Miscellaneous Activity

[mike rossi]

1) B-ville woman to pay $200 for harassing Seneca River duck hunter (updated)

 

 http://saova.org  

EPA FINALIZES CLEAN WATER RULE
EPA and the U.S. Army finalized the Clean Water Rule May 27. In its ruling release, the EPA states the rule does not create any new permitting requirements for agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions.  According to EPA the rules will apply only to those waters with a "direct and significant" connection to larger bodies of water that are already protected. Critics of the rule argue that it will unduly expand federal influence. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said the EPA’s original proposal “dealt more with regulating land use” than water quality, and that the farm organization is still reviewing the final rule, particularly as it addresses streams, ditches, small ponds and isolated wetlands.   Congress is working on bills that will require EPA to withdraw the rule and to adhere to limiting principles that would ensure that any new proposal conforms to the jurisdictional limits set by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  See S 1140 Federal Water Quality Protection Act   http://tinyurl.com/q63cvnp and HR 1732 Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 http://tinyurl.com/p8w9jyx which passed the House and has been received in the Senate.

CONNECTICUT PASSES SUNDAY HUNTING BILL
On June 3, the Connecticut Senate approved legislation that would allow Sunday archery hunting for deer on private lands in the Constitution State. Championed throughout the process by the Connecticut Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, HB 6034 now heads to the Governor for his consideration.  The Sunday hunting ban in Connecticut originated from the American colonial era when puritanical “blue laws” were commonly enacted to encourage church attendance.  With the passage of HB 6034, Connecticut now joins the 45 other states throughout the nation that allow for Sunday hunting in some capacity.  Allowing Sunday hunting in Connecticut will fundamentally increase private property owners’ freedom to choose how to manage their land and its natural resources, and will provide an additional adaptive management tool for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to effectively manage wildlife resources within the state. Additionally, Sunday hunting will result in increased economic activity for the state and will increase access to the resource for Connecticut’s 21,000 archery hunters.  Source: Sportsmen’s Linkhttp://tinyurl.com/q93nnnj

NORTH CAROLINA PASSES PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT
NC House and Senate voted to override Governor Pat McCrory's veto of House Bill 405, a law that supporters say protects private property rights but opponents say suppresses whistleblowers. Nicknamed an "ag-gag" bill, animal rights groups claim the measure will hide animal cruelty by preventing undercover investigations. “The Property Protection Act, a result of careful bi-partisan negotiations, balances the rights of business owners with the rights of their employees to strengthen North Carolina trespass laws”, stated Representative John Szoka (R-Cumberland), primary bill sponsor. Szoka continued, “The bill protects property owners against those who gain access to non-public areas of the owner’s property and then engage in activities that go beyond the permission given by the owner. The bill is narrowly focused on illegal activities not on infringing on the liberties of whistleblowers or press.”  Bill Sponsor Senator Brent Jackson, a farmer representing Duplin County, says employees will not be liable for filming in areas where they are allowed to be. “This has to do with employees going to places they’re not allowed to go,” he said. “As long as they’re allowed to move in those facilities, they wouldn’t be liable.”

PENNSYLVANIA SENATE PASSES ONEROUS TETHER, SHELTER BILL
Senate Bill 373 to amend the state’s cruelty laws unanimously passed the Senate and will be sent to the House.  The bill prohibits a dog from being tethered outside if a severe weather alert has been issued; or for more than 30 minutes if the temperature is below 32 degrees. Compliance with this requirement would be impossible for those who work and are not home should temperatures or weather change during the day.  This would also have direct, negative impact on field trials and winter dog sports.  The bill also sets specific standards for shelter and bedding for dogs that are kept outdoors.  SB 373 requires dog housing to be moisture proof with a floor raised 3 inches from the ground, wind proof, and have an eight-inch overhanging roof to keep out rain. These requirements would force dog owners, breeders, and sportsmen who keep dogs outside in winter to virtually custom build new dog houses.  The bill includes size requirements for dog houses and prohibits certain types of bedding such as hay.

