What are the rats going to do to his farm...? Educate me.

Teach the kids everybody doesn't get a trophy. SD has very favorable laws to a trapper, kids won't have a problem finding places to make a set. In this market I wouldn't pay so much to trap an exclusive spot except for the Horicon. I'd do it just for the experience. When rats were ten bucks I surely would have paid a trespass fee on the right location.



Ah crap, here I was going to raise my hand. Take me! Take me!

In the fall of 1963 my father in law and I leased a private duck marsh in NW iowa,,,gave 25% showed fur invoices at end of trapping,,,we took just under 2,000 rats got $1.10 nose count and buyer picked up every other day,,no commission paid on coon and mink,,,$1,500.00 in a week was pretty good money in 1963,,

I used to lease a swamp for $100 for the season,,and would always make at least $500 the first night on rats alone,,so let the nay sayers flap their gumbs.

It’s my understanding that the federal government and many states have some sort of recreational use statutes on the books to increase public recreation on private lands and minimize landowner liability so long as no money changes hands.

https://premisesliability.uslegal.com/recreational-use-statutes/

I bring this little nugget up when landowners voice liability concerns. Now granted, someone can bring on a lawsuit for anything it seems anymore, nevertheless, the law is still on the books.

I’m personally not going to pay for trapping rights as I just feel is starts a bad precedence. I’m fortunate to live in SD where there is no lack of public access opportunities. Having lived in other states it is disheartening at the pay to play atmosphere around hunting and for the younger and not so well off folks that can be a huge barrier to getting involved.

I respect private property rights but am opposed to the mindset of people thinking they own the wildlife. We are fortunate in this country that the wildlife are to be held in trust of the people as compared to the European outlook that the wildlife belong to the landowner.

Most likely a direct correlation between how most anti fur and anti hunting crowds get detached from these life styles.

That said it’s a free country and this scenario buys you the convenience to get out trapping, then have fun and get your money’s worth.

Thanks for the link Cody G. I hope you nail some nice pale heavies out there this season!!

Pennsylvania has a similar law, the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA) limits landowners' liability for personal injury and property damage if they make their land available to the public for recreation.

"On a different but perhaps indirectly related topic, anyone else ever have to fill out a liability waiver to hunt someone's land or been turned down to hunt because the landowner claimed he/she didn't want to deal with the liability issue?"

Be careful about signing those liability waivers. I just saw one from a deer outfitter that contained a promise to indemnify the outfitter for any claims resulting from the hunter's activities on the property. Do NOT sign a contract that contains the word INDEMNIFY without seeing your lawyer and insurance agent first. Why insurance agent? Because you'd be crazy to agree to indemnify someone without getting insurance to cover the promise. I don't even know if you can get such insurance in the hunting/trapping setting.

Suppose you're in an outfitter's tree blind, which hasn't been properly maintained. The supports fail, and you fall to your death. Your widow probably can't sue the outfitter because you signed a liability waiver that includes the outfitter's negligence. That's one thing.

But here's another: suppose you've agreed to indemnify the outfitter, and some trespasser comes along and shoots you out of a tree. Your widow sues the trespasser. Who then (90 percent probability) files a third-party claim against the outfitter, claiming he should have posted the property, shouldn't have put a tree blind where he did, or blah blah blah. In this circumstance, your indemnity promise means you have to pay for a lawyer to defend the outfitter and reimburse any costs or liability damages awarded against the outfitter. And this is why prudent parties insure when they indemnify.

If you don't have any assets of your own to protect--maybe you're a young adult--an indemnity agreement loses much of its sting.

Jim

Here is what the Ohio Div. of Wild requires....

Permission for Hunting or Trapping on Private Land

Permission is hereby granted to the undersigned sportsperson for hunting/trapping on land owned by the undersigned landowner or their agent for the date(s) listed and according to the conditions stated on the reverse side of this permit.
In accepting this permit, I agree to assume and release the landowner from any or all liability for personal injuries, property damage, or for the loss of life or property resulting from, or in any way connected with the issuance of this permit.


Garry-

Actor, that doesn't say "indemnify." It's a release of liability. It would take an Ohio lawyer to say whether, under Ohio law, it includes a release of the landowner's own negligence or intentional acts.

Jim

The original post and poster made the offer to offer some return value to the and owner. Many feel that was and is not the correct or profitable. Probably so but to me he made the offer and thus if he wants to trap those marshes he should follow through with an offer or say he won't trap the sloughs. Commodities, ie crops, timber, land rent etc. typically have low values such as say land rent for crop land at 3-5% of market value or in some cases $1-$1.50 per bushel of corn per acre etc. This fall SD rats may be worth $2 in the round and $3 put up so if you paid the land owner say 20% of the gross it would be 40 to 60 cents per rat. If you go with a set rate the land owner just takes some money. If you go with a percentage the land owner knows the price of the rats and the number. Lets say you trapped the two sloughs and caught 300 rats and sold them for $3 each or $900. If you paid the land owner 60 cents a rat he would get $180 of that $900. In either case you probably would not make any money. In the first case you would just lose less. How valuable to you is it to engage in the activity and be outdoors may be the major issue for this person. I personally have never paid for trapping rights and I also don't get paid to trap land either. I do have a couple that give me some gas money each year but that is not significant.

Again my post centers on the fact that an offer was made, now what should be done regarding that?

Bryce

That's a good point that seems to have been overlooked in the discussion, Bryce.

Jim