Hunting 'Unposted' Private Land

[Walleye_Chaser]

That's a great example Allen, if a cow wanders onto another farmer's property, it doesn't just become his.

 

[KDM]

KDM I have much respect for you so don't take this wrong
Your probably right about landowners wanting to post because we mention there are some bad landowners. However isn't that kind of touchy? We listen to stories about bad hunters and rather than dislike landowners for saying it we often agree. Why do landowners so easily take offence when it's not them personally that we are talking about? I'm guessing that you know when we complain you would be the last person we would be thinking about as we complain.

We understand that it's respect that landowners seek. That's what hunters seek also. However we don't expect you to respect every hunter no matter their behavior. Am I wrong thinking that we not need respect every landowner no matter their behavior. All I seek is mutual respect.

No issues here PG. Emotion is best left OUT of a discussion. It can be touchy, immature, childish, and far fetched, but I don't bring it up to be so. For the first time in my lifetime, there was a request of the legislature to consider making every acre of private land automatically posted, it tells me there are at least a growing number of people that think it's necessary. I DON'T think its even close to being necessary and don't want a SD style of land usage. It punishes everyone for the actions of a few and that's just WRONG. I bring this up simply as food for thought. Is that game animal worth hard feelings?? I see more and more shelter belts, sloughs, CRP, and other cover being removed for croplands. Regardless of how you feel about these actions, it doesn't bode well for having MORE wildlife on the landscape meaning more hunters will be competing for what is left. Competition usually results in price tags being applied and then the fattest wallets win and that is also WRONG. Hunters and landowners are so interconnected that every issue between them affects every other issue and IMO, looking at the big picture is better than picking at the individual issues. Thank GOD these encounters with bad landowners or hunters are the exception rather than the rule and I would like to ensure it stays that way so we as hunters or landowners can disregard those ignorant pitiful few that just want to cause conflicts as poor folks that must have a terrible life. It's just that if you added the number of hunters and the number of landowners (80 acres or more) together, we would still probably be outnumbered by the urban masses that vote by what youtube, facebook, and the TV says rather than with their own minds and THAT is what has me concerned the most. If we allow ourselves (hunters/landowners) to be an issue.......I'm afraid we will all lose.

 

[Vollmer]

No issues here PG. Emotion is best left OUT of a discussion. It can be touchy, immature, childish, and far fetched, but I don't bring it up to be so. For the first time in my lifetime, there was a request of the legislature to consider making every acre of private land automatically posted, it tells me there are at least a growing number of people that think it's necessary. I DON'T think its even close to being necessary and don't want a SD style of land usage. It punishes everyone for the actions of a few and that's just WRONG. I bring this up simply as food for thought. Is that game animal worth hard feelings?? I see more and more shelter belts, sloughs, CRP, and other cover being removed for croplands. Regardless of how you feel about these actions, it doesn't bode well for having MORE wildlife on the landscape meaning more hunters will be competing for what is left. Competition usually results in price tags being applied and then the fattest wallets win and that is also WRONG. Hunters and landowners are so interconnected that every issue between them affects every other issue and IMO, looking at the big picture is better than picking at the individual issues. Thank GOD these encounters with bad landowners or hunters are the exception rather than the rule and I would like to ensure it stays that way so we as hunters or landowners can disregard those ignorant pitiful few that just want to cause conflicts as poor folks that must have a terrible life. It's just that if you added the number of hunters and the number of landowners (80 acres or more) together, we would still probably be outnumbered by the urban masses that vote by what youtube, facebook, and the TV says rather than with their own minds and THAT is what has me concerned the most. If we allow ourselves (hunters/landowners) to be an issue.......I'm afraid we will all lose.

;:;bowdown

 

[PrairieGhost]

KDM excellent post.

