Hunting 'Unposted' Private Land

[Allen]

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.

Please, pretty please...don't profess to speak for us landowners in general. We are a diverse group.

 

[Weaver]

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).

How immature. That's a GF decision to conserve wildlife populations and has nothing to do with property rights. I already stated I am in agreement as to recovery of legal harvest but have issue with the government over reach into what I consider a fundamental freedom to be enjoyed by all property owners. You included, for your home/business etc.
And the biggest negative reaction to this is it has a built in ( regardless of how subtle) the conditions to provide access to those who have criminal intent.
Without government permission the element for any surprise "guests" is greatly reduced if permission is granted solely by landowner alone.

 

[bravo]

If they have criminal intent (i.e. weapon in hand) then they already have no right to enter posted private property. Neither the government nor the landowner is giving them the right.

 

[Weaver]

Please, pretty please...don't profess to speak for us landowners in general. We are a diverse group.

Okay I retract the "landowners in general" statement to read "concerned landowner" And wonder what next is on the horizon for loss of personal freedoms regarding property rights.

 

[Weaver]

If they have criminal intent (i.e. weapon in hand) then they already have no right to enter posted private property. Neither the government nor the landowner is giving them the right.

I already gave illustrative content to how those with criminal intent enter ( without weapons) to flush wildlife to waiting party members , or to simply flush out so they can hunt them elsewhere. With the guise of State permission it's non negotiable to the landowners as you simply have to take their word they are pursuing a wounded animal. With landowner permission only that card is out of play.

 

[Allen]

Okay I retract the "landowners in general" statement to read "concerned landowner" And wonder what next is on the horizon for loss of personal freedoms regarding property rights.

I am reasonably certain that unless you are approaching 100 years old, the land you acquired never came with this "property right" that you claim you are losing. Rather, you are trying to establish something that has not existed, at least not in ND, for at least 50 years (roughly the length of time I've hunted in ND).

 

[WalleyeGuy80]

It wasn't meant to be a loophole but has turned into that , yes to the peril of landowners as all things fall that way because of those who abuse. Everyone else suffers. My point is in principal Do you want the government telling you who can be on your private property? Why does it work so well in all the other states? Yes as I stated earlier most landowners will gladly give consent to legal harvest, I would.
Most farmers/ranchers I know are uncomfortable with a bunch of strangers showing up suddenly uninvited on your land ( packing heavy heat) ( even if it is left outside the boundary ) and they have a trump card to play. I want my constitutional rights returned as a landowner. How is it okay to anyone who is a landowner to have that right taken for a special interest group.
Hunter behavior won't be changed by law as you state but let's not give them the means to carry out crime more easily.

Weaver,
I used onX app to get phone number they have listed, and also to the location of the farm in which I drove up to. Made multiple calls to the number listed, and also went to the door and knocked defiantly wasn't an abandoned place with no answer or return calls. This was to try and retrieve a wounded deer. I have also over the years made quite a few attempts to gain access to hunt with numbers listed not an answer or one call back so don't believe it's an isolated case of no return call from land owner. I am sure there are some that answer, but with the amount of signs I am seeing that say NO HUNTING DON'T EVEN ASK! there are many that won't/don't. So I guess my question is follows. If a valid attempt is made to contact the land owner with no answer the hunter should be SOL or if you can prove from cell phone call log you tried after a certain time frame you can go and retrieve the deer? I am not exactly sure what the time should be, but just putting the question out there. This way the loophole you refer to should be removed with a phone record and attempt was made to contact the land owner before entering.

 

[Weaver]

I am reasonably certain that unless you are approaching 100 years old, the land you acquired never came with this "property right" that you claim you are losing. Rather, you are trying to establish something that has not existed, at least not in ND, for at least 50 years (roughly the length of time I've hunted in ND).

Regardless of when that right was lost it was indeed lost to special interest. It's time to get conservative values back and restore what our state intended regarding private property rights.

 

[johnr]

Weaver,
I used onX app to get phone number they have listed, and also to the location of the farm in which I drove up to. Made multiple calls to the number listed, and also went to the door and knocked defiantly wasn't an abandoned place with no answer or return calls. This was to try and retrieve a wounded deer. I have also over the years made quite a few attempts to gain access to hunt with numbers listed not an answer or one call back so don't believe it's an isolated case of no return call from land owner. I am sure there are some that answer, but with the amount of signs I am seeing that say NO HUNTING DON'T EVEN ASK! there are many that won't/don't. So I guess my question is follows. If a valid attempt is made to contact the land owner with no answer the hunter should be SOL or if you can prove from cell phone call log you tried after a certain time frame you can go and retrieve the deer? I am not exactly sure what the time should be, but just putting the question out there. This way the loophole you refer to should be removed with a phone record and attempt was made to contact the land owner before entering.

That would be great, but is not necessary.

You have a legally hunted and wounded animal that enters posted land, go in without your firearm and retrieve it. Its perfectly legal whether the landowner likes it or not. Don't carry your weapon, don't gut the deer there, don't cut any fencing, don't do anything wrong. Get your deer and be on your way.

