Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: Did anyone else get this email from DNR

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkleberry Ridge Runner View Post
    They carry insurance.
    That is nice. How does that work when Pine Island trips over an underwater stump on your land, shoots your child in the back, then sues you and your LLC for mental distress over tripping over your unknown hazardous stump and shooting a kid?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    York Co
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    fuck pine island! and lawyers for that matter... inherited risk of going hunting with a gun. the world is f'd

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    I could sell that stump and move some yankees in.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manning, SC
    Posts
    10,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drwilly View Post
    oh its for the children, I stand corrected. politicians and ex bureaucrats are always looking out for the little man. more govt involvement is always the solution.

    my conclusions didn't change.
    Congrats I guess.

    You know you don't have to participate, right?

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    2,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uga_dawg View Post
    Congrats I guess.

    You know you don't have to participate, right?

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
    seriously? That’s your take? If you believe something is flawed, misguided, or outright bad you really believe just don’t participate is the answer? Not sure why u r defending it based on a pr video meant to sway ignorant sheep. Whether I choose to participate is irrelevant. Calling it like I see it even after watching the informative video. What u call jumping to conclusions. If it’s such a great idea why not altruistic private land owners just do it themselves and leave the government out of it? Chew on it. I’ll wait so you don’t jump to any conclusions.
    "Check your premise." Dr. Hugh Akston

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinghagen#12 View Post
    I know the ED
    Lord, please don't refer to Ed as "the ED", his head is big enough already.



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    6,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wob View Post
    Lord, please don't refer to Ed as "the ED", his head is big enough already.


    I caught that after I posted it. ED was supposed to = executive director.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ballard's Landing
    Posts
    15,424

    Default

    Be proactive about improving public waterfowl habitat in South Carolina. It's not going to happen by itself, and our help is needed. We have the potential to winter thousands of waterfowl on public grounds if we fight for it.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manning, SC
    Posts
    10,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drwilly View Post
    seriously? That’s your take? If you believe something is flawed, misguided, or outright bad you really believe just don’t participate is the answer? Not sure why u r defending it based on a pr video meant to sway ignorant sheep. Whether I choose to participate is irrelevant. Calling it like I see it even after watching the informative video. What u call jumping to conclusions. If it’s such a great idea why not altruistic private land owners just do it themselves and leave the government out of it? Chew on it. I’ll wait so you don’t jump to any conclusions.
    I haven't defended it or bashed it. I don't know the details on it. Doesn't sound like you do either. If you do then share them.

    There are plenty of things that government does that bother me. Getting upset about an arrangement to use private land for quota hunts doesn't make the list. At least not yet.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sparkleberry Swamp
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    That is nice. How does that work when Pine Island trips over an underwater stump on your land, shoots your child in the back, then sues you and your LLC for mental distress over tripping over your unknown hazardous stump and shooting a kid?
    First off, you would like to think that the landowner carries proper insurance (unfortunately many do not) that would include coverage for described incident. Secondly, the landowner should require to be named as an additional insured on the SCWP policy. Will they, who knows? Would I personally open my land up for this? Possible depending on the circumstances. I would be more inclined to help kids who didn't get drawn than I would adults. And my kid would NOT be there so the above described couldn't happen as described. Very picky who my kids hunt with.
    Last edited by Sparkleberry Ridge Runner; 08-02-2019 at 11:20 AM. Reason: addition
    Become one with nature then marinate it.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Charleston
    Posts
    2,619

    Default

    It may be that SCWP is technically a state agent which would kick in coverage through the Insurance Reserve Fund.
    DILLIGAF

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    pawleys island
    Posts
    316

    Default

    SECTION 27-3-30. Duty of care.

    Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Section 27-3-60, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by persons who have sought and obtained his permission to use it for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to such persons entering for such purposes.

    HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 51-83; 1968 (55) 3047.

    SECTION 27-3-40. Effect of permission to use property for recreational purposes.

    Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Section 27-3-60, an owner of land who permits without charge any person having sought such permission to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby:

    (a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose.

    (b) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.

    (c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission of such persons.

    HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 51-84; 1968 (55) 3047.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Clarendon County
    Posts
    8,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wob View Post
    Lord, please don't refer to Ed as "the ED", his head is big enough already.


    I missed that but the irony is hilarious.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GRW View Post
    SECTION 27-3-30. Duty of care.

    Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Section 27-3-60, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by persons who have sought and obtained his permission to use it for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to such persons entering for such purposes.

    HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 51-83; 1968 (55) 3047.

    SECTION 27-3-40. Effect of permission to use property for recreational purposes.

    Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Section 27-3-60, an owner of land who permits without charge any person having sought such permission to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby:

    (a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose.

    (b) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.

    (c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission of such persons.

    HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 51-84; 1968 (55) 3047.
    Useful information and I thank you for it.

    Wouldn't a swimming pool qualify? I have seen people since 1968 sue and win judgement against homeowners when their drunken kid jumped off a roof, into a pool, and suffered paralysis from spinal injury.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Atlantic Flyway
    Posts
    3,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willyworm View Post
    Figured Super Dave was gonna get in on it. Wonder if he'll spoil the bushel.
    Whom do you speak of?
    "Pass it on in the name of Conservation"-Tracy Byrd

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Scumter
    Posts
    21,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dcmbsc View Post
    Whom do you speak of?
    That would be super Dave Weilecki. Aka the tamie godfather.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!

    "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
    -L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Spellcheck sighting
    "To the sensitive gunner nothing can equal a bird and a dog and a gun in trilogy."
    George Bird Evans

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Atlantic Flyway
    Posts
    3,384

    Default

    You may be seeing more of me.
    "Pass it on in the name of Conservation"-Tracy Byrd

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dcmbsc View Post
    You may be seeing more of me.
    Let’s hope so.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sullivan\'s Island
    Posts
    12,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Useful information and I thank you for it.

    Wouldn't a swimming pool qualify? I have seen people since 1968 sue and win judgement against homeowners when their drunken kid jumped off a roof, into a pool, and suffered paralysis from spinal injury.
    I've heard stories too that pools could be considered an "attractive nuisance" but I can't say whether any of those cases were after this law was passed. I wonder if it has changed. Any of the lawyers or insurance guys know that answer?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •