With public land in short supply, hunting leases are becoming
more common every year. Good business practices suggest all types of hunting or
recreational leases should be in writing and signed by both parties.
A well written lease helps avoid misunderstandings. The
agreement should outline the rules of the lease and help protect the interest of
both the landowner and the hunters.
You should consider some of the following points when drafting
an agreement:
Description of the land, including a map
Terms of payment, including quality of habitat and hunting
experience,
number of people involved in the lease, rights, service and
facilities being leased and type of game
Duration of lease
Vehicle use (off/on road, ATV, truck and/or trailer)
Fences and other enclosures
Dogs and use of kennels
Habitat development, trees stands and camp facilities
- Establish and maintain
- Where place
- Use of utilities
Liability – responsibility for damages
Manage risk – minimize the threat of injury to third parties
(remove hazards) and insurance coverage
Misc. - littering, alcoholic beverages, camp fires and guest
privileges
It is suggested a written lease agreement be reviewed by an
attorney.
The
KFB Legal Foundation is working with
County Farm Bureaus to
engage their locally elected government bodies to keep a
key farming tool in the toolbox.
A group
of Texas trial lawyers are making the rounds to
local governments in Kansas, shopping participation
in a class action lawsuit that would essentially
halt the use of atrazine, commonly used on corn,
grain sorghum, sugar cane and residential lawns.
The
lawsuit is based on the notion that acceptable
levels of the atrazine in drinking water are not
adequate. This contention flies in the face of
extensive science-based research and subsequent
regulation from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
The
consensus from the scientific and the government
regulatory community in the U.S. is that atrazine is
safe at the limits established by the EPA.
For
no-till systems, atrazine is one of the most widely
used and effective herbicides. No-till farming keeps
the soil in place, increases water infiltration and
improves soil quality. Loss of atrazine as a tool in
no-till farming would be a step backwards for
efficient and safe crop production in an
environmentally conscious manner. KFB Legal
Foundation Director Mike Irvin has some tools and
advice for County FBs. Contact him at irvinm@kfb.org
or 785/587-6621.
County
Farm Bureau organizations to engage with their
locally-elected local government bodies to keep a key
farming tool in the toolbox.
A group
of Texas trial lawyers is making the rounds to local
governments in Kansas , shopping participation in a
class action lawsuit that would essentially halt the use
of atrazine, commonly used on corn, grain sorghum, sugar
cane and residential lawns.
The
lawsuit is based on the notion that acceptable levels
of atrazine in drinking water are not adequate. This
contention flies in the face of extensive science-based
research and subsequent regulation from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
The
consensus from the scientific and the government
regulatory community in the U.S. is that atrazine is
safe at the limits established by the EPA.
For
no-till systems, atrazine is one of the most widely used
and effective herbicides. No-till farming keeps the soil
in place, increases water infiltration and improves soil
quality. Loss of atrazine as a tool in no-till farming
would be a step backwards for efficient and safe crop
production in an environmentally-conscious manner.
KFB
Legal Foundation Director Mike Irvin has some tools and
advice for County FB’s. Contact him at
irvinm@kfb.org or 785/587-6621.
AFBF files motion to intervene on prairie dog lawsuit
Last February, the Forrest Guardians and other environmental activist groups
filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Interior’s 2004 decision not
to list the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as “threatened.” This suit contends U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) should have placed the prairie dog under the
protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The suit was filed in the U.S.
Federal District Court in Denver, Colo. seeking an order for the USFWS to take
action to protect this species.
In
August 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the Black-tailed
prairie dog was not likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future and did not meet the ESA definition of “threatened.”
Consequently, the Black-tailed prairie dog was removed as a candidate for
listing under the ESA.
The historic range of the Black-tailed prairie dog included parts of 11 states,
Canada and Mexico. Today the species are present in 10 states including Kansas.
In 2004, the USFWS estimated the range of the prairie dogs occupied habitat to
be 1,842,000 acres.
At
the urging of Kansas Farm Bureau and other state Farm Bureaus, the American Farm
Bureau Federation filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit. AFBF will support
the government’s decision not to list the Black-tailed prairie dog as a
threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
Below are Court rulings that could impact farmers
and ranchers of this state.
David et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of
Norton County, Kansas
Background:
Operators of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), who held state permits
allowing expansion of their CAFOs, brought action challenging county board of
commissioners' use of home rule power to pass ordinary resolution that regulated
CAFOs. The District Court, Norton County, Michael A. Barbara, Senior Judge,
ruled that the resolution exceeded the county’s home rule authority. County
appealed.
Holdings:
The Supreme Court, Beier, J., held that:
(1) resolution was invalid
attempt by county to exempt itself from, or effect change in, state statutory
provisions;
(2) resolution was invalid
attempt to prohibit what state law permitted; and
(3) exercise of police
power was not justification for resolution.
KFB Legal Foundation
participated in this case as an Amici (Friend of the Court)
