Which school of thought do you fall into re: hunting w/o permission?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Vote in poll, please.


Schools of thoughts / Opinions:
A. You never, ever, under any circumstances, hunt on someone else's private land without permission, posted or not, fenced or not, period.

B. It's perfectly fine to hunt on someone's else's land without permission if they've done neither any fencing nor any posting; that's just how it works; if they don't want someone hunting on their land, then they need to fence it, or post it with signs every so many feet, or perhaps both. I will stay off if it has any sign telling me to stay off, *OR* if it has a fence with no signs.

C. Forget that - if it's not BOTH fenced & posted with signs, I'm going in.

D. If it's posted with signs, then you stay out, regardless of whether fenced or not. If it's not posted with signs, you can go in, regardless of whether fenced or not.

E. If it's fenced, then you stay out, regardless of whether posted with signs or not. If it's not fenced, then you can go in, regardless of whether fenced or not.


Personally, I subscribe to "B", but my buddy insists "A" is correct. I used to subsribe to "D" (my first year of hunting, when I did not know any better), but quickly decided that was wrong, and changed to "B". I think "C" and "E" are wrong, but I don't think my buddy is "right either", that "A" is more correct.

I think in the 'old days', most if not everyone subscribed to "D", and in some areas, that may be the going cultural norm. But as I say, I run with "B" now. Isn't "A" a bit too strict, though?

What do you say? Please remember, this question is NOT asking about legality. "D" is legal IINM, nearly everywhere, and "B" is legal almost everywhere, if not everywhere. This is a MORAL question only!

 

[ArmedBear]

It depends. Different states have different rules about, say, pheasant hunting in fields.

Idaho's rule is "posted, fenced, or under cultivation."

If land is unfenced, not being cultivated, not posted, etc., then is it my responsibility to figure out whose it is, when it's contiguous with public land, and unmarked? I don't even know there IS a boundary, to say nothing of what it might be.

That doesn't mean I want to trespass. It just means that, if I can't tell I'm trespassing, then I can't tell.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

AB, I edited my post just as you were posting to add this:

Please remember, this question is NOT asking about legality. "D" is legal IINM, nearly everywhere, and "B" is legal almost everywhere, if not everywhere. This is a MORAL question only!

And I'm also not talking about the situation you describe, where you're already ON land you own or have permission to hunt, and just don't know where the boundaries are.

I'm talking SOLELY about driving up to someone's land, unbenowst to them, and making a conscience decision to enter their land (whether you know who the landowner is or have ever met them is irrelevant to the question), and hunt without permission.

Again, I say, if it has EITHER a fence OR a sign, then I'm staying out - otherwise, it's game on.

Idaho's rule is "posted, fenced, or under cultivation."

Sounds like "my rule" jives with the legal rule in your state. Except for the under cultivation part.

 

[average_shooter]

Personally, I subscribe to "B"...It's perfectly fine to hunt on someone's else's land without permission if they've done neither any fencing nor any posting; that's just how it works; if they don't want someone hunting on their land, then they need to fence it, or post it with signs every so many feet, or perhaps both. I will stay off if it has any sign telling me to stay off, *OR* if it has a fence with no signs.

Try that on my land in Wisconsin and you'll be trespassing with a loaded firearm and I'll have lots to say about it. Fact of the matter is, state law varies.

As an example, in WI it is the HUNTER'S responsibility to know at all times where he is and who's land he is on. Plat books are available at county offices. Posting doesn't matter, you need to know where you are at all times and you are responsible. My family's property is posted, but it doesn't need to be, as trees fall down, signs rust away, and neighbors destroy signs trying to say, "well it wasn't posted, so I didn't do anything wrong."

The catch is, if you are on neighboring property and shoot an animal on that property and it runs into mine, you may track that animal into my property for retrieval. It is preferred that you inform the landowner if possible and unload firearms.

 

[schlockinz]

I've ended up on a neighbors place before due to poor fencing (ie there many old fences that are not boundaries in the woods, if you get turned around a little bit you might end up on the wrong side).

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Fact of the matter is, state law varies

Again, although interesting to note, I'm NOT asking about legalities (not asking about what the LAW IS). I'm asking about YOUR moral opinion of what the law SHOULD BE, if it were to comport you your morals/values. But I take it you voted "A", which is fine - you did vote, didn't you?

