# Whats the law for recovering a deer if it strays onto a neighboring property?



## caseyjoeindiana

If I arrow a deer and it goes onto a neighbors property. Say this guy says "no" is there any options? I hunt a property that is surrounded by woods that are owned by anti hunters. Well shouldn't call them that, they just do not like people hunting their beloved pet deer/children. I was told when I was a kid that if they said "no" to call the DNR and they would assist in the recovery regardless of the land owners consent. N.E Indiana.


----------



## colo_dually

No you cannot recover game from property you do not have permission to be on.
At a minimum its tresspassing, and you can also be tagged with poaching depending on local laws.

I have never heard of DNR getting involved with recovery of dear, where the land owner does not grant consent.

In the end that land owner has property rights.


----------



## pendejo37

The DNR officer will attempt to get permission from the landowner again and if that fails most likely you lose your deer.That is how it works in ohio anyway.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

colo_dually said:


> No you cannot recover game from property you do not have permission to be on.
> At a minimum its tresspassing, and you can also be tagged with poaching depending on local laws.
> 
> I have never heard of DNR getting involved with recovery of dear, where the land owner does not grant consent.
> 
> In the end that land owner has property rights.


 This is also what i thought. Hard for the hunter, but id have to side with the property owners rights.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

colo_dually said:


> No you cannot recover game from property you do not have permission to be on.
> At a minimum its tresspassing, and you can also be tagged with poaching depending on local laws.
> 
> I have never heard of DNR getting involved with recovery of dear, where the land owner does not grant consent.
> 
> In the end that land owner has property rights.


 About your bow note. My wife loves my boys Bear apprentice more than she liked the feel of the II. Shes a strong woman but really like the feel of my sons better. good luck.


----------



## AR&BOW

I believe in MN that the DNR officer will come out and talk to the land owner to tell them he is entering to retrieve game. They can not refuse his entering the property, but you the hunter can not.


----------



## huntin4Christ

In Iowa you can go onto any property to recover game as long as you do not have a weapon.


----------



## HM3

caseyjoeindiana said:


> If i arrow a deer and it goes onto a neighbors property. Say this guy says "no" is there any options? I hunt a property that is surrounded by woods that are owned by anti hunters. Well shouldn't call them that, they just do not like people hunting their beloved pet deer/children. I was told when i was a kid that if they said "no" to call the DNR and they would assist in the recovery regardless of the land owners consent. N.E Indiana.


In Maine, you cannot trespass under any circumstances. This just recently happened to someone I know... except that he owns the land. He owns a GREAT hunting property in the expanded archery zone here in Maine. Guys will literally hand stands 10 feet off of his property line (which is wrong, i'm sorry.) A guy ended up getting a deer and it ran back onto his property and he would not allow the hunter to come unto his land to retrieve the deer. The hunter had to call a Warden who went and got the deer for him. I think the Warden had to ask for permission to do so, but i'm not positive of that. Warden's can pretty much do what they want in the name of "investigating" so I doubt it matters... but anyways, The hunter ended up getting his deer after 1/2 of a day of waiting.


----------



## Boilermaker2

Here in north dakota they have to let you on to retrieve game. You just cannot be carrying any weapons. 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kstigall

- I'd try real hard to avoid a situation that would put a dead deer on someone's property that I knew wouldn't let me retrieve the deer.
- There are places where it's legit to hunt but it's not a good idea to do so.
- We (hunters) need to do our very best to avoid turning non-hunters into anti-hunters!!!!!!!!!!

Some folks believe there are times when it's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission. I'd feel an obligation to retrieve the deer but I'd have to weigh that against the probability of getting caught and the problems caused by doing so. Maybe beg the landowner to let you retrieve this deer and promise to never ask again which may lead to you not being able to hunt a certain spot. I could hunt the land beside my house and I've looked it over many times. But I keep coming to the conclusion that the slight chance of a deer making a death run into someone's front yard is too great. A few years ago a really nice buck would have been a gimme' but it still wasn't worth the possibility of a negative reaction from non-hunters.


----------



## dtprice

colo_dually said:


> No you cannot recover game from property you do not have permission to be on.
> At a minimum its tresspassing, and you can also be tagged with poaching depending on local laws.
> 
> I have never heard of DNR getting involved with recovery of dear, where the land owner does not grant consent.
> 
> In the end that land owner has property rights.


This is not true in Iowa. If you have wounded a deer and it goes onto someone else's property, you are legally binded to try and recover that deer. You do not have to gain permission from the landowner in order to do this. However, you cannot take any weapon on the property with you while you're trying to recover the deer. You have to leave your bow or gun in the truck and head out on foot. It's highly encouraged to notify the landowner, if possible, to let them know that you're going on their property, but not necessary. I would just call the DNR and let them handle the notification. That way nothing funny happens and no feelings are hurt.

I don't know what your laws are where you live, but that's the way it is in Iowa. And, I know from personaly experience as I had this happen two seasons ago. The landowner was a real jerk about everything and tried bullying me until we called the DNR and they put him in his place.


----------



## hockingcounty

pendejo37 said:


> The DNR officer will attempt to get permission from the landowner again and if that fails most likely you lose your deer.That is how it works in ohio anyway.


That's exactly right.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.743310,-82.586009


----------



## SET THE HOOK

Tough call! I would hunt far from the boundry lines, as much as i hate tresspassers if you know for sure you wont get access...Ninja suit man!


----------



## reylamb

The laws vary from state to state.

In GA you could be charged with trespassing and/or hunting without permission.


----------



## colo_dually

I'm going to check the laws in Iowa, it does not make sense to me they would violate the land owners rights, under the obligation to retrive game. You're crossing property lines, armed or otherwise, without permission of the land owner.

As to Wardens entering someones property to retrive game, I figure that would fall under the search and seizure laws in this country. No LEO can search, without consent or a warrent.

As hunters, we all need to be responcible in the taking of game. And do what we can to recover it, however that retrival cannot interfere with someone else's (in this case the landowners) rights and freedoms.

From the Iwoa DNR: “Trespass” means entering property without the express permission of the owner, lessee or person in lawful possession, with the intent to commit a public offense; to use, remove therefrom, alter, damage, harass, or place anything animate or inanimate, or to hunt, fish or trap on the property. The term trespass does not mean entering the right-ofway of a public road or highway. Railroad right-ofways are considered private property. This paragraph does not prohibit the unarmed pursuit of game or furbearing animals lawfully injured or killed which come to rest on or escape to the property of another.

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/huntingregs.pdf


This tells me that in Iwoa, it wouldn't be trespassing as far as the DNR is concerned, however, that may not grant authority to the hunter to enter that property. Trespassing laws in the local area may govern that. It still upsets me that Iowa would overrule the landowner on this, but that may be how the laws are held up in court.


----------



## dtprice

You can go to the Iowa DNR website and pull up the hunting regs to see it in writing. I'm not going to argue the case over what makes sense to you. I see both sides. I will tell you that if you're on someone else's property, I would make sure you've got a solid blood trail going from where you shot and it's clear that the deer went onto that property. I come from a farm community with lots of relatives that own lots of ground. And, while our familiy wouldn't want people hunting without permission, even if the law didn't allow the pursuit of game across lines, my family would allow this kind of thing anyway. We would never not allow someone to has legally shot an animal to try and recover their kill. 

I know, that after my experience, if it ever happens again, I'm going to just call the DNR and let them handle the land owner. Not everyone is aware of the laws, which is silly if you're hunter and more excuseable if you're not, but it's best to let the experts handle it. Some people think that you can't sit in a ditch along a road with a bow without permission from the landowner, and that's not true either in Iowa. The ditches are considered public property, and with a bow, you can hunt any ditch you want. That's not true with a firearm shooting a single projectile though. You can't fire a firearm, that shoots a single projectile from a ditch in Iowa, so you would have to actually set foot on the landowner's property to fire the weapon. That, you can't do.


----------



## Pangari1

In Illinois give DNR a call and the CPO will talk to the land owner and try to get permision. The CPO's i know tell me they have never had a refusal, they had to talk to a few for a while but the hunter was allowed to go in after the animal. Usually unarmed.

sent from my Droid X cause my pc won't fit in the tree.


----------



## Meleagris1

> IOWA 716.7 TRESPASS DEFINED.
> 1. The term "property" shall include any land, dwelling,
> building, conveyance, vehicle, or other temporary or permanent
> structure whether publicly or privately owned.
> 2. The term "trespass" shall mean *one or more *of the
> following acts:
> a. Entering upon or in property without the express
> permission of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession with
> the intent to commit a public offense, to use, remove therefrom,
> alter, damage, harass, or place thereon or therein anything animate
> or inanimate, or to hunt, fish or trap on or in the property,
> including the act of taking or attempting to take a deer, other than
> a farm deer as defined in section 170.1 or preserve whitetail as
> defined in section 484C.1, which is on or in the property by a person
> who is outside the property. *This paragraph does not prohibit the
> unarmed pursuit of game or fur-bearing animals by a person who
> lawfully injured or killed the game or fur-bearing animal which comes
> to rest on or escapes to the property of another.*
> 
> b. *Entering or remaining upon or in property without
> justification after being notified or requested to abstain from
> entering or to remove or vacate therefrom by the owner, lessee, or
> person in lawful possession*, or the agent or employee of the owner,
> lessee, or person in lawful possession, or by any peace officer,
> magistrate, or public employee whose duty it is to supervise the use
> or maintenance of the property.


Looks like the Iowa Statue creates an exception to retrieve game under Paragraph 2(a), but this exception does not apply if the hunter is asked to leave the property (See Paragraph 2b). And it goes without saying, just because something is "legal" in some cases, that doesn't make it "right". I did not research the Iowa case law on this, but my best guess is that "justification" under paragraph 2(b) would be limited to life threatening circumstances, and not retrieving game.


----------



## erikbarnes25197

AR&BOW said:


> I believe in MN that the DNR officer will come out and talk to the land owner to tell them he is entering to retrieve game. They can not refuse his entering the property, but you the hunter can not.


actually in minnesota, if the land is posted you may not enter. if its NOT posted, you may enter to recover your game BUT you cannot take your bow/gun. if the land owner asks you to leave in the process you must leave no questions asked.


----------



## dtprice

Meleagris1 said:


> Looks like the Iowa Statue creates an exception to retrieve game under Paragraph 2(a), but this exception does not apply if the hunter is asked to leave the property (See Paragraph 2b). And it goes without saying, just because something is "legal" in some cases, that doesn't make it "right". I did not research the Iowa case law on this, but my best guess is that "justification" under paragraph 2(b) would be limited to life threatening circumstances, and not retrieving game.


