With all do respect, you didn’t answer the question.
It is already legal (in so much as it isn’t illegal) to corner cross at these fenced corners as is. So how does this bill increase the liability? Wouldn’t the landowner already have said liability?
Also, I am not a stranger to court process...
Glad to hear it.
How is that different than now? Corner crossing is not explicitly illegal currently, and is currently happening.
Again, this bill likely reduces liability to the landowner.
I meant that I don’t know of any sportsman groups that hazed/drove/pushed game for somebody.
I know several groups have done a bunch of access projects though.
I guess we disagree on this one.
In any case a whataboutism worry about liability is no reason to kill this bill. Landowners can take whatever steps they feel they need to within the law to reduce their liability.
I think this statute would reduce liability for landowners. It clarifies corner crossing and the rights and responsibilities for each party, which is currently ambiguous.
Of course, landowners worried about liability could voluntarily adjust their fence to allow easy passage. Land management...
4 13-21-133. Public land corners - exception in civil actions for
5 trespass. A COURT SHALL DISMISS A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE TORT OF
6 TRESPASS BASED ON ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 18-4-517 IF THE
7 DEFENDANT COMPLIED WITH SECTION 18-4-517. IF A CIVIL ACTION IS
8 DISMISSED BASED ON THIS SECTION...
I disagree on the successfully part, but as they say: you can sue a ham sandwich.
Disagree. Lots of private lease fences on public land that the public crosses. Not a plethora of lawsuits that I’m aware of.
Whoa man … no need to raise your voice …
[emoji6]
If you agree with all of those points, what are you arguing, exactly?
If the landowner’s can’t be liable by the law as written, why would they worry about being successfully sued?
It is a stretch. Nothing in the ADA in word or prior practice indicates that disabled persons are entitled to accommodations for every use, area, or scenario. Unfortunately, the reality is disabled persons can not do everything the able bodied can.
I do appreciate the accommodations they...
If corner crossing were explicitly legal, corner parcels would no longer be landlocked. Win/win.
The “intrusion” over private airspace is minimal, or maybe even comical.
High water mark/canoe ACCESS is awesome, and should be legal everywhere, as it is in MT.
Likely not in that particular way.
Kind of like how wheelchairs are the only wheeled vehicle not restricted from use in designated wilderness, but the ADA does not require wilderness trails accommodate wheelchairs.
EDIT: svivian and I were thinking alike…
All, let’s keep personal attacks and bickering out of It.
This is a pretty important topic to a lot of Roksliders that hunt Colorado, and could provide a model for other western states.
You guys are arguing over nothing.
The text of the bill only restricts building a fence more than 5 feet high within 4 feet of the corner.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023A/bills/2023a_1066_01.pdf
Excellent bill. I am going to send it to my reps in MT.