Try that on my land in Wisconsin and you'll be trespassing with a loaded firearm and I'll have lots to say about it.

And likely what you'll say is, "get off my land", at which point I will gladly do so. Otherwise, that'd be trespassing, both legally and morally. Until you "said something" as you say you would, then it's not, at least not as far as enforceable trespassing is concerned, and in my view, "moral trespassing". And I'd probably have a bow, not a firearm, anyway. Out of curiosity, your land is not fenced or posted?

Another thing: Obviously, I left off as a choice "School of Thought 'F' ", where you trespass even if both posted and fenced. Hopefully no one on here would do that.

 

[average_shooter]

Again, I say, if it has EITHER a fence OR a sign, then I'm staying out - otherwise, it's game on.

Seems very rude to me. If it isn't your property, and you don't have permission, and it isn't public land, then stay off or get permission. The last thing I want to do is run into some unknown person on my land with a weapon when I'm out walking in my woods.

EDIT:

Again, although interesting to note, I'm NOT asking about legalities (not asking about what the LAW IS). I'm asking about YOUR moral opinion of what the law SHOULD BE, if it were to comport you your morals/values.

I was writing my response while you were writing yours. The MORAL thing to do is, if it isn't yours then you have no right to it. If it's someone elses, they have complete rights to it.

 

[TXHORNS]

My family owns land in PA and TX. In TX I rarely hear of people hunting land without permission, posted or not. We have never had a problem with anyone hunting our land without permission in TX.

But in PA, I caught guys hunting on our posted property without permission and they acted like I was screwing up their hunt, which I was, by confronting them. After talking to locals it is very common to find some open land and just go hunt it. This completely blew my mind. I also noticed that people post no hunting signs all over their property to the point that it looks ridiculous.

Perhaps its a regional thing but I was taught that you DO NOT hunt land in TX without permission but apparantly those rules are different in other places.

Very interesting subject though. I think the way we do it down here is just fine for me and much safer.

 

[Flyboy]

Under what theory do you suppose you're entitled to go onto somebody else's private property without permission and make use of his land?

There are actually people who believe that's okay? Wow.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Yes, so far 42.86%.

After talking to locals it is very common to find some open land and just go hunt it.

ThisiswhatI'msayin - the morals vary by place to place and person to person - trying to figure out the prevailing morals....

But, I must say, I'm open to being convinced that I'm perhaps wrong, that "A" is the correct moral choice. That's part of why I'm asking.

 

[t george]

ill put A in the lead. There is no way I would ever hunt on another persons land with out thier concent. In my opinion if you like to hunt any private land with out permission your name needs to be on the deed. I hunt west texas and we have problems with uninvited people on our place ever year. Had to let the air out of a few tires last year and let the wardens pick them up right about dark.

t george

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Under what theory do you suppose you're entitled to go onto somebody else's private property without permission and make use of his land?

Well I could turn that around and ask "Under what theory are letting people know you don't want them on your land, if you're not going to bother to fence it or even put up a few signs?" Especially when a sign nailed on a tree is very very cheap & easy to do, relative to fencing.

I thank everyone for their votes. I would also like to ask:

"For those that voted 'A', would your answer be the SAME or DIFFERENT if it was unposted, un-fenced PUBLIC land - just unimproved unused land own by the federal, state, or city, government and no particular rules having been created by the gov't entity relating to the land?"

 

[AKElroy]

A. You never, ever, under any circumstances, hunt on someone else's private land without permission, posted or not, fenced or not, period.

Poaching is still an unofficial capital offense in South Texas. I would fully expect any would-be poachers on my property to know they would be added to the list of varments facing an open season.

If I have a deed, I do not need a fence or a sign. They can buy their own, or sign a lease.

 

[chas08]

I voted A. In Texas, all of the other options could get you killed. I have crossed fences in pursuit of wounded game. (not mine) But an agreement had previously been negotiated with the neighbors regarding such a scenario. Now with game cameras everywhere, it wouldn't be hard to be prosecuted for trespass.

 

[dakotasin]

if it isn't yours, stay off. period.

why should i have to go to the trouble and expense of putting signs up on my property for your benefit? stay off, or i'll pursue trespassing and poaching charges.

 

[average_shooter]

It's my property, I am not required to deface it with signage or fences if I don't want to.