 

[labhunter66]

No issues here PG. Emotion is best left OUT of a discussion. It can be touchy, immature, childish, and far fetched, but I don't bring it up to be so. For the first time in my lifetime, there was a request of the legislature to consider making every acre of private land automatically posted, it tells me there are at least a growing number of people that think it's necessary. I DON'T think its even close to being necessary and don't want a SD style of land usage. It punishes everyone for the actions of a few and that's just WRONG. I bring this up simply as food for thought. Is that game animal worth hard feelings?? I see more and more shelter belts, sloughs, CRP, and other cover being removed for croplands. Regardless of how you feel about these actions, it doesn't bode well for having MORE wildlife on the landscape meaning more hunters will be competing for what is left. Competition usually results in price tags being applied and then the fattest wallets win and that is also WRONG. Hunters and landowners are so interconnected that every issue between them affects every other issue and IMO, looking at the big picture is better than picking at the individual issues. Thank GOD these encounters with bad landowners or hunters are the exception rather than the rule and I would like to ensure it stays that way so we as hunters or landowners can disregard those ignorant pitiful few that just want to cause conflicts as poor folks that must have a terrible life. It's just that if you added the number of hunters and the number of landowners (80 acres or more) together, we would still probably be outnumbered by the urban masses that vote by what youtube, facebook, and the TV says rather than with their own minds and THAT is what has me concerned the most. If we allow ourselves (hunters/landowners) to be an issue.......I'm afraid we will all lose.

Great post. I just want to point out though that there have been many bills over the years to automatically post land in ND. I believe in the 90's and early 2000"s there was a bill almost every legislative session calling for all land to be automatically posted. For about the last 10-12 years there really hadn't been anything until the DAPL trespass issues reignited the debate.

 

[Ericb]

KDM I have much respect for you so don't take this wrong
Your probably right about landowners wanting to post because we mention there are some bad landowners. However isn't that kind of touchy? We listen to stories about bad hunters and rather than dislike landowners for saying it we often agree. Why do landowners so easily take offence when it's not them personally that we are talking about? I'm guessing that you know when we complain you would be the last person we would be thinking about as we complain.

We understand that it's respect that landowners seek. That's what hunters seek also. However we don't expect you to respect every hunter no matter their behavior. Am I wrong thinking that we not need respect every landowner no matter their behavior. All I seek is mutual respect.

I'm not sure you meant any different but my thoughts from your post.

From my experience land owners do feel the need to have a level of respect from hunters whether it is their land or not. They live in the area 364 days a year. We invade it a few weeks a year. We complain all the time about all the no non resident plates at the lake and so on. They have the same feeling when we start I invading their solitude whether it's their property, a neighbors property or public land. I've heard many on here take ownership of our favorite shore fishing spots and so on. They do the same with the land around them. I think the entitled attitude of its public land I have the right to be here harbors much of the animosity. Yes we have the right to legaly be there and rightfully so. Once one or two dickheads disrespect them they group us all together. Kind of like the Sconis and the blue platers. My best access to land actually stemmed from me hunting a section of plots and a adjecent land owner(started of kind of a dick) didn't want me to shoot any of the white tails on the land because there wernt that many and they were all fairly small. Maybe it's the salesman in me but finding out what someone's issue Really is can lead to much better relations.

 

[Allen]

This whole animosity that pops up at times between landowners and hunters is going to be a huge problem for both one of these days. Hunters who torque off landowners create individual landowners who get fed up and eventually say enough and just close their land off to all hunting, or let just a few family members hunt. This is GREAT for them! However, it also pushes more and more hunters onto already crowded public lands and available private lands. We all know the number of acres where almost no hunting is allowed goes up every year, often due to one or two bad apples. I've even seen this with some of the most gracious people I know who once they said "no hunting", it even included myself after having known the family my entire life.

On the flip side of this coin, landowners/ranchers/farmers who see initiated measures or Century Code changes that affect them (HFH, animal cruelty, special tax rates, etc, etc) should be expecting a greater number of negative changes in the future. Quite simply, when they alienate a significant fraction of the population who in the past were very sympathetic to their operations and causes in general, they will lose their votes. Often times they voted for what was in the best interests of their "friends" because they didn't really have a horse in the race and in the future when more and more hunters have become fall anglers, are they going to still consider the people who no longer treated them like friends when they asked for permission to hunt as someone deserving of their support? Personally, I doubt it.

And the truth is there are thousands of acres that I hunted as a kid that are no longer available to me in my home area. These are people who I helped on their farm (working cattle, transporting machinery, etc) where I received no pay for my time. I've heard more than one of them comment about the good old days. I can't lie, the day I was told "but if I let you, then I have to also let so-and-so and his friends hunt" was the day I knew our relationship wasn't as tight as it once was. Granted, quite a few of those acres are now also rented out and the landowner has allowed the renter to control hunting, but still.

There are no winners involved in hunter/landowner spats. Just a bunch of losers.