Well, you can argue if you want, I'm not the DNR. But, justification is defined directly above that paragraph. You're "guess" is not going to hold up in a court as much as the written word that's already in the code. I personally don't care what anyone else in the country thinks about how to read the law. I read the rule book from front to cover each year. And, I have two DNR officers' cell numbers in my phone. I went thru a bad experience recovering a downed deer and knew what I was talking about before I stepped foot on the other person's property, so I didn't have my weapon with me. The landowner was upset, not because I was really on his property, but because he views the deer as "his" deer, even though they travel through and bed and public hunting and other people properties. If he sees people hunting on neighboring properties or in the public hunting area near his ground, he drives around purposely tries to drive deer away from other hunters. That's illegal in Iowa also. I just know that I do my part and know the law, I don't "guess" at it and hope for the best.


----------



## td051

ASK PERMISSION TO ENTER and recover it. If they say no...well your SOL.


----------



## ryancmacy

A couple weeks ago I attended a hunter education class and this topic came up. Call the local conservation officer and he will come and take care of it. That was from the conservation officers mouth at the class. I live in indiana too, greenwood.. hunt in paragon- morgan county.


----------



## L.I.Archer

colo_dually said:


> No you cannot recover game from property you do not have permission to be on.
> At a minimum its tresspassing, and you can also be tagged with poaching depending on local laws.
> 
> I have never heard of DNR getting involved with recovery of dear, where the land owner does not grant consent.
> 
> In the end that land owner has property rights.


In NYS, you have every right to go onto a neighbor's property to recover a deer without permission. However, it is always polite to ask permission first. If the neighbor says "no," then we call the DEC, who will then approach the landowner and politely ask him/her to go onto the property to recover the deer. If the landowner still says "no," and the deer is in plain sight on his land and he has no license to hunt, then s/he can be fined up to $5,000 for illegally possessing game meat. That's enough incentive for the landowner to comply with state law.


----------



## kdbass

*Win some,Lose some*

In most New England states, property owners do not own the critters, the state does. Therefore the game wardens will contact the property owners and tell them they are entering the property to locate the animal. Once found though, the property owner has the option of letting you have it or keeping it for themselves. You would still have to tag it whether you can keep it or not.:frusty:


----------



## mez

SD you can make unarmed retrieves of game without permission. 

Also, Game Wardens play by different rules than other LEO's. In SD they can enter private property, including homes, without a warrant or consent and search what they want.


----------



## scarby

In Indiana the land owner still does not have to let the DNR come get the deer for you. Its all up to the land owner. Dnr will come out and talk to the land owner but they can still say no.


----------



## whackadeer

In Indiana call the dnr. But the land owner still can refuse. Never understood how the dnr would not have the power to retreive wounded or dead game. It's the ethical thing to not waste an animal


----------



## Lowlevlflyer

dtprice said:


> Well, you can argue if you want, I'm not the DNR. But, justification is defined directly above that paragraph. You're "guess" is not going to hold up in a court as much as the written word that's already in the code. I personally don't care what anyone else in the country thinks about how to read the law. I read the rule book from front to cover each year. And, I have two DNR officers' cell numbers in my phone. I went thru a bad experience recovering a downed deer and knew what I was talking about before I stepped foot on the other person's property, so I didn't have my weapon with me. The landowner was upset, not because I was really on his property, but because he views the deer as "his" deer, even though they travel through and bed and public hunting and other people properties. If he sees people hunting on neighboring properties or in the public hunting area near his ground, he drives around purposely tries to drive deer away from other hunters. That's illegal in Iowa also. I just know that I do my part and know the law, I don't "guess" at it and hope for the best.


From "the letter of the law" that was posted, you have the right to go on property to find your deer. However, if the landowner directs you to leave after you've gotten there, you are bound by law to do so, end of story. I highly doubt a judge is going to see "I'm looking for my deer and I have the right to be here as long as I need to" as sufficient justification for you to stay AFTER a landowner has directed you to leave his property. You pull a stunt like that with a landowner here in OK, and at the very least you will probably be ESCORTED at gunpoint off of his property, and at the worst, you may leave in an ambulance if you want to get too mouthy about it.


----------



## Rolo

Meleagris1 said:


> Looks like the Iowa Statue creates an exception to retrieve game under Paragraph 2(a), but this exception does not apply if the hunter is asked to leave the property (See Paragraph 2b). And it goes without saying, just because something is "legal" in some cases, that doesn't make it "right". I did not research the Iowa case law on this, but my best guess is that "justification" under paragraph 2(b) would be limited to life threatening circumstances, and not retrieving game.


Bingo!

The criminal law of trespass in Iowa appears to allow an exception without actual notice, but with actual notice to leave, criminal trespass may occur. Guessing people may try to leverage the exception in the first paragraph, maybe with the help of the IA DNR, but the law seems pretty clear...but if the leverage works, there would be no "violation"...discussion of State use of leverage is another discussion entirely...

Let's also not forget that people are specifically focussing on the criminal law...there is a whole body of civil law that also applies and makes it "illegal" to enter private property without permission...


----------



## MT Olie

_If the land owner told me to leave and would not let me recover my game, then I'd go after another animal and get my tag filled... If he got mad about that OH'well he should have let me recoverd the 1st animal... I know that this sounds wrong/bad but if people want to be jerk's then beat them at their own game..._


----------



## DoWorkSon

I don't know about the laws of your state but the rules of AT pretty much state that this thread belongs in the Bowhunting section...


----------



## DUCK29

No matter what people in other parts of the country think, it is 100% legal to go on anyones property to find your wounded animal in Iowa as long as you are unarmed. It is a very common happening and most land owners know the law. The ones that dont, usually call the sherriff or dnr and then are told they cannot keep the people off. Just the way it is in Iowa.


----------



## Lowlevlflyer

DUCK29 said:


> No matter what people in other parts of the country think, it is 100% legal to go on anyones property to find your wounded animal in Iowa as long as you are unarmed. It is a very common happening and most land owners know the law. The ones that dont, usually call the sherriff or dnr and then are told they cannot keep the people off. Just the way it is in Iowa.


Sorry, but I dont agree. As the law reads in Iowa, you DO have the right to ENTER a landowner's property without permission, in order to try and find your deer BUT... if that landowner approaches you after you are on property, and directs you to leave his property, you are required by law to do so, otherwise you ARE TRESSPASSING, period. Granted, I may not live in Iowa, but I can read, and it is pretty much spelled out in plain English...

*"b. Entering or remaining upon or in property without
justification after being notified or requested to abstain from
entering or to remove or vacate therefrom by the owner, lessee, or
person in lawful possession, or the agent or employee of the owner,
lessee, or person in lawful possession, or by any peace officer,
magistrate, or public employee whose duty it is to supervise the use
or maintenance of the property."*


----------



## Rolo

DUCK29 said:


> No matter what people in other parts of the country think, it is 100% legal to go on anyones property to find your wounded animal in Iowa as long as you are unarmed. It is a very common happening and most land owners know the law. The ones that dont, usually call the sherriff or dnr and then are told they cannot keep the people off. Just the way it is in Iowa.


That may be how it is applied, but I would be very hesitant to say that it is "100% legal"...if it is, then the State is actually engaging in a temporary "taking" of private property and the owner of the property would be entitled to compensation for it...assuming the "taking" is Constitutional to begin with...


----------



## Meleagris1

L.I.Archer said:


> In NYS, you have every right to go onto a neighbor's property to recover a deer without permission. However, it is always polite to ask permission first. If the neighbor says "no," then we call the DEC, who will then approach the landowner and politely ask him/her to go onto the property to recover the deer. If the landowner still says "no," and the deer is in plain sight on his land and he has no license to hunt, then s/he can be fined up to $5,000 for illegally possessing game meat. That's enough incentive for the landowner to comply with state law.


This is not correct. If the property is "Posted", or you've been told to stay off, its trespass . . . period. Unlike Iowa, New York has no exception carved out for retreiving game. As far as the possession of game and a fine, the landowner is not in legal "possession" until he handles it. They have every right to let a dead deer sit right were it lay, and there is nothing an ECO can do about it unless the landowner is breaking the law in some other way (hunter harassment etc). 

Rather than quote the statue, he is the layman's version of the law straight from the DEC's website:



> Q. May a hunter who has wounded game pursue it onto posted property?
> 
> A. Only if permission has been granted by the posting party.


http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8371.html


----------



## AZBowhunt

Lowlevlflyer said:


> Sorry, but I dont agree. As the law reads in Iowa, you DO have the right to ENTER a landowner's property without permission, in order to try and find your deer BUT... if that landowner approaches you after you are on property, and directs you to leave his property, you are required by law to do so, otherwise you ARE TRESSPASSING, period. Granted, I may not live in Iowa, but I can read, and it is pretty much spelled out in plain English...
> 
> *"b. Entering or remaining upon or in property without
> justification after being notified or requested to abstain from
> entering or to remove or vacate therefrom by the owner, lessee, or
> person in lawful possession, or the agent or employee of the owner,
> lessee, or person in lawful possession, or by any peace officer,
> magistrate, or public employee whose duty it is to supervise the use
> or maintenance of the property."*


Would not looking for a deer be deemed justification? Seems justifiable to me.

That is why you end up having to hire an attorney and go to a judge, to get all these minor wordings that get put into the laws explained. Any layman can read and come up with their own explanation, but that is all it is, your interpretation. Almost all laws have room for "interpretation" and that's why people end up in court all the time.


----------



## skynight

Lowlevlflyer said:


> From "the letter of the law" that was posted, you have the right to go on property to find your deer. However, if the landowner directs you to leave after you've gotten there, you are bound by law to do so, end of story. I highly doubt a judge is going to see "I'm looking for my deer and I have the right to be here as long as I need to" as sufficient justification for you to stay AFTER a landowner has directed you to leave his property. You pull a stunt like that with a landowner here in OK, and at the very least you will probably be ESCORTED at gunpoint off of his property, and at the worst, you may leave in an ambulance if you want to get too mouthy about it.


Awesome. Trespassing is a capital offense in Oklahoma. What idiot will shoot someone for retrieving a deer? Geniuses there in OK.


----------



## bownero

In the state of Nebraska, we're required to get pemission from the landowner to retrieve game from the property. I've known guys to call the authorities, like the Game Warden or County Sheriff if any problem arises. In most cases around here, the landowner will grant permission.


----------



## Meleagris1

dtprice said:


> But, justification is defined directly above that paragraph.





AZBowhunt said:


> Would not looking for a deer be deemed justification? Seems justifiable to me.


I fully support anyone's right to argue that position in front of a Judge. Since justification is NOT defined in the IA statute, you can only hope that your GUESS as to the definition is better than mine. Who knows, the Judge may agree with you. However, if you take my advice, you won't be standing in front of a judge in the first place.  



> I personally don't care what anyone else in the country thinks about how to read the law.


BTW, Judges love to hear this!


----------



## airborne killer

Here in Pa u can cross property line to recover u'r deer,but u must leave u'r weapon behind.Permission is nice but not required.


----------



## 6bloodychunks

airborne killer said:


> Here in Pa u can cross property line to recover u'r deer,but u must leave u'r weapon behind.Permission is nice but not required.


where did you read this? 

it states in the laws that you can NOT tresspass on private property to recover game here in PA

read your book LOL


----------



## sak102174

you must seek the landowners permission...bottom line...!


