Hunting 'Unposted' Private Land

[Trip McNeely]

Not mine though right?

Especially yours!

 

[Weaver]

Where are you located? It sounds like you are near the ok corral? The fact that you have that many incidents tell me either you have a ton of 200” deer on your land where normal people lose their minds to get….. or you are completely exaggerating the entire situation. Likely for a cause.

No Not exaggerating one bit. If I absolutely had to produce the documents for proof I can. They are a matter of police/G&F records.
Why would I try to change a law if it hasn't been such a hardship for me? If people used the law as intended I would be fine with that as again I am all for legal harvest retrieval but think the permission should come from the landowners and not the state to avoid all the other stuff I spoke of.
Many landowners aren't versed in every aspect of law either. I have spoken with many who believed they had the say ( which it should be) in granting permission to be on their land. How many confrontations have resulted from this unknown knowledge of the law? Many landowners just want a simple request for access because they want to know who is there, when they are there etc. It's like any property...the owner wants the say in how it's managed not some outsiders.

 

[Trip McNeely]

So you are saying you have a lot of 200” deer? I just don’t see good people risking it over small bucks or does. I just don’t see anyone risking it at all tbh. Is the land in question public land you mistakenly think you own by chance? State school land perhaps?

 

[Weaver]

How did you get a conviction and a warning if these people weren’t breaking the law?

Conviction came because the evidence was overwhelming against what they were saying. They stated they had a right to be there because it was a deer they had wounded a mile away. ( Using the law to retrieve which is at issue here as an excuse)( we and the game warden found no evidence of that..no blood trail ,casings/blood at supposed hunt location, etc. )
They said we will fight it in court. ) But warden decided to charge them with what he could which was shooting from road into posted land, driving on posted land to retrieve without landowner permission and not tagging a deer immediately after kill. He could have went for more as they drove into field with weapons and shot it again and quickly loaded and fled out .
case never made it to court as they pled out as they knew it was going against them.

 

[Weaver]

So you are saying you have a lot of 200” deer? I just don’t see good people risking it over small bucks or does. I just don’t see anyone risking it at all tbh. Is the land in question public land you mistakenly think you own by chance? State school land perhaps?

That's funny. I know what land I own and which I don't

 

[Trip McNeely]

That's funny. I know what land I own and which I don't

Well give me an idea of where you’re at. Im feeling a good deer wounding coming on….

 

[SerchforPerch]

Conviction came because the evidence was overwhelming against what they were saying. They stated they had a right to be there because it was a deer they had wounded a mile away. ( Using the law to retrieve which is at issue here as an excuse)( we and the game warden found no evidence of that..no blood trail ,casings/blood at supposed hunt location, etc. )
They said we will fight it in court. ) But warden decided to charge them with what he could which was shooting from road into posted land, driving on posted land to retrieve without landowner permission and not tagging a deer immediately after kill. He could have went for more as they drove into field with weapons and shot it again and quickly loaded and fled out .
case never made it to court as they pled out as they knew it was going against them.

There is highly sophisticated thermal scopes, drones and suppressed rifles nowadays - nobody does this type of shit in the daylight anymore. If your catching people in the daylight - they must be rookies.

 

[Rowdie]

Thanks for the response. If I was a member of a group I wouldn't be ashamed to say so. Again I am not.
Again I am not looking to add a new law but actually get rid of or amend an existing one.
Please don't include me in your summation as to we will all just be fine because that will not be the case.
I have had 4 incidences in the past 5 years with this law being used as an excuse for their activity. I don't know how many others I didn't catch or find out about. You may find that hard to believe but I find it equally hard to believe that no other landowner on this forum/state hasn't had this happen to them.
I don't know if their behavior stems from opportunity or spite but that doesn't matter, just the fact it does happen. I'm sure they are just as cleaver in the rest of the state as here.
The fact from my personal experience is the law ( although well intended) has been circumvented by many in this area to either shoot over fence lines to retrieve ( in hopes act wasn't witnessed) to enjoy a free retrieval without question or The act of dropping party members at property lines to flush an area known to contain game animals to either disperse to outside legal area or to waiting party members.
A landowner under this current ruling has no idea when he crests the hill and is surprised to see people on his posted property as to whether he has a trespass situation or a simple retrieve .
It's unsettling to a lot of landowners when this occurs.
It's can be unsettling to other hunters as well when they encounter others in the field that they had no idea might be there whether it be a landowner/family hunting or single permission parties.
A law is supposed to be balanced for the good of all...this one has a 100 lb weight on one side and nothing on the other.
I do everything by the book regarding posting. Clear legible signs/signed sometimes even dated placed at required distances/borders etc. It just gives them something to read when they walk past them. With the current law it has been made easy to do.
Why can't we as landowners know who you are ? You know us.
This law made up just for the extremely rare occurrence ( from feedback here some in 40 years some 50 +) has never had it happen to them where they had a need to access. And the reduce the ratio even further we know most landowners will gladly give permission or even assist them in a legal harvest. A law for the equally rare occasion when a 1 in 1000 landowner might not be obliging. Wow . Aren't you the one engaging in your hobby? Shouldn't you be the one reaching out with some effort to contact landowners ( so they aren't getting surprises) ? If no contact can be made couldn't any form of law enforcement assist with contact. Most have quick access to locating owners, or so they may record names /details in case a request for investigation in matter is sought.
No Sorry Trip; The abuse of this law will continue for me and some of my farmer friends unless a fair solution to all is reached.