I spend fewer days in the field chasing birds each fall, and it's not because I'm getting older, there are fewer birds, or I'm that much busier with the kids. It's an access issue which has lowered the quality of the hunt, period.

 

[Captnobvs]

Actually... that "asshole" farmer DID put the signs up the evening before..

lahlah - So evidently you know this landowner and of course he's going to tell you that he posted his land the night before just to keep his story straight - falsifying a story to an enforcement official would likely not end well. The truth is that both you nor I will ever know the real truth - just like both you nor I will ever know the real truth to the account of the hunting party either. The intent of the post was never to debate whether landowners (or hunters respectively) are inherently asshats or not, but rather to serve as a heads up for those hunting private land that they may want to take the extra steps that will help their case in the event that this were to ever happen to them. Had the hunting party taken a photo of the fence posts prior to entering, then they may have had a defensible case. If the land was posted when they entered in the morning, then the hunters got what was coming to them and rightfully so. However, if the landowner did post while they were in the field, well then, you be the judge. Only he knows the truth...

Unfortunately farmers are incredibly busy with harvest and don't always make it to a store to buy and get the signs up right away to make your lives easier.

Irrelevant to the post. However, if the land is posted, its posted. If it's not, then by law hunters have the right of recreational trespass. This is not a debate, just a fact.

BTW I was on the phone with him when he was supposedly just putting the signs up and he was saying "what the hell, don't they see me" thinking they would come to the pickup and he would ask them to leave, but they never did, hence the game warden showing up.

Did he ever say anything to them? Did he honk? Did they go against his wishes to leave his property? How would they have known that it was the landowner driving by? Maybe it was just someone else who was planning to hunt the area? Maybe they would have left had they known it was the land owner / maybe not. If I'm allowed to offer my opinion, it fails the sniff test - but again, it is only that - an opinion. End of the day, the landowner is the only one that will ever know the real truth.

 

[LAHLAH]

Boy this is a tough crowd! I can say I know he had the signs up but I have no proof to show you.
I agree my rant about not getting the signs up earlier was just that, a rant and irrelevant but in response to the posts about getting them put up sooner.
I have no idea how or if he tried to get their attention, I remember him saying he couldn`t see them but figured they could see him. I haven`t even really talked to him much more about it because at this point what does it matter anymore.

 

[Weaver]

LAHLAH and OP, what county was this in?

also, 8andcounting and martinslanding, i don't think it matters what kind of sign you use, a person can trespass onto posted property to retrieve a dead or wounded animal without a firearm. its actually an exception to the trespass law. it applies to civil, criminal, G&F trespass and it doesn't matter if its a the game warden, the sheriff or the state's attorney.

Yeah and it’s a bs law to the landowners. Hunters just stop on the road or if in the field shoot something within range on posted land and prance right in and there’s nothing the landowner can do. Unconstitutional as it’s seizing private property for special interest group without compensation regardless of brevity of their stay. Road ditches no longer have habitat in SD etc because of permission to hunt private land of right aways by state. Many farmers I know plow borders around fields to deter wildlife use. Some make sure habitat is gone because of this crazy law. I am all for retrieval of an animal if it was legally taken “ outside” of private property but with landowner permission first. It’s no wonder habitat is disappearing with such a law. Only 2 states I know have it . Change it and landowners may start developing habitat again for wildlife to flourish and go outside the land to legal hunting areas.

 

[Eatsleeptrap]

Is bringing back a seven year old thread some kind of record?

 

[Rowdie]

And it's his 1st post. Hmmmmm....

 

[Kurtr]

Yeah and it’s a bs law to the landowners. Hunters just stop on the road or if in the field shoot something within range on posted land and prance right in and there’s nothing the landowner can do. Unconstitutional as it’s seizing private property for special interest group without compensation regardless of brevity of their stay. Road ditches no longer have habitat in SD etc because of permission to hunt private land of right aways by state. Many farmers I know plow borders around fields to deter wildlife use. Some make sure habitat is gone because of this crazy law. I am all for retrieval of an animal if it was legally taken “ outside” of private property but with landowner permission first. It’s no wonder habitat is disappearing with such a law. Only 2 states I know have it . Change it and landowners may start developing habitat again for wildlife to flourish and go outside the land to legal hunting areas.

Tell that to the three chickens there is no habitat by the roads I shot tonight. No one plows borders your dumb