----------



## HawgEnvy

i hope i dont offend anyone. i certainly am not a tresspasser. but if i shoot a deer and it runs on someones property,the property owner has rights and will be consulted first before attempting recovery. if i can see the deer and it is in fact down,i see no reason to waste time and cause potential trouble. i'd leave my bow and retreive my deer quickly and get it across the property line before gutting and tagging. its non obtrusive and i dont consider it disrespectful. to me,killing a deer and not retreiving it because it dropped across the boundries is no different than someone that just shoots deer just to do it and intentionally leaves them with no attempt or desire to recover them. 

now,a wounded deer that you didn't see go down,that requires a full fledged tracking job and maybe a finishing shot. get permission first.flame if you will,but it wont change my opinions.


----------



## PutnamCountyHunter

I know in Indiana you can NOT go onto someone else's property to recover a wounded animal regardless of the land being "posted", or not. You must obtain permission from the landowner. 

I have never understood the rule about "posting" land. I've had people tresspassing on my farm and they claimed it wasn't "posted". Which is a total lie. I have it posted like a state park. I always ask them if they're lost and if they can't read. And, then I tell them I'm going to follow them home and if their front yard isn't posted, I'm going to walk around and pick flowers...


----------



## Rolo

HNTRDAN said:


> I have never understood the rule about "posting" land. I've had people tresspassing on my farm and they claimed it wasn't "posted". Which is a total lie. I have it posted like a state park. I always ask them if they're lost and if they can't read. And, then I tell them I'm going to follow them home and if their front yard isn't posted, I'm going to walk around and pick flowers...


"Posting" is a form of notice not to do something. Most, if not all, criminal trespass laws require that the trespasser have "notice" of the fact they aren't supposed to be where they are. What constitutes this "notice" for criminal trespass varies between the states.

Again, there is a whole body of civil law that does not require "notice" for it to be a trespass.


----------



## sak102174

I need to re-think this. I assumed it would be 100% illegal to do this in Illinois, although I haven’t found anything specific about Illinois laws I just found this statement about Iowa 

"The unarmed pursuit of game or fur-bearing animals lawfully injured or killed which come to rest on or escape to the property of another is an exception to the trespass law."

This was taken from http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespassing/select-state-laws-on-trespassing.html


If it were me I would still seek permission...


----------



## volgrad7

In most states you cannot cross property lines without landowner consent and some of the information guys have been providing you is incorrect and thus we have all these issues. Many hunters dont even know their own states laws on this issue. Ive already read countless incorrect messages on the 1st page. If you are denied entry to retrieve game thats that. YOu can contact DNR and a warden MIGHT try and speak with the landowner about wastefulness but before anyone states it or asks NO they cannot be chared with waste of a game animal. The landowner has the right in the vast majority of states to let the game rot if he so chooses. The warden may not enter said property with intent and purpose of retrieiving game soley. Now, there might be a few who actually do it because nothing would likely ever come of it but if a landowner were to pursue it, would mean job loss and lawsuit. Speak to the neighbors before you hunt and explain that while you hunt you are respectful of wildlife and understand their position. If you were to take a deer and it wandered on their property its likely neither you nor they would want to see it go to waste. That doesnt do anyone any good. They key here most hunters neglect is to speak to them first and then you know where you stand. They might suprise you if you use respect and treat them with dignity. If they so decline, then at least you know where you stand and need to be hunting to prevent that from happening. Far too many hunters wait and thus we have issues.


----------



## sak102174

My source of this information is not a STATE source but it’s the best I can find. Here it states; 

“Only a few states have statutes that specifically address hunters trespassing to retrieve dogs or wounded animals. In all other states, hunters may not retrieve dogs or wounded animals on land on which the hunter could not legally hunt. 

Again this was pulled from http://realestate.findlaw.com/trespassing/select-state-laws-on-trespassing.html and was NOT found on a state of Illinois web site. 
Gaining the landowners permission is NEVER a bad thing and in my mind should always be done. Who knows the landowner may be so appreciative of you seeking permission first you may just get some more land to hunt…


----------



## davydtune

The fact is that no matter what state, no matter what laws, one should still seek permission. It's called "common courtesy"


----------



## Lowlevlflyer

davydtune said:


> The fact is that no matter what state, no matter what laws, one should still seek permission. It's called "common courtesy"


agree 100%


----------



## Toonces

This was the topic of a really cool thread a while back.

I think in a jurisdiction that has a wanton waste law, a landowner who forbids a hunter to retrieve game and instead allows it to rot, should be prosecuted for wanton waste. 

Not sure it would fly, but I think it would be worth a shot. 

The interaction of wanton waste laws and tresspass laws is interesting.


----------



## wvengineer

It's good to know in Iowa you can trespass all you want. If you get caught just say "I'm sure that deer ran onto this farm...from two counties over". I know that's ludicrous, and I'm kidding. :tongue: I don't know what the laws are in Iowa. WV is not a "right to retrieve" state. I'm glad too. There's only one situation that I wouldn't let someone retrieve a deer/dog whatever and that's repeated abuse of it. I just don't like the idea of someone having a legal right to trespass on my property with a weak excuse. I worked hard to get it, and paid too much for it.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> This was the topic of a really cool thread a while back.
> 
> I think in a jurisdiction that has a wanton waste law, a landowner who forbids a hunter to retrieve game and instead allows it to rot, should be prosecuted for wanton waste.
> 
> Not sure it would fly, but I think it would be worth a shot.
> 
> The interaction of wanton waste laws and tresspass laws is interesting.


Does it also then apply to deer hit by cars that are left on the road? Clearly, the auto driver had more to do with the demise of the deer than the owner of the property that the deer may have died on did.

Working on getting back to you on the other one...:darkbeer:


----------



## Skeptic

Really? Argument could easily be made that the hunter should be prosecuted in that case for causing death to an animal that he had no legal right to retrieve. Im glad I have agreements with all neighbors and permission is always granted with a phone call. No phone call gets a ticket though. Seems simple enough to be respectful and contact the landowner.


Toonces said:


> This was the topic of a really cool thread a while back.
> 
> I think in a jurisdiction that has a wanton waste law, a landowner who forbids a hunter to retrieve game and instead allows it to rot, should be prosecuted for wanton waste.
> 
> Not sure it would fly, but I think it would be worth a shot.
> 
> The interaction of wanton waste laws and tresspass laws is interesting.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo,

I replied on the other one - you just ignored me. Ball is in your court on that one.

I think wanton waste laws are generally aimed at folks who intentionally take game. If a hunter mortally wounds a deer and runs across the property line, and the property owner denies the hunter access, I think the property owner becomes the owner of the deer at that point. If the property owner then chooses to let the deer rot, I think they can be prosecuted.

I don't think this would require the property owner have an affirmative duty to patrol his land looking for road kills. 

I think a good argument can be made that when a hunter wants to obey a wanton waste law, and is prevented from doing so by a landowner, then the affirmative duty falls to the landowner to not waste the game.


----------



## wierdobow

mez said:


> SD you can make unarmed retrieves of game without permission.
> 
> Also, Game Wardens play by different rules than other LEO's. In SD they can enter private property, including homes, without a warrant or consent and search what they want.



Thats BS


----------



## wvengineer

Toonces said:


> Rolo,
> 
> I replied on the other one - you just ignored me. Ball is in your court on that one.
> 
> I think wanton waste laws are generally aimed at folks who intentionally take game. If a hunter mortally wounds a deer and runs across the property line, and the property owner denies the hunter access, I think the property owner becomes the owner of the deer at that point. If the property owner then chooses to let the deer rot, I think they can be prosecuted.
> 
> I don't think this would require the property owner have an affirmative duty to patrol his land looking for road kills.
> 
> I think a good argument can be made that when a hunter wants to obey a wanton waste law, and is prevented from doing so by a landowner, then the affirmative duty falls to the landowner to not waste the game.


Everyone is entitled to their opinions and as such I disagree. This would just be a round about way of making a right to retrieve law. Again if joe dirtbag knocks on my door and says a deer I shot is on your land. Now if I say no I have to check every inch of my land to make sure there's not a dead deer on it, or risk getting fined. In this case Joe is really creepy, no camo on, and he smells like he just left a meth lab. Since we're in make believe land I'll make the rules to my assanine scenario. Now in the case of the Iowa law or the little i know about it from this thread there's no burden on the hunter to prove he was hunting right? Also who says he had to have a legal right to hunt an adjacent piece of property, right? So in our right to retrieve make believe anecdotal state (I'll call it the state of wvengineerisawesome) I can knock on your door and say I shot a deer a couple properties over, and now I demand to search every inch of your property to look for it. Oh you want a DNR officer here, no problem because I'm not going to steal your tractor till next week. I guess if it's two normal people like me and you then we don't need a law. But a law like this removes power from me against those people who would take advantage of such a thing.


----------



## Skeptic

So why would anyone want to own land if they can't control who is on their property, g when, and and for what reason? Can you even imagine the abuse that thieves would give thus law looking for things to steal? Are you a landowner toonces?


Toonces said:


> Rolo,
> 
> I replied on the other one - you just ignored me. Ball is in your court on that one.
> 
> I think wanton waste laws are generally aimed at folks who intentionally take game. If a hunter mortally wounds a deer and runs across the property line, and the property owner denies the hunter access, I think the property owner becomes the owner of the deer at that point. If the property owner then chooses to let the deer rot, I think they can be prosecuted.
> 
> I don't think this would require the property owner have an affirmative duty to patrol his land looking for road kills.
> 
> I think a good argument can be made that when a hunter wants to obey a wanton waste law, and is prevented from doing so by a landowner, then the affirmative duty falls to the landowner to not waste the game.


----------



## Toonces

wvengineer said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinions and as such I disagree. This would just be a round about way of making a right to retrieve law. Again if joe dirtbag knocks on my door and says a deer I shot is on your land. Now if I say no I have to check every inch of my land to make sure there's not a dead deer on it, or risk getting fined. In this case Joe is really creepy, no camo on, and he smells like he just left a meth lab. Since we're in make believe land I'll make the rules to my assanine scenario. Now in the case of the Iowa law or the little i know about it from this thread there's no burden on the hunter to prove he was hunting right? Also who says he had to have a legal right to hunt an adjacent piece of property, right? So in our right to retrieve make believe anecdotal state (I'll call it the state of wvengineerisawesome) I can knock on your door and say I shot a deer a couple properties over, and now I demand to search every inch of your property to look for it. Oh you want a DNR officer here, no problem because I'm not going to steal your tractor till next week. I guess if it's two normal people like me and you then we don't need a law. But a law like this removes power from me against those people who would take advantage of such a thing.


I am saying the landowner should be prosecuted for wanton waste (which still does have to be proven). If you deny a meth head access to your property, there is no prosecution (assuming the meth head wasn't hunting).


----------



## dtprice

Lowlevlflyer said:


> Dude, my initial arguements weren't even DIRECTED at you... you're the one who decided to throw out the "I'm a cornfed Iowa boy and active duty military" internet bad a** comment. Personally, I couldnt care less what you do up there, LITTLE DOGGIE. And I seriously doubt that anything about you could, or would ever give me nightmares. We'll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.