Current PA law already states that it is an offense “to deprive any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry”.  Look up SB 373 http://tinyurl.com/l3949q6 and contact your Representative now to oppose these burdensome and unnecessary regulation changes.  http://tinyurl.com/mtsxsgt

TENNESSEE ACTIVISTS COMPLAIN ABOUT NEW ABUSER REGISTRY
Animal advocates are unhappy with the new registry claiming it is not strong enough. The original bill would have placed everyone who committed abuse, including hoarders and those convicted of even misdemeanor violations, on the TN Bureau of Investigation online registry.  However, the bill was amended to only place felony convictions for animal cruelty on the registry.  Activists are already considering campaigning to elevate some animal cruelty violations to felony charges which would then allow those convicted to be placed on the registry.  Chattanooga Humane Educational Society Executive Director Bob Citrullo told reporters people who commit animal abuse progress onto other things like murders and serial killings.   In May TN lawmakers passed the first statewide abuser registry in history.  Should activists resurrect this issue, we can only hope this will be a lesson learned for lawmakers that zealots are never satisfied.

TEXAS LAWMAKERS PASS RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH AMENDMENT
Sportsmen’s groups are applauding members of the Texas state House and Senate for passing Senate Joint Resolution 22, a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in the state of Texas. Voters will have the opportunity to ratify the amendment on November 3, 2015.

“Adoption of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment will safeguard the hunters and anglers of Texas from extreme animal rights groups dedicated to abolishing America’s outdoor tradition,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This important constitutional safeguard will protect wildlife and promote conservation.”

Language for the amendment includes the following:
“The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.”

Nearly 3 million people spend more than $4 billion dollars a year on hunting and fishing in Texas. That translates into $415 million raised in state and local tax revenue. Passage of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment ensures that money, as well as the 65,000 hunting and fishing related jobs, will stay in Texas.  Source: NRA

A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
The message above was posted to North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA).

SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. Visit our website at http://saova.orgfor this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.

SAOVA
PO Box 612, Spencer NC 28159

 

5) North Carolina and Connecticut Pass Sunday Hunting, here is info on Connecticut:

 

CONNECTICUT PASSES SUNDAY HUNTING BILL
On June 3, the Connecticut Senate approved legislation that would allow Sunday archery hunting for deer on private lands in the Constitution State. Championed throughout the process by the Connecticut Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, HB 6034 now heads to the Governor for his consideration.  The Sunday hunting ban in Connecticut originated from the American colonial era when puritanical “blue laws” were commonly enacted to encourage church attendance.  With the passage of HB 6034, Connecticut now joins the 45 other states throughout the nation that allow for Sunday hunting in some capacity.  Allowing Sunday hunting in Connecticut will fundamentally increase private property owners’ freedom to choose how to manage their land and its natural resources, and will provide an additional adaptive management tool for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to effectively manage wildlife resources within the state. Additionally, Sunday hunting will result in increased economic activity for the state and will increase access to the resource for Connecticut’s 21,000 archery hunters.  Source: Sportsmen’s Linkhttp://tinyurl.com/q93nnnj

 

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by mike rossi

[growalot]

BTW have you been hearing the big campaign that human society has for land trusts....land trusts specifically to protect all wild life and have lands used  as preserves. So watch who you think your trusting when getting into these land trusts and read the fine print...

Edited June 8, 2015 by growalot

[mike rossi]

BTW have you been hearing the big campaign that human society has for land trusts....land trusts specifically to protect all wild life and have lands used  as preserves. So watch who you think your trusting when getting into these land trusts and read the fine print...

 

For years, the hunting community has taunted the HSUS about not conserving wildlife. Taunted one of the wealthiest organizations in the nation and they called the bluff and started buying land.

 

Land Trusts are a great thing, and just because the HSUS now has one, doesn't mean all are bad or it is a bad concept. Most of them allow hunting, at least deer hunting.... 

[The_Field_Ager]

House Bill Would Give Land Trusts Power Over Private Forestlands

 

 

 

Unsus­pect­ing prop­erty own­ers may find them­selves on the out­side look­ing in

A seem­ingly innocu­ous, bipar­ti­san House bill intro­duced in late March could sub­ject unsus­pect­ing landown­ers to the whims of power-hungry envi­ron­men­tal groups, eager to usurp the prop­erty rights of those who fall into their clutches.

