 years. The majority of you folks complaining about Texans are not Colorado natives. I have camped here every year since the age of 3. I am now 40. What if this person were from CA, or NY? I will point out every time you try and lump all Texans together as problem people. It may please you to know that I do not ski or snowboard. I am an avid hunter and a fisherman. I would also like to point out the fact that everytime you generalize all Texans. I will take the time to make you look stupid. It's not all that hard: "I checked my history book and will grant you the fact that Colorado was briefly (14 years) a part of the Republic of texas". This rancher was totally within his rights of protecting his property. It should also be noted that this state has it's fair share of idiots, for instance people who say that Colorado was never a part of Texas.
March 25, 2008
7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
MollysDad writes:
DenverB,
So Red McCombs is the only person from Texas?? Wrong again, he is one of many. Again you folks are taking an experience as a tourist guide or a bad experience buying a car to judge The State of Texas as a whole. Surely you can't be that ignorant?
March 25, 2008
7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
hikingartist writes:
MollysDad a Texan: let this be a stark reminder to parents everywhere about being an embarassment to your children.
March 25, 2008
8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
MollysDad writes:
hikingartist, are you from Colorado? Parents eveywhere let this person's comments be a reminder that it's real easy to make a defamatory commment on a blog without identifying your agenda. I have simply stated what I beleive to be true, so sorry I didn't quite match up with your Birkenstock view of the what is wrong or right. Pleae go back to painting pretty pictures.
March 25, 2008
8:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Jibbons -
YOUR focus is on property rights. Mine is on dead animals. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The reason this story went to print is b/c a pile of dead buffalo (or prairie dogs for that matter) is a compelling image.
Tearing down your neighbor's fence is also a property rights issue. But if that story got printed (which it won't) nobody would care at all. You wouldn't post on it and neither would I.
Don't try to tell me how to think! RU a democrat by chance?
March 25, 2008
10:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
SaddleTramp writes:
mollysdad,
I'm bred and born in Colorado,second generation. 60 years old.You seem pretty touchy about being a texan. Guess I'm not the first to get under your skin.If you're so proud of texas why don't you go back? And you are wrong. Here in rural Colorado, you build a substantial fence to keep livestock OUT. And Hawn is not a rancher. He's a land developer. A summer resident. And please forgive me for forgetting Colorado was once a part of texas. It's one of those things you try and put out of your mind.You know, like the time your best cow dog ran off with a coyote. BTW, I'm pretty impressed you've been camping here since you were 3. Must be one hellova camp site by now!
March 25, 2008
11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
roadstar writes:
Yes, Colorado is a fence-OUT state. Knowing that, if I were to put up a fence to keep out buffalo, I would certainly research what kind of fence would do that, for example, by checking out the fence used to contain the buffalo at Genesee. I would also regularly check the condition of my fence, knowing things like that often need repair and replacement, especially in an area such as South Park. Even considering complaints previously made, this man's actions were inexcusable, illegal, and unethical.
March 26, 2008
8 a.m.