Your initial comments said this "You pull a stunt like that with a landowner here in OK, and at the very least you will probably be ESCORTED at gunpoint off of his property, and at the worst, you may leave in an ambulance if you want to get too mouthy about it."

That was the reason for my reply about being cornfed. Who started the aggressive talk? I didn't insinuate that I would ever do anything aggressive unless a gun was pointed in my direction. Either way, I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, as my own personal view is much closer in line with yours than it is with what the current law states. While I do agree the deer needs to be harvested, I hate laws that infringe on any landowner's rights. There is definitely a way to respect the person that legally owns the land more than just giving people the right to walk onto their property. The only saving grace is that they don't allow weapons. And, you do have to prove to a DNR that there was a blood trail leading onto the property. If you didn't have your ducks in a row, I think you'd get fried in court. Hence, my decision to always call a DNR officer. I probably shouldn't have written what I wrote, but the comment about being escorted by gunpoint and the trip to the hospital had no place in this thread. You don't enforce laws by breaking them yourself. And you don't shoot someone because you don't know what they're doing, unless they're posing a threat to you. A hunter walking about in the woods, with no weapon, is not a threat to you. We have as many drug manufacturing idiots as the next state, but I wouldn't pull a gun on someone because I didn't know what they were doing on my family's property.

Regardless of the laws, I apologize to the other readers of this thread for making any comments that detracted from what was being said. I don't like it when people do it and I shouldn't have done it.


----------



## Toonces

Skeptic said:


> So why would anyone want to own land if they can't control who is on their property, g when, and and for what reason? Can you even imagine the abuse that thieves would give thus law looking for things to steal? Are you a landowner toonces?


Yes I am a landowner.

Prosecution for wanton waste has to be made by the state prosecutors office. I think this is a fair compromise. You argue that tresspass law should not be circumvented by a hunter. I argue that wanton waste laws should not be circumvented by a landowner. 

There should be a middle ground between the two. That middle ground is the landowner is free to enforce no tresspassing, but then the state is free to enforce wanton waste.


----------



## colo_dually

In the end, the land owner's rights to their own property and safety, far outweigh any perceived right the hunter may feel he has to retrieve the animal. And no, I don't feel the land owner is responcible for game hunted off thier land (which they didn't give the hunter permission to hunt in the first place, and were only dragged into the situation after the shot was made.)

Any Warden, who values his job, isn't going to push a search on someone's land. In the end he falls under the same status as any LEO. Search and Seisure laws are in place for a reason.

Here's the real answer to this whole scenario, have permission to track game before you hunt. Get it after, if you need it. And hunt in such a manner you know that animal will not fall on another's property. The hunters maintain their ability to hunt, the land owner maintains his right to be left alone, and no one has to call the warden.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Rolo,
> 
> I replied on the other one - you just ignored me. Ball is in your court on that one.
> 
> I think wanton waste laws are generally aimed at folks who intentionally take game. If a hunter mortally wounds a deer and runs across the property line, and the property owner denies the hunter access, I think the property owner becomes the owner of the deer at that point. If the property owner then chooses to let the deer rot, I think they can be prosecuted.
> 
> I don't think this would require the property owner have an affirmative duty to patrol his land looking for road kills.
> 
> I think a good argument can be made that when a hunter wants to obey a wanton waste law, and is prevented from doing so by a landowner, then the affirmative duty falls to the landowner to not waste the game.


Just replied...

So...what did the land owner do to "intentionally take game"? They did nutt'n. Their actions had nothing to do with taking game, and if they attempted to take the game, they could possibley be committing other law violations.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> Just replied...
> 
> So...what did the land owner do to "intentionally take game"? They did nutt'n. Their actions had nothing to do with taking game, and if they attempted to take the game, they could possibley be committing other law violations.


They intentionally took the game by denying the hunter the ability to retrieve. By denying the hunter, the landowner is claiming ownership of the game, and therefore has a duty to not waste it.


----------



## Lowlevlflyer

dtprice said:


> Your initial comments said this "You pull a stunt like that with a landowner here in OK, and at the very least you will probably be ESCORTED at gunpoint off of his property, and at the worst, you may leave in an ambulance if you want to get too mouthy about it."
> 
> That was the reason for my reply about being cornfed. Who started the aggressive talk? I didn't insinuate that I would ever do anything aggressive unless a gun was pointed in my direction. Either way, I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, as my own personal view is much closer in line with yours than it is with what the current law states. While I do agree the deer needs to be harvested, I hate laws that infringe on any landowner's rights. There is definitely a way to respect the person that legally owns the land more than just giving people the right to walk onto their property. The only saving grace is that they don't allow weapons. And, you do have to prove to a DNR that there was a blood trail leading onto the property. If you didn't have your ducks in a row, I think you'd get fried in court. Hence, my decision to always call a DNR officer. I probably shouldn't have written what I wrote, but the comment about being escorted by gunpoint and the trip to the hospital had no place in this thread. You don't enforce laws by breaking them yourself. And you don't shoot someone because you don't know what they're doing, unless they're posing a threat to you. A hunter walking about in the woods, with no weapon, is not a threat to you. We have as many drug manufacturing idiots as the next state, but I wouldn't pull a gun on someone because I didn't know what they were doing on my family's property.
> 
> Regardless of the laws, I apologize to the other readers of this thread for making any comments that detracted from what was being said. I don't like it when people do it and I shouldn't have done it.


Seems we ARE in more agreement than I thought. The comments I made were not directed at YOU per se, just general statements. There's landowners who unfortuntately will shoot first and ask questions later! Might just be a few warning shots over the head, but it does happen. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it happens. I spent 9 years as a police officer and deputy sheriff, and believe me, I will not wait around to see what the outcome will be if I am confronted with a firearm either, so we are both on the same page there! Wasnt trying to be out of line, or an arrogant hothead with my comments, just making a generalization concerning the attitudes of some of our more "spirited" landowners in Southern and Southeastern Oklahoma. It can be like a whole different country down here in places, and anyone who's spent much time around those parts of our state will agree with me on that one! I understand what you're saying now though, and if I offended you with any of my posts, I apologize.


----------



## solohunter

pendejo37 said:


> The DNR officer will attempt to get permission from the landowner again and if that fails most likely you lose your deer.That is how it works in ohio anyway.


same in IN


----------



## Buick80

Kansas

Written permission is required to enter land posted with hunting and/or trapping by “Written Permission Only" signs, or land having trees or fence posts painted purple. Landowner permission should be obtained before pursuing wounded game onto private property. If you cannot find the landowner or get permission, contact your local natural resource officer


----------



## smartwick08

plain and simple forget all the stupid arguing on here, call and ask them and if they say no, call a game warden and explain the situation and see if he can help you if not thats all u can do. but again if its with in plain sight from your side id just go over and grab it.


----------



## DEOrmiston

Its simple, always ask permission. If met by someone with an attitude like a peta member, calmly explain that you can only take one deer and if you are not allowed to retrieve the one you shot another one will be taken. As for the debate going on here about what is justifiable, to me following a blood trail is justifiable, doing a random search is not.


----------



## wvengineer

Toonces said:


> Yes I am a landowner.
> 
> Prosecution for wanton waste has to be made by the state prosecutors office. I think this is a fair compromise. You argue that tresspass law should not be circumvented by a hunter. I argue that wanton waste laws should not be circumvented by a landowner.
> 
> There should be a middle ground between the two. That middle ground is the landowner is free to enforce no tresspassing, but then the state is free to enforce wanton waste.


Again I don't see how you can cover both. If someone shows up claiming their deer is on my property I have no choice but to go out possibly at night and search every inch of my property or just let them on my property. Let's say I don't then a week later Joe Dirtbag shows up with a DNR officer. Maybe I misjudged Joe, and that's not the smell of meth he works at a chemical plant. They find a dead deer on my property that's spoiled. Uh oh I'm getting fined. As dtprice was saying above the hunter has to prove it with a blood trail. Is that actually written somewhere? Define an acceptable blood trail that would allow you the law given right to go on my property without my permission. Two drops...three drops? I realize case law determines the details of most of this stuff, but practical application would be tough. WV has one that's abused, and yet serves a very good purpose. In WV if my land is not posted, you don't have to cross a fence, and I specifically haven't told you you can't hunt on my property then you can. You don't need written permission. This gets abused all the time. Tear down a few posted signs, and you just opened up a nice piece of hunting property for you and your friends. The reason for this is that some of the land/coal companies will allow hunting on their land, but won't give permission because then that changes the dynamics of their liability. They don't post it, but some definitely won't give written permission. Is there a better way of doing that, I think so, but these companies don't want to mess with release forms and what not. WV made the law to accommodate these companies so they could open up thousands of acres of land for everyone to hunt. I understand your opinion, and I'm chalking it up to you're more optimistic about people, and I'm more pessimistic. I don't see it as trespass law; I see it has landowner rights.


----------



## Postone

If I were you I would call the DNR or pick up the Hunting Regulations in your area and see what what the Law say's for yourself...
I'd hate to see you get into trouble because someone on AT had their own interpretation of the law...


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> They intentionally took the game by denying the hunter the ability to retrieve. By denying the hunter, the landowner is claiming ownership of the game, and therefore has a duty to not waste it.


No he is not...he is asserting property rights over his property...he could care less about the deer. Not claiming ownership over anything other than that which he owns, and certainly is not taking anything...

Prosecuting land owners for wanton waste in this situation would have an incredibly bad result on the ability to hunt private land IMO...


----------



## ItecKid

L.I.Archer said:


> In NYS, you have every right to go onto a neighbor's property to recover a deer without permission. However, it is always polite to ask permission first. If the neighbor says "no," then we call the DEC, who will then approach the landowner and politely ask him/her to go onto the property to recover the deer. If the landowner still says "no," and the deer is in plain sight on his land and he has no license to hunt, then s/he can be fined up to $5,000 for illegally possessing game meat. That's enough incentive for the landowner to comply with state law.


What New York are you from?? Can't enter private property here at all without permission.


----------



## Toonces

wvengineer said:


> Again I don't see how you can cover both. If someone shows up claiming their deer is on my property I have no choice but to go out possibly at night and search every inch of my property or just let them on my property. Let's say I don't then a week later Joe Dirtbag shows up with a DNR officer. Maybe I misjudged Joe, and that's not the smell of meth he works at a chemical plant. They find a dead deer on my property that's spoiled. Uh oh I'm getting fined. As dtprice was saying above the hunter has to prove it with a blood trail. Is that actually written somewhere? Define an acceptable blood trail that would allow you the law given right to go on my property without my permission. Two drops...three drops? I realize case law determines the details of most of this stuff, but practical application would be tough. WV has one that's abused, and yet serves a very good purpose. In WV if my land is not posted, you don't have to cross a fence, and I specifically haven't told you you can't hunt on my property then you can. You don't need written permission. This gets abused all the time. Tear down a few posted signs, and you just opened up a nice piece of hunting property for you and your friends. The reason for this is that some of the land/coal companies will allow hunting on their land, but won't give permission because then that changes the dynamics of their liability. They don't post it, but some definitely won't give written permission. Is there a better way of doing that, I think so, but these companies don't want to mess with release forms and what not. WV made the law to accommodate these companies so they could open up thousands of acres of land for everyone to hunt. I understand your opinion, and I'm chalking it up to you're more optimistic about people, and I'm more pessimistic. I don't see it as trespass law; I see it has landowner rights.