If at my in town residence a random dog runs unto my property, and the dog owner retrieves it on my land, I am perfectly fine, or some litter blows into my yard and the guy steps into my property to pick it up, go right ahead. A kid cuts through my yard to get to a friends place, I am not calling the sheriff.

Owning large tracts of land must be a really hard thing for some corn growers....

 

[johnr]

Regardless of when that right was lost it was indeed lost to special interest. It's time to get conservative values back and restore what our state intended regarding private property rights.

Build a moat, get some high fencing, maybe armed guards. WTF buddy, your scenarios are mostly bogus, you are 100% the lockout wacko crowd.
I am hoping every deer from here on ends up running into your field to die...and every hunter uses their legal right to enter and collect their property....haha

 

[riverview]

onx hardly has any numbers listed anymore

 

[Kurtr]

Build a moat, get some high fencing, maybe armed guards. WTF buddy, your scenarios are mostly bogus, you are 100% the lockout wacko crowd.
I am hoping every deer from here on ends up running into your field to die...and every hunter uses their legal right to enter and collect their property....haha

how pissed would he be when people shoot ducks off the moat haha

 

[bravo]

Regardless of when that right was lost it was indeed lost to special interest. It's time to get conservative values back and restore what our state intended regarding private property rights.

Wouldn’t the most conservative thing we could do would be to not have politicians draft new legislation that will surely be tied up in court? Also, to leave the red blooded American who harvested an animal the right to retrieve his game?

Or are you just using that word to garner votes from this site; exactly like you do on the lockout Facebook page.

 

[Rowdie]

So lets write a law that requires the hunter to inform a landowner of legal retrieval. They can't say no, you're just letting them know your gonna go get your deer legally. If there's no number listed on poster or Onix, then you're good, no need to contact. A message or text would suffice. Maybe even make hunter give name and where the deer is located.

 

[Weaver]

Weaver,
I used onX app to get phone number they have listed, and also to the location of the farm in which I drove up to. Made multiple calls to the number listed, and also went to the door and knocked defiantly wasn't an abandoned place with no answer or return calls. This was to try and retrieve a wounded deer. I have also over the years made quite a few attempts to gain access to hunt with numbers listed not an answer or one call back so don't believe it's an isolated case of no return call from land owner. I am sure there are some that answer, but with the amount of signs I am seeing that say NO HUNTING DON'T EVEN ASK! there are many that won't/don't. So I guess my question is follows. If a valid attempt is made to contact the land owner with no answer the hunter should be SOL or if you can prove from cell phone call log you tried after a certain time frame you can go and retrieve the deer? I am not exactly sure what the time should be, but just putting the question out there. This way the loophole you refer to should be removed with a phone record and attempt was made to contact the land owner before enter

Wouldn’t the most conservative thing we could do would be to not have politicians draft new legislation that will surely be tied up in court? Also, to leave the red blooded American who harvested an animal the right to retrieve his game?

Or are you just using that word to garner votes from this site; exactly like you do on the lockout Facebook page.

You're missing my point entirely. It's not anti retrieval of legal harvest I am referring to here. I am all for that but permission has to given to rightful bearer of said right. Otherwise the ( now we are talking criminal element here) will continue to use this law to the land owner/ wildlife and publics' detriment. There has to be a better way than to continue allowing what is going on in the landscape where I live. The cost is too high with loss of habitat ...sour landowner/hunter relations etc. Taking away a fundamental freedom always comes with a price to pay regardless if you think it affects you or not.

 

[Weaver]

Wouldn’t the most conservative thing we could do would be to not have politicians draft new legislation that will surely be tied up in court? Also, to leave the red blooded American who harvested an animal the right to retrieve his game?

Or are you just using that word to garner votes from this site; exactly like you do on the lockout Facebook page.

Like talking to a wall..How many times must I repeat I am not part of any government group /Lockout or otherwise.

 

[Trip McNeely]

So let’s write a law that requires the hunter to inform a landowner of legal retrieval. They can't say no, you're just letting them know you’re gonna go get your deer legally. If there's no number listed on poster or Onix, then you're good, no need to contact. A message or text would suffice. Maybe even make hunter give name and where the deer is located.

If this weaver is really a valid landowner and not some “special interest group” like it’s beginning to appear this here is the only logical solution. I can understand notification. Asking permission seems to be something that would go sour quickly and end up getting LE involved more times than not. Our wardens are already spread thin they dont need even more calls. The problem with notification or permission is it could possibly create or amp up a hostile situation where they’re really shouldn’t be. We all know a landowner or two who on hearing a deer needs to be retrieved on his land would fly down the two track 78 miles an hour and come out hot as hell. Why create tension needlessly. Weaver if you are legit than you have a trespasser issue, not a “special interest” issue. Track the activity and report it.

 

[Trip McNeely]

Like talking to a wall..How many times must I repeat I am not part of any government group /Lockout or otherwise.

You really are giving those vibes. Im really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you’re making it hard

 

[bravo]

This just shows how much has changed in the last 10 years. It used to be there was one or two guys like this in the county who patrolled their land and thought every hunter was out to trespass or raise hell. You were in for a confrontation if you so much as tapped your brakes driving by. But everyone knew who they were and just rolled their eyes and avoided them.

Anyway, where can I get my copy of the ND landowner bill of rights?

 

[Twitch]