I don't want fences hindering the animal traffic, I don't want to be nailing signs to trees I may be cutting down, and I don't want to be pounding in sign posts that will just need to come out again (and get pounded in again) when I go in to cut down the trees.

Again, as the hunter, it is YOUR responsibility to know where you are and who's property you are on at all times, law or not. If you can't afford a GPS then go to the county office and ask to see the plat book. Make copies if you have to. Carry them in your pocket in the field if you have to. But please, for safety and my peace of mind, stay off my property and that of people you don't know.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Well there ya go. Certainly one way to look at it. May have to change my view on this.....

 

[CoRoMo]

Hunters are not welcome to freely walk into our cornstalk fields to flush out pheasants or quail. They shouldn't set up down by our lake and shoot waterfowl, simply because the boundaries of the field are left open so that the tractor can easily make the u-turn at the end of each pass. That land is ours, and we hunt there. Therefore, I'm not going to hunt on anyone else's land without their permission. It's the golden rule IMO.

"For those that voted 'A', would your answer be the SAME or DIFFERENT if it was unposted, un-fenced PUBLIC land - just unimproved unused land own by the federal, state, or city, government and no particular rules having been created by the gov't entity relating to the land?"

As a member of the public, I give myself permission to hunt on the public's land.
If you'd like permission to hunt on the public land, I might take that under consideration.

 

[Kurt S.]

The Texan in me says "A", never on private land w/o express permission of the landowner no matter what.

Some of the Kentucky branch of my family will hunt on any land that is not surrounded by machine-gun towers manned 24/7 by brain eating zombies. I might have been along onest or twict but I disremember now.

 

[AKElroy]

Irresponsibility of a landowner has nothing to do with granting the moral right of someone to STEAL from them. According to the argument that a landowner must make some attempt at securing the property in order to prevent poaching, then a jewelry store is fair game if they fail to lock the door.

I have two leases, and I have paid a significant amount in both the lease itself and improvements & feed. How can anyone suggest anyone has the moral right to harvest game on that property when they made none of these same investments, and are in fact benefitting from those that did?

Beware the gamecam, potential poachers--I can run your plates.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Do you OWN the game if you don't have a high fence, in the same way that the jewelry store owner owns the jewelry? If the game spends half its time on your neighbors land, then how is it that YOU own the game?


If you don't OWN the game, then what exactly is being stolen? Just playing devil's advocate here.

Out of curiosity, is your lease fenced?

 

[CoRoMo]

In Colorado, yes. If I shoot an elk, and it escapes onto the nearby ranch, that animal is no longer mine to tag. I'd have to get permission from the land owner to retrieve it because it is now his. And he can say no.

From the DoW Big Game Hunting brochure:

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO:
12. It is against the law to pursue wounded wildlife that goes
on private property without first obtaining permission from the
landowner or person in charge of the property.

However, in the maize fields of Texas, I'm not sure if the same applies. If I shoot a pheasant, and it's able to glide over to the next field before it folds up and crashes, I think I'd be able to go pick it up.

 

[Balog]

Do you have signs posted in your backyard telling people they can't hold keggers there? I fail to see how the onus is on the landowner to tell people not to trespass, any more than it's their responsibility to let people know not to steal or vandalize their property.The only exception being good faith mistakes about boundaries.

Also, morality is a constant; societal attitudes towards it differ, but the underlying concepts are the same whether people choose to ignore them or not.

 

[SammyIamToday]

It should be on you to get permission. However, I live in an area, where it is almost always obvious that you've crossed property lines, so it's easy to do the groundwork ahead of time.

I can see out west how you might end up on someone's land and not know it and I think that would be rather understandable.

 

[ArmedBear]

(ie there many old fences that are not boundaries in the woods, if you get turned around a little bit you might end up on the wrong side).

Right.

There are many, many fences around here that mean nothing (they were just left there 50 years ago), and some that mean very little. Some public land is grazed, and fences may exist to keep herds separate, but they have no relevance to people using the land other than the ethic of "leave gates how you find them".

Also, Idaho has a LOT of public land. And people post their land if it can't be differentiated from public land. There are large areas where unmarked land generally IS public land, and landowners are aware of this.

If I'm somewhere that land is generally all private, I don't assume some unmarked parcel must be public. A F&G property or somesuch will be marked.