I don't know that WV has a wanton waste law, so my argument may not be applicable. I am speaking in generalities. There are two opposing laws on the books. One says you can't tresspass, the other says you can't waste game.

The landowner has the right to control who has access to his property, but does this also mean the landowner has the right to cause the waste of the game? I don't know.

You can throw out fact patterns that support your case, and I can do the same.

If I am a hunter standing at your property line looking at my dead deer twenty yards away in the middle of the day. And you are standing there telling me I can't cross the line walk twenty yards to get the deer under your supervision, and instead you are going to let the deer rot. Should you as the landowner escape culpabilty under a wanton waste statute under that scenario?


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> No he is not...he is asserting property rights over his property...he could care less about the deer. Not claiming ownership over anything other than that which he owns, and certainly is not taking anything...
> 
> Prosecuting land owners for wanton waste in this situation would have an incredibly bad result on the ability to hunt private land IMO...


So your saying he is not claiming to own what is on his property? If the landowner doesn't own the deer, who does?

Not sure I agree that prosecution would have any impact on ability to hunt private land, its not about the act of hunting, its about preventing waste. If the landowner takes affirmative action and chooses to cause waste, then why not prosecute?


----------



## wvengineer

Toonces said:


> I don't know that WV has a wanton waste law, so my argument may not be applicable. I am speaking in generalities. There are two opposing laws on the books. One says you can't tresspass, the other says you can't waste game.
> 
> The landowner has the right to control who has access to his property, but does this also mean the landowner has the right to cause the waste of the game? I don't know.
> 
> You can throw out fact patterns that support your case, and I can do the same.
> 
> If I am a hunter standing at your property line looking at my dead deer twenty yards away in the middle of the day. And you are standing there telling me I can't cross the line walk twenty yards to get the deer under your supervision, and instead you are going to let the deer rot. Should you as the landowner escape culpabilty under a wanton waste statute under that scenario?


Toonces we're not arguing we're discussing. To me it's like a logic puzzle. I don't mind. And it doesn't need to be applicable to WV we're in our own little make believe land where we can laugh at the laws of physics. I wouldn't call my little scenarios "fact patterns", I would be surprised if anything factual like that ever happened. In your own thought there you're saying the land owner caused the waste, but if the hunter never shot the the deer then it wouldn't be wasted. Maybe the hunter should be fined for not ensuring that his game didn't cross a property line (assanine I know). In any case your infringing on the landowners rights. It's like saying the hunter has a right to shoot a deer on the line in such a way to purposefully get the deer to cross the line so he can cross it too. The land owner did nothing to get the deer to cross the line. I know that doens't make sense, but welcome to my thought patterns. BTW if you happen to shoot a deer and it runs across my property line you're more than welcome to get it you don't even need to tell me. Just don't be dressed like Joe Dirtbag.


----------



## wvengineer

Toonces said:


> So your saying he is not claiming to own what is on his property? If the landowner doesn't own the deer, who does?
> 
> Not sure I agree that prosecution would have any impact on ability to hunt private land, its not about the act of hunting, its about preventing waste. If the landowner takes affirmative action and chooses to cause waste, then why not prosecute?


In some states the land owner doesn't own the deer. The state does until someone puts their tag on it. Or so I've heard.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> So your saying he is not claiming to own what is on his property? If the landowner doesn't own the deer, who does?
> 
> Not sure I agree that prosecution would have any impact on ability to hunt private land, its not about the act of hunting, its about preventing waste. If the landowner takes affirmative action and chooses to cause waste, then why not prosecute?


Yes and no...and you know the difference...especially since wild game are not owned by any individual until the tag is on it.

Really...a law that prosecutes land owners for controlling their land rlated to other's hunting...what do you suppose the easy reaction for land owners is going to be...no one is hunting my land anymore because of what some hunter did...happens all the time with way less "significant" things...


----------



## mez

wierdobow said:


> Thats BS


I agree.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> Yes and no...and you know the difference...especially since wild game are not owned by any individual until the tag is on it.
> 
> Really...a law that prosecutes land owners for controlling their land rlated to other's hunting...what do you suppose the easy reaction for land owners is going to be...no one is hunting my land anymore because of what some hunter did...happens all the time with way less "significant" things...


I don't see any difference. The deer is dead, its not game anymore, its meat and bones. The landowner has possession and control over it so the landowner owns it. There really can't be any rational argument made that says they don't own it.

If the landowner is prosecuted, preventing hunting on his land would not prevent being prosecuted again for same thing if hunting is occuring on neighboring property. I just don't see how prosecuting would have any effect at all on land access. The whole point of the prosecution is that the landowner is already denying access.


----------



## Toonces

wvengineer said:


> In some states the land owner doesn't own the deer. The state does until someone puts their tag on it. Or so I've heard.


That is great for my argument. If the state owns it, then wanton waste laws would require that the hunter retrieve it, even over the objections of the landowner. What you are saying is that the wanton waste laws trump the tresspass laws.


----------



## jclaws1

The one thing also about retreiving deer on someone elses property in iowa is that you better have a blood trail to prove it.
You just cant go wandering around aimlessly with no blood trail or you will get a tresspass ticket.


----------



## RNT

caseyjoeindiana said:


> If i arrow a deer and it goes onto a neighbors property. Say this guy says "no" is there any options? I hunt a property that is surrounded by woods that are owned by anti hunters. Well shouldn't call them that, they just do not like people hunting their beloved pet deer/children. I was told when i was a kid that if they said "no" to call the DNR and they would assist in the recovery regardless of the land owners consent. N.E Indiana.



I dont know about that last part here in Nebraska but if it goes on other property you need that landowners permission to go on and retreive it otherwise it is trespassing.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

Didn't read all these posts but found out that their is nothing i can do and the land owner can even tell the DNR to go jump in a lake. Although i think the land owner is a butt-hole, I think his land is his and he SHOULD have say so over it. The rights of ones land out weigh my passion.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

Meleagris1 said:


> Looks like the Iowa Statue creates an exception to retrieve game under Paragraph 2(a), but this exception does not apply if the hunter is asked to leave the property (See Paragraph 2b). And it goes without saying, just because something is "legal" in some cases, that doesn't make it "right". I did not research the Iowa case law on this, but my best guess is that "justification" under paragraph 2(b) would be limited to life threatening circumstances, and not retrieving game.


 How did we get on Iowa?


----------



## DUCK29

Back to Iowa. I understand the part of the law that says you leave when you are told by the landowner, but thats only until the dnr shows up, and then you go track your deer. Period. They cannot keep you from getting your deer. If you have a problem with the landowner, the part where they tell you to leave and the part where the dnr show up, are usually about the same time. Sometimes, even the sherriff and dnr have to get involved, but the landowner always loses the arguement.


----------



## Pittstate23

If I know where the deer is dead for sure I'll go get him without asking, but if I have to search I will go ask permisson.


----------



## Alloutdoors95

Go to the owner and ask permission. Most people will be nice about it. And if they say no well do what you want.


----------



## buckfever1969

L.I.Archer said:


> In NYS, you have every right to go onto a neighbor's property to recover a deer without permission. However, it is always polite to ask permission first. If the neighbor says "no," then we call the DEC, who will then approach the landowner and politely ask him/her to go onto the property to recover the deer. If the landowner still says "no," and the deer is in plain sight on his land and he has no license to hunt, then s/he can be fined up to $5,000 for illegally possessing game meat. That's enough incentive for the landowner to comply with state law.


where did you find this at? I have been told you cannot enter with out permission.That came right from a game warden.Also the game warden has better things to do than try to get someones deer for them. http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8371.html


----------



## colo_dually

Toonces said:


> I don't see any difference. The deer is dead, its not game anymore, its meat and bones. The landowner has possession and control over it so the landowner owns it. There really can't be any rational argument made that says they don't own it.
> 
> If the landowner is prosecuted, preventing hunting on his land would not prevent being prosecuted again for same thing if hunting is occuring on neighboring property. I just don't see how prosecuting would have any effect at all on land access. The whole point of the prosecution is that the landowner is already denying access.


The land owner has every right to deny that access. And no he can't be held liable for every creature that dies (both by a hunter's shot, or natural causes) on his land. Prosecute a land owner for a deer, and you will see land owners taking action to prevent further litigation. This may include, but not be limited to, denial of hunting on their property in the first place, posting of property as to no access at all for any reason, counter-litigation and appeals in the court system, and worse case pushing for new laws to restore their ownership rights that shouldn't have been denied in the first place. Where do you feel that the couple of hundred you drop in the cost of a license and tags in a state, trump the thousands paid in property taxes every year by those who own enough land to hunt on? 



caseyjoeindiana said:


> Didn't read all these posts but found out that their is nothing i can do and the land owner can even tell the DNR to go jump in a lake. Although i think the land owner is a butt-hole, I think his land is his and he SHOULD have say so over it. The rights of ones land out weigh my passion.


Sorry you have issues with the neighbor, and you lost your deer.

With this, I've put my opinion on the matter pretty clear, and I'm stepping out of this thread.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

colo_dually said:


> The land owner has every right to deny that access. And no he can't be held liable for every creature that dies (both by a hunter's shot, or natural causes) on his land. Prosecute a land owner for a deer, and you will see land owners taking action to prevent further litigation. This may include, but not be limited to, denial of hunting on their property in the first place, posting of property as to no access at all for any reason, counter-litigation and appeals in the court system, and worse case pushing for new laws to restore their ownership rights that shouldn't have been denied in the first place. Where do you feel that the couple of hundred you drop in the cost of a license and tags in a state, trump the thousands paid in property taxes every year by those who own enough land to hunt on?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you have issues with the neighbor, and you lost your deer.
> 
> With this, I've put my opinion on the matter pretty clear, and I'm stepping out of this thread.


 I didnt loose a deer, it was a hypothetical situation. I just wanted to find out in case it happened. For the record, id be tracking my deer at 3am.


----------



## law651

In any state that has the open fields doctrine for Search and Seizure, any law enforcement could on active duty, go and retrieve the animal.It would not be hard to artuculate why you did this. In most states, the State owns the wildlife. But why would they get involved. Law enforcement has better things to do than blood trail deer and drag them out.


----------



## wvengineer

caseyjoeindiana said:


> How did we get on Iowa?


ou
Would you quit interrupting your own thread. We're busy figuring out the important stuff. Ok I have one more. Indiana...Iowa aren't they the same? I think I have it out of my system now.