At risk are own­ers of pri­vate forest­lands, who may soon dis­cover that they have effec­tively lost con­trol over prop­erty they thought was “theirs.”

 

 

http://agenda21news.com/2015/04/house-bill-would-give-land-trusts-power-over-private-forestlands/

 

[growalot]

I would never put my lands under the control of a land trust....I've dealt with them, read contracts, talked to their "appraisers"..I'm an eyes wide open type of person...

[Curmudgeon]

I would never put my lands under the control of a land trust....I've dealt with them, read contracts, talked to their "appraisers"..I'm an eyes wide open type of person...

 

I wouldn't either, however, what they do is really important. I've seen what some big rural land real estate companies do to farms. They break them up into what is just a large version of the suburban model. A conservation easement should prevent the subdivision of rural lands into those 10 and 20 acre lots. These subdivisions destroy contiguous forest/wildlife habitat, and also hunting access. Even if each of those lots doesn't have a camp or some other dwelling on it, try getting permission from a dozen land owners to continue hunting that place you used for years. I lost my best grouse cover to one of those subdivisions.

 

Around here, county level land trusts do not determine what restrictions are put in place. The land owner does that. It can be as simple or complex as you want.

 

When a not-for-profit I was on the board of sold a property given in a bequest, we allowed one subdivision of a limited size - which could be combined with one more residence on the 100 acre property. Any future timber sales required the use of a forester. The local county land trust received several thousand dollars from the sale to enforce the easement. It was simple and straightforward. It did not delay the sale of the property.

 

[growalot]

With a good lawyer one can do what they do and still maintain control of their lands....We did it with Deed restrictions...

[mike rossi]

I guess I dont know what land trusts are, I think I meant land conservancy. I dont know if the HSUS has a land trust per se or a conservancy. Interesting point raised by Growalot, but I am confused about how it applies to all that junk I posted, lol... ,

[jrm]

I wouldn't either, however, what they do is really important. I've seen what some big rural land real estate companies do to farms. They break them up into what is just a large version of the suburban model. A conservation easement should prevent the subdivision of rural lands into those 10 and 20 acre lots. These subdivisions destroy contiguous forest/wildlife habitat, and also hunting access. Even if each of those lots doesn't have a camp or some other dwelling on it, try getting permission from a dozen land owners to continue hunting that place you used for years. I lost my best grouse cover to one of those subdivisions.

 

Around here, county level land trusts do not determine what restrictions are put in place. The land owner does that. It can be as simple or complex as you want.

 

 

Funny - I purchased land from one of those sub-divisions. Large farm was sold off. Development company came in, subdivided into 20-30 acre lots and sold them individually. It really worked out well for me, but I can also see the points made above. FWIW, in approving the subdivision, the town and developer agreed to several deed restrictions designed to preserve the rural aspect of the area.

 

I am trying to wrap my head around the land trust concerns in this thread. Not sure I am getting it.

 

From the looks of it, the property owners already sold off certain rights to the land through a conservation easement. Some governmental entity now controls that easement. The concern is that the government is selling or giving the rights to control that easement to a third party. That third party can end up being an environmental group who then uses the easement to harass the property owner.

 

Is that the gist of it?

 

I guess the point I am missing is that the original owner should have realized they were signing away important rights. The governmental body controlling the easement today may have a very different agenda or plan a few years down the road. No guarantee that your current interpretation of the terms will be the same as anyone else's, now or in the future.

 

It's not like a group can come in and change the terms of the easement without all parties agreeing to it. Is  this simply a concern that a different enforcement body may interpret the terms in their own way?

[Curmudgeon]

I'm no expert but I know The Nature Conservancy buys land and protects it. It does this to protect unique ecosystems or endangered species. A local "conservancy" does the same. It owns a rare fen in my town, and the surrounding watershed.

