Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bigbluepirahna

Fence and Right-of-Way

7 posts in this topic

Looking for expert advice. Our neighbors cows are getting into our deer hunting land and eating our food plots. Is he required to keep them fenced in? He has an electric fence but it's down all over. Are we required to pay half if we're the ones requesting it? The cows are also walking on our right of way trail and wearing it down to mud and ruts. Is he required to maintain it then or are we?

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the cows entering onto your property? If so, then he should be liable for damage. It is the responsibility of livestock owners to control their animals.

We own horses. If they get out onto the road and someone hits them with a car we are held liable. If they take a hike to the neighbor's and do damage, we are the liable party. That's why we carry liability insurance on our horses.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fence law is strange beast in Minnesota! Briefly stated, there is state law dealing specifically with the erection and maintenance of fences between adjoining parcels. Partition fences MAY be assessed against both landowners, regardless of whose livestock are going where.

Here is a link to the statute dealing with fences.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=344

Fence disputes can get pretty nasty, and a few have found their way into the courthouse. Without getting too technical, there are some unsettled questions regarding the Constitution and Minnesota fence law.

If you decide to pursue fence options, you want to find yourself a competent attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you gone over and talked to him about the problem yet? That would be my first step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MMMMM!!!! Beef!! Can you say a freezer full of steaks, hamburger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will sound like the state record buck walking in on opening morning!

We did call him to talk it though, but he was less than polite. We need to rules on fences and right-of-ways before we talk about it more with him.

We definitely want to be neighborly, but also don't want to be taken advantage of.

Thanks for any help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did google on minnesota cattle trespassing and found this

561.07 ANIMALS MAY BE IMPOUNDED.

Any person may, and every sheriff and police officer shall, distrain and impound any cattle,

horses, mules, sheep, swine, or any domestic fowls running at large or trespassing upon the lands

of another or upon any public property in this state, and when so impounded such proceedings

shall be had relative to the animals and fowls so impounded as are or shall be provided by the

general laws of this state relating to the impounding of animals.

History: (1388) 1921 c 319 s 3; 1967 c 516 s 1; 2005 c 10 art 2 s 4

561.08 OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY DISTRAIN.

The owner or occupant of lands in any city may distrain any of such animals or fowls

doing damage on such lands, and thereupon such proceedings as to these animals or fowls and

the disposition thereof and the damage done thereby as are or shall be provided by the general

laws of this state relating to the distraining by the owner or occupant of lands, of any beast

doing damage thereon, the disposition of the beast distrained, and the appraisal of the damages,

and the collection thereof.

History: (1389) 1921 c 319 s 4; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7

561.09 OWNER OF ANIMALS LIABLE FOR TRESPASS.

In case the owner or occupant of lands shall not distrain the animals or fowls doing damage

as provided herein, then any person who shall knowingly permit the running at large or trespass

of any such domestic animal or fowl within any city, shall be liable to the person aggrieved for

treble the damages sustained, to be recovered in a civil action.

History: (1390) 1921 c 319 s 5; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444

I looked up "distrain" cuz that was a new one to me.

1. To seize and hold (property) to compel payment or reparation, as of debts.

2. To seize the property of (a person) in order to compel payment of debts; distress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • And if the leftists get lucky at the convention?     You aren't against human rights, like income, health care, equality, LBGTQ rights, and stuff like that, right?  
    • You scale them, no?
    •   So, why bother with locks?  Honest people won't take your stuff even if the door is unlocked.   I am in the camp that I want to make it at least a little difficult for the crooks.   Especially since three people in our family have had their houses burgled and stuff taken.
    • The result right now is not good. One way or the other the toilet needs flushing
    • Mostly I talk about this with respect to the nonsense about multiple parties or no parties some on here seem so fond of.      It is all a fantasy.   Some new party could possibly take over an existing party, like Trumpism did, or even replace it like happened back in the day but in the end there will be two parties.     Perhaps a parlimentary system with multiple parties would be better than what we have, but, in my opinion, you can't get there from here.  It's like the calls for a Constitutional Convention.   Do you guys seriously think that could happen, and that the result would be good?  
    • I haven't gone up the old Grade, but do head to Outing via Emily and NE from there, and it is really nice. Hardly any roads to go across and little to no ditch riding. I have got to try the Old Grade, as I would think it is like that. We grouse and duck hunt up there now and then, but haven't lately. Great place with lots of public land and opportunity.
    •   But yet I countered with an actual study but you think your own speculative based opinion is better. OK then.     How very hypocritical.      I would end the discussion after that last statement too.
    •     I can guess it is not for humanitarian reasons.   Mexico has about had their fill of fighting the drug war for us, and are moving towards decriminalization.  If California legalizes weed, this would be enough to tip the scales in favor of decriminalization for Mexico.       For years now, Mexico has paid an extraordinarily high price in lives and social disruption for Washington’s insistence that North America’s drug problem be tackled south of the border, where the drugs are grown and transported, rather than primarily in clinics and halfway houses at home to treat the medical and psychological issues of users. Mexican President Pena Nieto.   Successive administrations, starting with President Nixon, have demanded ever-tougher border controls, aerial-spraying programs, and DEA-backed anti-“cartel” operations in Mexico. All those efforts and sacrifices have been for naught. U.S. residents currently export up to $29 billion in cash to Mexican traffickers each year to buy marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin.   Forcing that trade underground has taken a terrible toll on Mexico in terms of violence, corruption and social upheaval. Since 2006, when President Felipe Calderón ordered his military to join the “war” on drug traffickers, Mexico has lost about 200,000 lives and 30,000 more have disappeared,dwarfing the civilian death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq over that period.   The majority of those killed and disappeared were victims of criminal organizations, but human rights organizations also report soaring rates of human rights violations, including torture and killing, committed by security forces.   The 2016 Global Peace Index, prepared by the Institute for Economics and Peace, estimates the total cost of violence in Mexico at $273 billion, or 14 percent of GDP, with no end in sight. Direct fiscal costs of fighting the war on crime were about $32 billion in 2015 alone. Yet the United States has contributed only about $2.5 billion since fiscal 2008 to Mexico’s drug war, under the so-called “Merida Initiative.” Mexico’s pain shows no signs of easing. The New York Times reported in December that Mexico suffered more than 17,000 homicides in the first 10 months of last year, the highest total since 2012. “The relapse in security has unnerved Mexico and led many to wonder whether the country is on the brink of a bloody, all-out war between criminal groups,” it said.    
    •   But In Del's defense, he only does this on things he would like to stay as is. When you are talking about legislation he is in favor of then it is the law of the land and can't be changed. When it is something that he dislikes, it can and should be changed.
  • Our Sponsors