----------



## wvengineer

law651 said:


> In any state that has the open fields definition for Search and Seizure, any law enforcement could on active duty, go and retrieve the animal.It would not be hard to artuculate why you did this. In most states, the State owns the wildlife. But why would they get involved. Law enforcement has better things to do than blood trail deer and drag them out.


What is open fields definition for search and seizure?


----------



## Toonces

colo_dually said:


> The land owner has every right to deny that access. And no he can't be held liable for every creature that dies (both by a hunter's shot, or natural causes) on his land. Prosecute a land owner for a deer, and you will see land owners taking action to prevent further litigation. This may include, but not be limited to, denial of hunting on their property in the first place, posting of property as to no access at all for any reason, counter-litigation and appeals in the court system, and worse case pushing for new laws to restore their ownership rights that shouldn't have been denied in the first place. *Where do you feel that the couple of hundred you drop in the cost of a license and tags in a state, trump the thousands paid in property taxes every year by those who own enough land to hunt on? *
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you have issues with the neighbor, and you lost your deer.
> 
> With this, I've put my opinion on the matter pretty clear, and I'm stepping out of this thread.


Why do you feel owning land gives the landowner the right to disregard wanton waste statutes? 

Does this mean if I am hunting on my own property in a jurisdiction with a wanton waste law and I kill a deer that expires on my property, I am allowed to let it rot because my property rights trump the law?

What if I am allowing a hunter to hunt my property and he kills a deer that dies there. I clearly have the right to change my mind any time throw him off the property before he retrieves the deer he killed. Can I do that and allow the deer to rot?


----------



## law651

The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States,[1] which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields."[2] This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."

This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S.,[3] which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'."[4] Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

In Oliver v. United States,[5] the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:

…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.[6]

Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field—whether trespass or not—is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.

[edit] Distinguishing open fields from curtilageWhile open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, may be protected. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.

An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."[7] Courts make this determination by examining "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."[8] Theoretically, many structures might extend the curtilage protection to the areas immediately surrounding them. The courts have gone so far as to treat a tent as a home for Fourth Amendment purposes in the past.[9][10][11] (Note: these are 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cases and would not be binding authority in many, if not most, cases.) It is possible that the area immediately surrounding a tent (or any structure used as a home) might be considered curtilage.

Despite this rather broad interpretation of curtilage, the courts seem willing to find areas to be outside of the curtilage if they are in any way separate from the home (by a fence, great distance, other structures, even certain plants).[12]


----------



## wvengineer

law651:

So does this mean that an officer of the law can wonder around my 100's of acres of fields at will? With no evidence of a crime being committed or probable cause for a reason for them to be on my property? Just wondering.


----------



## sirrobinhood

Pangari1 said:


> In Illinois give DNR a call and the CPO will talk to the land owner and try to get permision. The CPO's i know tell me they have never had a refusal, they had to talk to a few for a while but the hunter was allowed to go in after the animal. Usually unarmed.
> 
> sent from my Droid X cause my pc won't fit in the tree.


Im sure there has been cases where the DNR here in IL has "Talked" a landowner into hunter retrieving their wounded deer...But the landowner has the final say. If they deny..DNR cant do anything about it. I have witnessed this.


----------



## law651

I really don't want to get into this that deep. Generally if the landowner says no, It ends their. But technically law enforcement could go and retreive the deer. Under the wanton waste law.


----------



## gbienvenu

Toonces said:


> Why do you feel owning land gives the landowner the right to disregard wanton waste statutes?
> 
> Does this mean if I am hunting on my own property in a jurisdiction with a wanton waste law and I kill a deer that expires on my property, I am allowed to let it rot because my property rights trump the law?
> 
> What if I am allowing a hunter to hunt my property and he kills a deer that dies there. I clearly have the right to change my mind any time throw him off the property before he retrieves the deer he killed. Can I do that and allow the deer to rot?


The way you are arguing this, you must be a lawyer. That said, if a drug dealer is being pursued down the road in front of your house and throws his drugs out into your yard, then comes back to look for them and you throw him off your property, then the police come by and find the drugs, then it only makes sense to arrest you as the landowner for possession of narcotics. After all, the drug dealer was only trying to retrieve what was essentially his and you prevented the retrieval of it by throwing him off your land, so you as the landowner are in possession of the drugs due to your refusal to allow the drug dealer from retrieving what he caused to be found on your property(drugs - deer = landowner's problem).

In your world, you would get screwed.


----------



## wvengineer

Toonces has valid thoughts here, and they're reasonable. Some of the wanton waste laws are kind of vague about such things (I've just now been reading a bunch). It appears that generally they call out the killer/taker/wounder/hunter in the laws so long as the land owner is none of those they're safe. Also since most of the ones I've read say the hunter/yada/yada needs to exercise a reasonable effort to keep from wasting. It would seem if the hunter's request for permission to retrieve from private property is refused then their expectation of reasonable effort would end. Then again I'm not a lawyer; I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## gbienvenu

His point was valid until he decided that the landowner should be charged. After that, validity went out the window, along with landowner rights.


----------



## carbonarchery

What I have been told here in Oklahoma is we have a waisting law and the land owner can be ticketed


----------



## decalman

In most states crossing property lines is tresspassing period. In most cases if you explain why you want to be on the property, permission will be granted. How I handle the PETA types. I play lets make a deal. I pull a hand fool of unused tags and show the property owner. I respectfully tell them that while I don't agree with their feelings, I will make them a deal. I tell them that the deer on their property is dead and no bringing them back. If you will give me permission to retrieve that deer, I will fill the rest of my tags elsewhere. If they don't immediatley respond I finish by telling them. If not, I spend the next month here killing every deer that the law allows.


----------



## VA2

Meleagris1 said:


> This is not correct. If the property is "Posted", or you've been told to stay off, its trespass . . . period. Unlike Iowa, New York has no exception carved out for retreiving game. As far as the possession of game and a fine, the landowner is not in legal "possession" until he handles it. They have every right to let a dead deer sit right were it lay, and there is nothing an ECO can do about it unless the landowner is breaking the law in some other way (hunter harassment etc).
> 
> Rather than quote the statue, he is the layman's version of the law straight from the DEC's website:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8371.html


Thanks I needed that info!


----------



## Rembrandt1

I own land in Iowa....and just went through this with 3 trespassers last weekend. Went to my stand before dark and saw every deer movement in the area. Three hunters in camo come through with no weapons making more noise than a school yard full of kids. When they got to my stand I called out "Smile, you're on camera"....they looked up as I snapped a series of pictures to get documented proof of their position and identity. 

Asked who they were and what they were doing....one guy gave me his name and where he lived. When I asked who gave him permission to hunt he rattles off a property owner who doesn't own the land he was hunting on. I informed him of that, he corrected himself and identified the correct property owner. _(* I later called the land owner and asked if the guy had permission, land owner said he'd never heard of this fellow)_ Hunters said they were following a blood trail of a wounded doe and it led them directly to my property. When I informed him I'd seen no deer in that location all morning, he argued there was a fresh blood trail and he had the right by law to follow the deer, if I didn't like it he'd call the DNR and get two officers out there to read me the law. 

Became apparent the situation was going down hill fast, I ordered all of them off my property or have trespass charges brought against them. Later got down from my stand to see this fresh blood trail he claimed to be following....there was none. 

The fact that these guys molested my hunt was bad enough, but to flaunt their legal rights-vs-landowner and lie about things that could be easily dis-proven was a bit much.


----------



## Bagman

In Florida if you tresspass with your bow or any weapon it is considered Felony Tresspass. This also includes any projectile on to someone elses property. I specifically addressed these concerns with ALL my neighboring property owners regarding retrieving game etc. when I bought my property 15 years ago. Now I do hunt another piece of property about a half mile from me and it borders some property that is owned by the largest land owner in Florida and there is absolutely NO tresspassing period. My best friend is a Liutenant game warden and we have discussed the possibilities of what I am to do if I have to track a deer on this landowners property. He told me point blank for me to call him and we will go track my deer. Thankfully I havent had to do that yet but it is nice knowing I have that option. As far as wardens here, they have a bunch of authority that the other LEO do not have.


----------



## mplane72

As Iowa law states a hunter does have the right to retrieve game that crosses a property line. I have done this myself, with out asking permission, but only when i know I am going to make a quick recovery and not be beating around another hunter's ground. If I am unsure of retrieval I will make every effort to get in touch with the neighboring land owner and have had no problems, actually it helped a lot and may lead to future access to some new property. The owner of one of the farms I hunt was telling me how every year during shot gun season the same dirt bags would come knocking on his door saying they had a dead deer on his property they wanted to get but they never seemed to be able to find them. I explained that this is an old trick people use to push deer of private land to there buddies. Next time it happened he told them to wait and called the DNR. Warden showed up and wanted to see some blood. He had already seen there buddies waiting on the road at the other end of the farm. Long story short no blood and tickets were issued.


----------



## GoosebyFLuFLu

You can bring a knife across the fence in Iowa though while retrieving the deer.


----------



## Rothhar1

in Indiana once a land owner refuses you entry no law enforcment includeing the DNR can force the owner to allow entry by the hunter or the officer himself to recover any lost game animal .This is a landowner rights state .So asking and being granted permission by the land owner is the only way to lawfully gain access to recover your lost deer .That is the law of this state and it is what it is in Indiana .


----------



## Rothhar1

carbonarchery said:


> What I have been told here in Oklahoma is we have a waisting law and the land owner can be ticketed


 Actually only the hunters can be ticketed not landowners as they were not paticipants in the act of hunting sorry more missinformation .


----------



## Rothhar1

caseyjoeindiana said:


> I didnt loose a deer, it was a hypothetical situation. I just wanted to find out in case it happened. For the record, id be tracking my deer at 3am.


 Just know that you would be guilty of tresspass and could be cited and also loose that deer . Also almost every state has some sort of differance in thier tresspass recovery laws in Indiana you must have writen permission on you to hunt private land or its hunting illigaly and also tresspass unless you own the land or have lease documantation .


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> I don't see any difference. The deer is dead, its not game anymore, its meat and bones. The landowner has possession and control over it so the landowner owns it. There really can't be any rational argument made that says they don't own it.
> 
> If the landowner is prosecuted, preventing hunting on his land would not prevent being prosecuted again for same thing if hunting is occuring on neighboring property. I just don't see how prosecuting would have any effect at all on land access. The whole point of the prosecution is that the landowner is already denying access.


Interesting concept of "ownership"...I guess the next time the neighbors park on my property, I will have a new car...


----------



## MikeWhisenhunt

I lost my first ever bow kill on a very nice 140 buck this season I am pretty sure due to the denial of access to the neighboring property, I learned though calling a warden that this neighbor called in someone last year off of this place for shooting a deer it crossed the fence and dropped 20 yrds over the fence, unarmed retrieve still cost him major fines and it stuck. The guy was mad because the guy dropped two 10 points scoring 130 and 140 with in the first 2 hours of opening day of rifle season, the owner was sitting in his stand 50 yards from where the shooter was sitting. I ever asked the guy if he did find him could i atleast have a picture with him being my first deer and first buck he denied. Will be moving leases after this year. Point being, if your cross and dont have permission in Texas you can get in trouble wasting or not, keep hoping I made a bad shot and ill catch him on camera again....