 

Land trusts in Otsego, Chenango and Schoharie Counties own conservation easements which have been given to them by land owners. The terms of the easement is determined by the land owner who typically makes a donation for the long term monitoring and enforcement of the easement. This is done to protect the property in perpetuity in accordance with the wishes of the current owner. The land trust is actually the owner of the easement. It would seem impossible for the government to claim ownership of that private property without some form of eminent domain process. That is likely to happen - eminent domain - to the conservancy in my town if they put another high voltage line along the Marcy South corridor as is proposed.

 

The farm that was subdivided next door to me - not my former favorite grouse cover - had conditions put in each deed stating that no further subdivision could be done. This is meaningless because there is no entity to enforce that condition. No one has standing to stop it. In jrm's case above, the town would seem to have enforcement power.

 

I shouldn't say I wouldn't give the land trust a conservation easement on our property. I should say I haven't so far. I want to keep my options open as there are some vague plans for the future.

 

Growalot - You put in deed restrictions. Once you are gone, who enforces them?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Curmudgeon

[jjb4900]

I have to give NYC credit for all the land that they have been buying up around the watersheds and opening it up to the public......for all the crap they get for other things, I see this as a good thing on their part. I do know it doesn't sit well with people in the real estate business because it's land that is taken off the market forever and cuts into their business......but either way it's a government entity doing something good for sportsman for a change.

[jrm]

The farm that was subdivided next door to me - not my former favorite grouse cover - had conditions put in each deed stating that no further subdivision could be done. This is meaningless because there is no entity to enforce that condition. No one has standing to stop it. In jrm's case above, the town would seem to have enforcement power.

 

My situation was explained to me differently.

 

My subdivision has a similar deed restriction - lots may not be further subdivided. This was supposedly a condition (one of them) the town imposed for approving the subdivision.

 

I guess the town has the power to enforce this as they would simply not grant a further subdivision. Same for other restrictions such as the inability to build more that one home on a lot (they simply don't issue the permit).

 

However, my lawyer explained that this is not really "enforcement" per se. You are correct in that there is no "entity" to enforce this or other deed restrictions. The town could technically grant an additional sub-division or allow a second home to be built.

 

It was explained to me that the only people with "standing" to enforce my restrictions are other property owners in the same sub-division. (i.e. those with the same deed restrictions in this sub-division).

 

I have a neighbor (outside my subdivision) who bought his land with a "no hunting" deed restriction. From what I have been told, the only person who can call for enforcement of that is the person down the road who sold him that land. Not that I would try to stop him, but I couldn't if I wanted because I have no "standing." 

 

One deed restrictions in my sub-division is that no "single wide" trailer homes are permitted. I know of one parcel where a person has set up a trailer on his property. He is not only breaking the rules, but paying lower taxes (unimproved land) and avoiding the necessity of town and DEP permits. The problem is, most of the other owners are "absentee" landowners who never visit their property. I'm the only one who can drop a dime on him. Even at that, I may have to get a lawyer involved if the town deems it a civil matter.

 

I have "heard" that if a violated deed restriction goes unchallenged for a certain period of time, it become unenforceable. I don't want to be that "pain in the butt" neighbor, but I also don't want to allow this guy to set a precedent. I am not usually a fan of deed restrictions, but I bought this land because I _liked_ the ones that were in place. It's cost me a fortune to build by the rules, and it irks me to see others ignoring them.

 

 

The way it was explained to me... you have no standing to complain if the properties next to you were sub-divided again. Only the owners of parcels in that sub-division would have a say. If someone came along and bought all of those parcels, they could apply to change the entire subdivision without any potential opposition. The town may not allow it, but it would not be based on the deed restriction.

 

Confusing stuff.

 

I guess the "advantage" of a Nature Conservancy is that it is an entity which outlives the participants. This keeps an interested party around much longer to enforce the agreement.

[jrm]

I have to give NYC credit for all the land that they have been buying up around the watersheds and opening it up to the public......for all the crap they get for other things, I see this as a good thing on their part. I do know it doesn't sit well with people in the real estate business because it's land that is taken off the market forever and cuts into their business......but either way it's a government entity doing something good for sportsman for a change.