Out of those 4 incidents, how many found their deer? Were any of them armed when they "looking"? If yes how many of the 4 times?

 

[Iwhackwheat]

Conviction came because the evidence was overwhelming against what they were saying. They stated they had a right to be there because it was a deer they had wounded a mile away. ( Using the law to retrieve which is at issue here as an excuse)( we and the game warden found no evidence of that..no blood trail ,casings/blood at supposed hunt location, etc. )
They said we will fight it in court. ) But warden decided to charge them with what he could which was shooting from road into posted land, driving on posted land to retrieve without landowner permission and not tagging a deer immediately after kill. He could have went for more as they drove into field with weapons and shot it again and quickly loaded and fled out .
case never made it to court as they pled out as they knew it was going against them.

Sounds like the laws in place are sufficient then. These people shot from the road into posted land, drove out and didn’t tag the animal, but for some reason you think if we amended the retrieval law, this will stop.

 

[riverview]

why does deer hunting make people so stupid?? pretty sure this weaver guy is related to the get off my corn guy.

 

[701FishSlayer]

If you guys would just sack up and hunt posted land we wouldn't have to have these silly threads.

 

[Kurtr]

I want to know where this is at so to avoid traveling through and getting caught in the cross fire of the gun fights. Sounds kind of like the Hindu Kush region

 

[Tommyboy]

I know that if I ever shot a deer and it ran onto posted property, Id just shoot another one that hopefully wont do the same thing.

 

[Weaver]

Sounds like the laws in place are sufficient then. These people shot from the road into posted land, drove out and didn’t tag the animal, but for some reason you think if we amended the retrieval law, this will stop.

Oh course criminal behavior wouldn't stop with an amendment. You just don't seem to get it. When they use this law as a cover/excuse /to justify their position it becomes much harder to prosecute the behavior. It becomes a he said/ she said argument.

 

[Weaver]

why does deer hunting make people so stupid?? pretty sure this weaver guy is related to the get off my corn guy.

Nice attack on a person with a genuine problem. maybe you will have a similar situation one day. Congratulations

 

[Iwhackwheat]

Oh course criminal behavior wouldn't stop with an amendment. You just don't seem to get it. When they use this law as a cover/excuse /to justify their position it becomes much harder to prosecute the behavior. It becomes a he said/ she said argument.

All right, I’ll tap out. While your head is up there you should check for polyps. Just looking out for ya.

 

[risingsun]

All right, I’ll tap out. While your head is up there you should check for polyps. Just looking out for ya.

Awww shit!!!

 

[Trip McNeely]

Shots fired! Shots fired!

 

[Allen]

No Not exaggerating one bit. If I absolutely had to produce the documents for proof I can. They are a matter of police/G&F records.
Why would I try to change a law if it hasn't been such a hardship for me? If people used the law as intended I would be fine with that as again I am all for legal harvest retrieval but think the permission should come from the landowners and not the state to avoid all the other stuff I spoke of.

All this and you haven't yet become that social pariah of a landowner that nobody will want to be within XX miles of your place? You have some slow learners in your county.

 

[Allen]

Oh course criminal behavior wouldn't stop with an amendment. You just don't seem to get it. When they use this law as a cover/excuse /to justify their position it becomes much harder to prosecute the behavior. It becomes a he said/ she said argument.

Yep, sounds to me like the law and legal system worked as intended.