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

wvengineer said:


> ou
> Would you quit interrupting your own thread. We're busy figuring out the important stuff. Ok I have one more. Indiana...Iowa aren't they the same? I think I have it out of my system now.


 My question was answered. Would you quit being a chatty Kathy and pm your girlfriend.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

Shouldernuke! said:


> Just know that you would be guilty of tresspass and could be cited and also loose that deer . Also almost every state has some sort of differance in thier tresspass recovery laws in Indiana you must have writen permission on you to hunt private land or its hunting illigaly and also tresspass unless you own the land or have lease documantation .


 a very unlikely thing to happen to me but i would tack my chances.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

Rembrandt1 said:


> I own land in Iowa....and just went through this with 3 trespassers last weekend. Went to my stand before dark and saw every deer movement in the area. Three hunters in camo come through with no weapons making more noise than a school yard full of kids. When they got to my stand I called out "Smile, you're on camera"....they looked up as I snapped a series of pictures to get documented proof of their position and identity.
> 
> Asked who they were and what they were doing....one guy gave me his name and where he lived. When I asked who gave him permission to hunt he rattles off a property owner who doesn't own the land he was hunting on. I informed him of that, he corrected himself and identified the correct property owner. _(* I later called the land owner and asked if the guy had permission, land owner said he'd never heard of this fellow)_ Hunters said they were following a blood trail of a wounded doe and it led them directly to my property. When I informed him I'd seen no deer in that location all morning, he argued there was a fresh blood trail and he had the right by law to follow the deer, if I didn't like it he'd call the DNR and get two officers out there to read me the law.
> 
> Became apparent the situation was going down hill fast, I ordered all of them off my property or have trespass charges brought against them. Later got down from my stand to see this fresh blood trail he claimed to be following....there was none.
> 
> The fact that these guys molested my hunt was bad enough, but to flaunt their legal rights-vs-landowner and lie about things that could be easily dis-proven was a bit much.


 You handled it much better than i could have friend.


----------



## Lowlevlflyer

carbonarchery said:


> What I have been told here in Oklahoma is we have a waisting law and the land owner can be ticketed


That law here in OK applies only to a hunter who kills an animal and leaves it to waste, or takes only part of it... not a landowner.


----------



## curtisj76

I just had my hunter safety course on Saturday and the DNR guy said you can enter private property without permission but you CAN'T bring your weapon. Leave it by the fence.


----------



## wvengineer

caseyjoeindiana said:


> My question was answered. Would you quit being a chatty Kathy and pm your girlfriend.


Touche...well played Sir. :wink:


----------



## BaxMaine

airborne killer said:


> *Here in Pa u can cross property line to recover* u'r deer,but u must leave u'r weapon behind.Permission is nice but not required.


Even posted land? I have a feeling if that law was challenged, the landowner would, and should win.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> Interesting concept of "ownership"...I guess the next time the neighbors park on my property, I will have a new car...


Isn't possession 9/10th of the law. If the dead deer is on your property and you have a legal right to prevent the rest of the world access to it (which is what your claiming, and with which I agree), then you own it.

If your claiming ownership of it, then the I think its reasonable that wanton waste should apply. All the landowner has to do in order not to be prosecuted is make use of the animal that he has claimed ownership of. If he doesn't want to make use of it, allow the hunter to retrieve it.

Its really not that controversial a position to take in my opinion. I am not saying its a slam dunk for the prosecution by any stretch, far from it, but its also not completely far fetched either.


----------



## bigrackHack

Toonces said:


> Isn't possession 9/10th of the law. If the dead deer is on your property and you have a legal right to prevent the rest of the world access to it (which is what your claiming, and with which I agree), then you own it.
> 
> If your claiming ownership of it, then the I think its reasonable that wanton waste should apply. All the landowner has to do in order not to be prosecuted is make use of the animal that he has claimed ownership of. If he doesn't want to make use of it, allow the hunter to retrieve it.
> 
> Its really not that controversial a position to take in my opinion. I am not saying its a slam dunk for the prosecution by any stretch, far from it, but its also not completely far fetched either.


Is the landowner really claiming ownership of the animal or simply restricting access to the property? Why would a landowner be cited for wanton waste when he has not killed or tagged the animal? If the landowner never searches for, finds, touches or tags the animal, has he claimed ownership?


----------



## Toonces

bigrackHack said:


> Is the landowner really claiming ownership of the animal or simply restricting access to the property? Why would a landowner be cited for wanton waste when he has not killed or tagged the animal? If the landowner never searches for, finds, touches or tags the animal, has he claimed ownership?


If he is denying anyone else to do so, including the hunter and the state, I think a strong argument can be made that he is claiming ownership, but it could be a question of fact for sure.

If the landowner knows where the dead dear is lying, and affirmatively denies access to a hunter who wants to make use of the dead animal, and/or affirmatively denies access to the state who wants to make use of the dead animal or assist the hunter in making use of the dead animal, then I think its pretty clear that the landowner is affirmately claiming to own the dead animal.

It becomes less clear if the owner is taking no affirmative action to deny access to the dead animal to others or if its not clear the animal has actually expired on his property.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Isn't possession 9/10th of the law. If the dead deer is on your property and you have a legal right to prevent the rest of the world access to it (which is what your claiming, and with which I agree), then you own it.
> 
> If your claiming ownership of it, then the I think its reasonable that wanton waste should apply. All the landowner has to do in order not to be prosecuted is make use of the animal that he has claimed ownership of. If he doesn't want to make use of it, allow the hunter to retrieve it.
> 
> Its really not that controversial a position to take in my opinion. I am not saying its a slam dunk for the prosecution by any stretch, far from it, but its also not completely far fetched either.


It's a nice saying...but not really.

So I will own my neighbors car that easily too...at least under your theory?

Who said the landowner was claiming ownership over the stupid animal? The owner is claiming ownership over his property, the owner has done nothing to kill or take the animal, he or she just wants to enjoy their property as they see fit. There may be very legitimate reasons for not allowing access. Do these laws that appear to allow chase, also shield the owner from suit or liability if someone takes advantage of them and gets hurt on the property? Haven't seen that even mentioned. Even if such a suit failed, it would still have significant costs to the land owner...all for a deer?

The landowner would be guilty of various other crimes if he or she attemped to make use of the animal...seems your theory either prosecutes the owner for exercising their unquestionable rights, criminalizes them if they take the animal, or forces them to waive their rights...really a govt taking...if they don't want to be prosecuted.

Kinda a backwardsass approach to government control of private property for a non-public purpose. It is a very far fetched position to take. If I can retrieve my deer, I can also hunt because if the LO refuses he is exercising control ownership over the wild animals and he can't do that, and can be prosecuted for that, so I will hunt anyway. A position that would essentially open private property for public use of any kind...sleepy behind the wheel, no problem, I'll just set up camp in this persons field because that is what I need to do. And hey, if I get hurt while doing it, I can always sue the owner...

A far fetched idea...in today's world where private property ownership is viewed as evil by some...probably not...a road that anyone should be fearful of going down...absolutely.

Trying to figure out how you square the prosecution for wanton waste (a State law) with the Constititutional plinciples (both State and Federal) that such a prosecution would directly contradict?


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> If he is denying anyone else to do so, including the hunter and the state, I think a strong argument can be made that he is claiming ownership, but it could be a question of fact for sure.
> 
> If the landowner knows where the dead dear is lying, and affirmatively denies access to a hunter who wants to make use of the dead animal, and/or affirmatively denies access to the state who wants to make use of the dead animal or assist the hunter in making use of the dead animal, then I think its pretty clear that the landowner is affirmately claiming to own the dead animal.
> 
> It becomes less clear if the owner is taking no affirmative action to deny access to the dead animal to others or if its not clear the animal has actually expired on his property.


The whole concept of a Constitution is to be able to deny the State a whole bunch of things. That is why they tell the governments what they cannot do. And clearly, they cannot enter private property without warrant/probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. The owner has committed no crime...period. Clearly (well maybe less clear in recent years) the government cannot force a landowner to open up his land (take) without compensation without compensation. Constitutional protections will always be superior to legislative laws...hence there is no crime the LO is guilty of...


----------



## Meleagris1

Toonces said:


> If he is denying anyone else to do so, including the hunter and the state, I think a strong argument can be made that he is claiming ownership, but it could be a question of fact for sure.


I am not aware of a single case in any state where this argument has been made, much less successfully. That said, I would pay to watch someone try to explain it to a judge . . . just to see the expression on the judge's face.


----------



## bigrackHack

Toonces said:


> If he is denying anyone else to do so, including the hunter and the state, I think a strong argument can be made that he is claiming ownership, but it could be a question of fact for sure.
> 
> If the landowner knows where the dead dear is lying, and affirmatively denies access to a hunter who wants to make use of the dead animal, and/or affirmatively denies access to the state who wants to make use of the dead animal or assist the hunter in making use of the dead animal, then I think its pretty clear that the landowner is affirmately claiming to own the dead animal.
> 
> It becomes less clear if the owner is taking no affirmative action to deny access to the dead animal to others or if its not clear the animal has actually expired on his property.


I disagree. I don't believe you could prove wanton waste against a landowner that did not kill the animal or attempt to make use of any of the animal, even knowing the animal was on his property. Restricting trespass should not guilt the landowner. I would hate to see landowner rights trampled upon in such a manner.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> It's a nice saying...but not really.
> 
> So I will own my neighbors car that easily too...at least under your theory?
> 
> Who said the landowner was claiming ownership over the stupid animal? The owner is claiming ownership over his property, the owner has done nothing to kill or take the animal, he or she just wants to enjoy their property as they see fit. There may be very legitimate reasons for not allowing access. Do these laws that appear to allow chase, also shield the owner from suit or liability if someone takes advantage of them and gets hurt on the property? Haven't seen that even mentioned. Even if such a suit failed, it would still have significant costs to the land owner...all for a deer?
> 
> *The landowner would be guilty of various other crimes if he or she attemped to make use of the animal...seems your theory either prosecutes the owner for exercising their unquestionable rights, criminalizes them if they take the animal, or forces them to waive their rights...really a govt taking...if they don't want to be prosecuted.*
> 
> Kinda a backwardsass approach to government control of private property for a non-public purpose. It is a very far fetched position to take. If I can retrieve my deer, I can also hunt because if the LO refuses he is exercising control ownership over the wild animals and he can't do that, and can be prosecuted for that, so I will hunt anyway. A position that would essentially open private property for public use of any kind...sleepy behind the wheel, no problem, I'll just set up camp in this persons field because that is what I need to do. And hey, if I get hurt while doing it, I can always sue the owner...
> 
> A far fetched idea...in today's world where private property ownership is viewed as evil by some...probably not...a road that anyone should be fearful of going down...absolutely.
> 
> Trying to figure out how you square the prosecution for wanton waste (a State law) with the Constititutional plinciples (both State and Federal) that such a prosecution would directly contradict?