 

I'm not sure that's why folks in the watershed have a problem with NYC/DEP. One view is that anyone buying land in some areas is a good thing. Also, the less available land on the market, the higher price.

 

The resentment I see is the DEP coming in with some over the top - and expensive - demands. They can be very pushy and definitely don't want anyone building anything. I was talking to someone who purchased two adjacent parcels near me - about 80 acres total. DEP told them they were not permitted to build anything on one of those parcels (completely untrue). They also directed them to a very specific place on the other parcel where they could build and gave them guidelines on how big a structure was allowed. More BS. Of course, if they didn't comply with DEP demands, DEP would not sign off on the necessary septic system plan.

 

I played that game with DEP. They held up my project for over a year. The only way I was able to build anything is because I hired a VERY expensive lawyer to fight them (and make DEP pay all my legal bills). I can see the benefit of keeping water clean, but DEP/NYC is a bully.

[Curmudgeon]

It was explained to me that the only people with "standing" to enforce my restrictions are other property owners in the same sub-division. (i.e. those with the same deed restrictions in this sub-division).

 

 

This may be true here too but the owners don't seem aware of it.

 

[jjb4900]

I'm not sure that's why folks in the watershed have a problem with NYC/DEP. One view is that anyone buying land in some areas is a good thing. Also, the less available land on the market, the higher price.

 

The resentment I see is the DEP coming in with some over the top - and expensive - demands. They can be very pushy and definitely don't want anyone building anything. I was talking to someone who purchased two adjacent parcels near me - about 80 acres total. DEP told them they were not permitted to build anything on one of those parcels (completely untrue). They also directed them to a very specific place on the other parcel where they could build and gave them guidelines on how big a structure was allowed. More BS. Of course, if they didn't comply with DEP demands, DEP would not sign off on the necessary septic system plan.

 

I played that game with DEP. They held up my project for over a year. The only way I was able to build anything is because I hired a VERY expensive lawyer to fight them (and make DEP pay all my legal bills). I can see the benefit of keeping water clean, but DEP/NYC is a bully.

that's just a small portion of why some people are not happy, at least the real estate company's...........from what I've heard, they move in and grab up land that has been on the market for awhile and the people who are sick of trying to sell jump at their offers, thus taking a bite out of their business, but either way I'm happy with all the land that has opened up.

[growalot]

Interesting point raised by Growalot, but I am confused about how it applies to all that junk I posted, lol... ,

 

 

 

 

Miscellaneous Activity

 

[growalot]

 

Growalot - You put in deed restrictions. Once you are gone, who enforces them?

 

Being fairly young we have many years...and we have children then grand children ...but all of these things are listed in a rather good sized file in the Towns tax assessors office and the zoning office. Having in place a letter stating that even in the event of our death or the sale of the properties in question.  Should the Town try to supersede any deed restrictions through rezoning a suit will be filed on our behalf.  That document will travel with the deed...Yes, in order to keep compliance law suits down the road may have to happen...Certain documents help to fend off changing things but one also needs to look farther down the road and make those plans if they are serious about what they want...we have for at the least a 100 yrs. Here is an article  that may help you understand...it is in response to a town rezoning a garage on a deed restriction.

 

Your question though is whether your neighbor in fact is correct that the zoning action, whatever it was, supersedes your subdivision deed restrictions. Almost everywhere and almost always, real estate covenants simply add another layer of regulation to what a government provides.

So that's good news for your point of view, because even though the government might say using the garage as an apartment is a permitted use, your covenants 2 and 3 say no, only one family on this property.

This is a situation just like when your municipal codes might be completely silent about where you can put your American flag, your mailbox, and your satellite dish, but your covenants are very specific about these matters. Then your covenants rule.

Now, how are covenants enforced? Only one way usually--by going to court. Your particular association might have the ability to levy fines or mete out some other undesirable minor punishment, but covenants themselves are enforced only in court.

 

 

 

[mike rossi]

 I now consider my penance for diverting others threads served, I am a free man now, guilt free.... 

[growalot]

That was not my intent...I read your post and thought mine was relevant to the types of things you listed in that post....