Hunting 'Unposted' Private Land

[Trip McNeely]

There are plenty of places that make custom signs. How about "No Trespassing. Call landowner for game retrieval, don’t touch my fucking corn”

Fixed it for ya

 

[Weaver]

Those were my thoughts. Ive never had to enter private land to retrieve a deer. From the direction this thread is going one of two things is happening here. 1) you are dealing with some nefarious and poor excuses for hunters who are overall shitty people or have an isolated area with a few bad actors that is not representative to the entire state. Or…..2) you are sent here to cause division and plant a seed for upcoming legislation by a group or faction pushing an agenda. Which in and of itself is quite nefarious. You keep calling hunters “a special interest group” Ive never once heard individuals who engage in hunting call themselves that, nor reference other hunters that way…. Something’s stinky over here…..

Again I work or represent no group or faction except landowners in general. I am simply stating the existing law has stripped landowners of the ability to limit others to his property and the criminal element has found a way to exploit it to the landowners detriment.
Hunters have been given special consideration to trespass private property by the State. What other group of hobbyist/clubs/etc. do you know of that has been given that power? Hence special interest group . Look up the definition and get back to me.

 

[bravo]

I am a landowner and you do not represent anybody but yourself. How about we make the law solve exactly what your problem is. No HUNTING on posted land.

Wait. That’s already the law. You just don’t want anyone near your land at all which, I’m sorry, isn’t covered by your “landowner rights”. Nor does a legal hunter retrieving legal game violate your rights. They have rights too. If this isn’t Mary tell her hi at the next meeting!

 

[Weaver]

It’s your right to call the warden or sheriff if someone is loitering and continuing to hunt after retrieving game. Another law just means more government. If you want to secede from the union and have your own isolated enclave good luck. Until then you live in a 1st world nation with regulations.

That “loophole” gives hunters maybe not the right, but the ability to retrieve their legal game. You want to take ability away.

Almost all states retain that right to landowners. I want hunters to be able to retrieve legal harvests but with permission from land owner , not government seizure ( force)

 

[Rowdie]

No Amending existing one to require landowner permission not government position. Return property rights to the landowners. We have too much big government in our lives already.

We get that you want someone to ask even if they were legal when shooting the deer. So if the deer is dead and legally harvested, it's the hunters property at that point. So it's the same as going to get your cattle that got out at that point.

 

[Weaver]

I am a landowner and you do not represent anybody but yourself. How about we make the law solve exactly what your problem is. No HUNTING on posted land.

Wait. That’s already the law. You just don’t want anyone near your land at all which, I’m sorry, isn’t covered by your “landowner rights”. Nor does a legal hunter retrieving legal game violate your rights. They have rights too. If this isn’t Mary tell her hi at the next meeting!

wrong again. I have several parties I personally invite to hunt my properties. I just don't want the uninvited showing up with a pseudo story to access

 

[Weaver]

I am a landowner and you do not represent anybody but yourself. How about we make the law solve exactly what your problem is. No HUNTING on posted land.

Wait. That’s already the law. You just don’t want anyone near your land at all which, I’m sorry, isn’t covered by your “landowner rights”. Nor does a legal hunter retrieving legal game violate your rights. They have rights too. If this isn’t Mary tell her hi at the next meeting!

So whose "rights" as you call them are more important?

 

[bravo]

The property owner’s. The hunter gets his property, and the land owner is unscathed. The land owner at this point has no right to deny access. The hunter has no right to do anything but get his quarry. If the hunter retrieves his deer and decides to shoot pheasants on his way out (which probably never, ever happens) then the hunter broke the law and should be dealt with accordingly

 

[bravo]

Almost all states retain that right to landowners. I want hunters to be able to retrieve legal harvests but with permission from land owner , not government seizure ( force)

Good for them. Last time we followed suit we screwed up ND’s greatest tradition and screwed almost all hunters over 65 without smart phones out of their lifestyle. Lots of states vote progressive, do we follow them too?

 

[bravo]

So whose "rights" as you call them are more important?

I answered, so now let’s hear your stance.

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

It is a law that you CANNOT have your firearm when retrieving your game on posted land. Going in with a firearm I think should be a massive mandatory fine at the least.

 

[Weaver]

We get that you want someone to ask even if they were legal when shooting the deer. So if the deer is dead and legally harvested, it's the hunters property at that point. So it's the same as going to get your cattle that got out at that point.

I believe cattle owner can be charged with animal trespass and required to pay for any damages incurred by neighbor.

 

[Weaver]

I answered, so now let’s hear your stance.

How about I say both are equally important. Of course I agree legal harvest has right of recovery It's just who is giving that authority , I have a problem with.

 

[Weaver]

It is a law that you CANNOT have your firearm when retrieving your game on posted land. Going in with a firearm I think should be a massive mandatory fine at the least.

Yes I know that law and it's intent was well meant ,but some have found a way to exploit the meaning to engage in criminal behavior. In my opinion it's also a constitutional issue regarding property rights and who has the authority to relinquish said.

 

[bravo]

You know what maybe you’re right. As a landowner, I think bag limits should be set by me and not the government. I know better how many deer are there. Right now I agree with one per hunter, but it should be my choice not the gov. Anything less would infringe upon my precious landowner rights (yet to be defined).

 

[Tymurrey]

I see both sides of the issue. I've been on the close to bad end of it in montana where i don't think you can retrieve wounded game without permission. Sometimes it is tough to find the owner or who to contact. My antelope died within feet of the property corner monument, luckily on the public side of it. If any changes were to be made couldn't we do like with the state land that is posted permission required or whatever it is where they have to make an attempt to contact the renter. Make sure names are on the signs and make it that game retrieval needs to contact owner in some form, text, voicemail, in person. I don't want any more rules and regulations though but i'm hoping it doesn't go the route of other states from an honest hunter standpoint.

 

[Allen]

I believe they are categorized differently because they are personal property not public property as wildlife are.

Wildlife, or in this instance...a game animal, is owned by the public until such time as a licensed hunter kills it. At that moment in time, it becomes privately owned.

 

[Tymurrey]

You know what maybe you’re right. As a landowner, I think bag limits should be set by me and not the government. I know better how many deer are there. Right now I agree with one per hunter, but it should be my choice not the gov. Anything less would infringe upon my precious landowner rights (yet to be defined).

montana basically just did this from what they told me in the areas i mule deer hunt. No more antlerless mule deer on state or federal ground because they felt the landowners can manage the herd better than the state is what i was told.

 

[Obi-Wan]

We get that you want someone to ask even if they were legal when shooting the deer. So if the deer is dead and legally harvested, it's the hunters property at that point. So it's the same as going to get your cattle that got out at that point.

You forgot to include that the hunter is legally required to retrieve all downed game.

Wanton Waste​

No person shall kill, cripple, waste, destroy, spoil or abandon the edible flesh of any big game animal without making a reasonable effort to retrieve and retain the big game animal in his/her actual custody, at the place where taken and between that place and either (a) his/her permanent residence (b) a taxidermist (c) a common carrier or (d) a commercial processor.

 

[bravo]

montana basically just did this from what they told me in the areas i mule deer hunt. No more antlerless mule deer on state or federal ground because they felt the landowners can manage the herd better than the state is what i was told.

You will see that this session. The farm bureau did a great job of using people’s distaste for CWD restrictions as ammo to flame the game and fish’s every move. Their maneuver will be to make the GNF director an elected rather than appointed position, the put in place a FB friendly director who will do just what you mentioned. What even they don’t realize if once you do that, the liberals in Fargo will have every ability to elect a wolf or big car loving PETA member and hammer in that final nail.