Your taking this way farther than you have to. Its a narrow specific issue - wanton waste. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure that game animals are not shot and then wasted. The landowner also absolutely has a right to control his property, I am not disputing that. 

If the landowner chooses to exercise his right of control over his property, in this narrow instance and under certain fact patterns, the landowner also has to make use of the animal. If the landowner chooses not to make use of the animal, and also prevents anyone else from making use of the animal, then the landowner risks prosecution. 

Your couching this in terms of a private property issue when it really isn't. The landowner's ability to control access to his property is absolute and not in question. What the landowner can or cannot do with the carcass on his property is what is regulated. No one questions that the landowner cannot kill all the deer on his property whenever he wants, just because they are on his property. Why is it such a stretch to say that what he can do with a dead deer on his property should also be regulated if the state has legitimate interest, (preventing waste).


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Your taking this way farther than you have to. Its a narrow specific issue - wanton waste. The state has a legitimate interest in making sure that game animals are not shot and then wasted. The landowner also absolutely has a right to control his property, I am not disputing that.
> 
> If the landowner chooses to exercise his right of control over his property, in this narrow instance and under certain fact patterns, the landowner also has to make use of the animal. If the landowner chooses not to make use of the animal, and also prevents anyone else from making use of the animal, then the landowner risks prosecution.
> 
> Your couching this in terms of a private property issue when it really isn't. The landowner's ability to control access to his property is absolute and not in question. What the landowner can or cannot do with the carcass on his property is what is regulated. No one questions that the landowner cannot kill all the deer on his property whenever he wants, just because they are on his property. Why is it such a stretch to say that what he can do with a dead deer on his property should also be regulated if the state has legitimate interest, (preventing waste).


I am not taking it anywhere that the road you are on doesn't lead. Don't allow access, and do nothing with the animal...guilty of wanton waste. Don't allow access and take the animal...well now the LO is possessing an illegally taken animal, without a permit, and has failed to tag it. Be forced to allow access to avoid the above...well now a temporary taking has occurred without compensation. 

The issue simply cannot be specifically limited in narrow instances with specific fact patterns...the government is either allowed to coerce landowners to allow access to their property to others against their will, or they get prosecuted for not doing it...or, they get coerced into taking posession of an animal they have not interest in, expending their resources to do it...or be prosecuted.

Prosecuting someone for doing entirely what they are entitled to do, and legally can do...or the government coercing them to do something they do not have to do is exactly what this issue is, at least as you have presented it, and it cannot be limited to specific, narrow facts... 

How about a law that requires the hunter to pay the LO, oh, say $100.00 and sign a waiver in order to be able to retreive "their" deer? I wonder how many complaining would be willing to do it. Also helps the LO avoid your silly theory of wanton waste...the LO is doing nothing but seeking compensation for allowing the hunter on the property...if the deer is that important, there shouldn't be an issue with payment...


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> I am not taking it anywhere that the road you are on doesn't lead. Don't allow access, and do nothing with the animal...guilty of wanton waste. Don't allow access and take the animal...*well now the LO is possessing an illegally taken animal, without a permit,* and has failed to tag it. Be forced to allow access to avoid the above...well now a temporary taking has occurred without compensation.
> 
> _Missed the point you were making on taking possession of an untagged animal. My argument assumes this would not happen. I am assuming the landowner is free to take control of the carcass untagged. I don't know how this couldn't be the case. Even taking your side the landowner would have to be free to use the carcass if its on their land, if for no other reason than to dispose of it._
> 
> The issue simply cannot be specifically limited in narrow instances with specific fact patterns...the government is either allowed to coerce landowners to allow access to their property to others against their will, or they get prosecuted for not doing it...or, they get coerced into taking posession of an animal they have not interest in, expending their resources to do it...or be prosecuted.
> 
> _Correct, but if the government has a legitimate interest, then they can coerce us to do all kind of things we don't want to do. The interest may be small, but in the case I would argue so is the coercion (allowing an individual or the state on to your property to retrieve a deer)._
> 
> Prosecuting someone for doing entirely what they are entitled to do, and legally can do...or the government coercing them to do something they do not have to do is exactly what this issue is, at least as you have presented it, and it cannot be limited to specific, narrow facts...
> 
> _They are not entitled to let the animal go to waste under the law. The law places all kind of limits on what we are and are not entitled to do, this is just one of those._
> 
> How about a law that requires the hunter to pay the LO, oh, say $100.00 and sign a waiver in order to be able to retreive "their" deer? I wonder how many complaining would be willing to do it. Also helps the LO avoid your silly theory of wanton waste...the LO is doing nothing but seeking compensation for allowing the hunter on the property...if the deer is that important, there shouldn't be an issue with payment...
> 
> 
> 
> _A law that requires the landowner be paid a nominal tresspass fee in exchange for retrieval access is a good idea, I like it. If the landowner is offered to be paid the staturory amount, and they still refuse access, that would be Prima Facie evidence against the landowner of wanton waste if the landowner did not make use of the animal._


:thumbs_up


----------



## Rolo

_Missed the point you were making on taking possession of an untagged animal. My argument assumes this would not happen. I am assuming the landowner is free to take control of the carcass untagged. I don't know how this couldn't be the case. Even taking your side the landowner would have to be free to use the carcass if its on their land, if for no other reason than to dispose of it._

That's the problem with assumptions...the LO is not required to do anything with the carcass...can just leave it there. Same thing if the deer dies naturally, or after being hit by a car, or whatever on the property...the LO doesn't have a duty to do a thing...


_Correct, but if the government has a legitimate interest, then they can coerce us to do all kind of things we don't want to do. The interest may be small, but in the case I would argue so is the coercion (allowing an individual or the state on to your property to retrieve a deer)._

Of course the "Interest" has to be for a public purpose. In this case...it is for a purely private interest.


_They are not entitled to let the animal go to waste under the law. The law places all kind of limits on what we are and are not entitled to do, this is just one of those._

Who what? The LO has zero obligation when it comes to a critter someone else shot that died on his property. The hunter cannot intentionally let the animal go to waste, but if the hunter is denied access, or cannot find the animal, they are not violating the law.


_A law that requires the landowner be paid a nominal tresspass fee in exchange for retrieval access is a good idea, I like it. If the landowner is offered to be paid the staturory amount, and they still refuse access, that would be Prima Facie evidence against the landowner of wanton waste if the landowner did not make use of the animal._

Of course such a law would not be Constitutional without the State also paying the LO. Remember it has to be for a public purpose...which the retrieval of a deer by a single hunter from private property doesn't qualify as...it is entirely private. Why a "nominal" fee? Shouldn't the hunter pay whatever the LO requests and requires? If the critter is that important, then it is priceless. And again...why limit to hunting situations...why not every situation that a person wants access to private land for...


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> _Missed the point you were making on taking possession of an untagged animal. My argument assumes this would not happen. I am assuming the landowner is free to take control of the carcass untagged. I don't know how this couldn't be the case. Even taking your side the landowner would have to be free to use the carcass if its on their land, if for no other reason than to dispose of it._
> 
> That's the problem with assumptions...the LO is not required to do anything with the carcass...can just leave it there. Same thing if the deer dies naturally, or after being hit by a car, or whatever on the property...the LO doesn't have a duty to do a thing...
> 
> 
> _Correct, but if the government has a legitimate interest, then they can coerce us to do all kind of things we don't want to do. The interest may be small, but in the case I would argue so is the coercion (allowing an individual or the state on to your property to retrieve a deer)._
> 
> Of course the "Interest" has to be for a public purpose. In this case...it is for a purely private interest.
> 
> 
> _They are not entitled to let the animal go to waste under the law. The law places all kind of limits on what we are and are not entitled to do, this is just one of those._
> 
> Who what? The LO has zero obligation when it comes to a critter someone else shot that died on his property. The hunter cannot intentionally let the animal go to waste, but if the hunter is denied access, or cannot find the animal, they are not violating the law.
> 
> 
> _A law that requires the landowner be paid a nominal tresspass fee in exchange for retrieval access is a good idea, I like it. If the landowner is offered to be paid the staturory amount, and they still refuse access, that would be Prima Facie evidence against the landowner of wanton waste if the landowner did not make use of the animal._
> 
> Of course such a law would not be Constitutional without the State also paying the LO. Remember it has to be for a public purpose...which the retrieval of a deer by a single hunter from private property doesn't qualify as...it is entirely private. Why a "nominal" fee? Shouldn't the hunter pay whatever the LO requests and requires? If the critter is that important, then it is priceless. And again...why limit to hunting situations...why not every situation that a person wants access to private land for...


I don't have the time to go through point by point, but generally I think the diffence between you and I is that you see a wanton waste law as kind of silly with not being backed by any public interest.

I do think there is a legitimate public (not private) interest in preventing animals from going to waste. I have to assume that states with wanton waste laws also agree that there is a legitimate public interest there.

The critter isn't priceless, but neither is a boundary line. You seem to be valuing the landowner interests in not being temporarily inconvenienced as astronomically higher that then the value of not having a critter go to waste. I think those two values are closer, although I am willing to concede that the landowner interests may be greater, hence I think a nomimal statutory tresspass fee is a perfect solution.

By the way to come even further in your direction, I would agree that the in order for the hunter to not be guilty of wanton waste, the hunter would be required to pay the statutory tresspass fee. If the landowner was willing to allow retrieval in exchange for the fee, but the hunter was unwilling to pay, then prosecute the hunter.


----------



## hoyt3

SSS

sneak, shuffle, shut up. I'm sorry, but if I have an animal dead on another's property and the answer is NO, you can't get it...I'll be back.


----------



## caseyjoeindiana

wvengineer said:


> Touche...well played Sir. :wink:


 Holy crap, someone with a since of humor! Glad i could amuse u friend. :fencing:


----------



## rodney482

In Indiana you must have the property owners permissions... no ifs ands or buts.


----------



## wvengineer

caseyjoeindiana said:


> Holy crap, someone with a since of humor! Glad i could amuse u friend. :fencing:


I get amusement from all of it. I don't mind discussions like this as long as people discuss their views instead of just attacking each other. A few off the wall comments for fun are great too.


----------



## rlsmith14

I had a doe run across the street and die in somebody's front yard last week after I shot it. I parked in the driveway and knocked on the door. Nobody was home. I called the police and they said to go ahead and get it out of their yard. I dragged it to the truck and loaded it...... No I didn't field dress it in their yard!


----------



## One eye

In Michigan, you cannot trespass to recover game without permission. And a CO cannot force a landowner to allow you on.
It is what it is.


----------



## Daniel Boone

Buddy told me a story in PA of a 155 class buck the landowner refused to give him even after the DNR tried to reason with him.

Crappy law
DB


----------



## HankinsHunter

*Ny.....*

Sorry I have not read all the post........NY you must have land owners permission. End of story. 

That being said I have positive story about this.

Last year my friend arrow a nice 8 an gave me a call to track it. He's new to hunting. We did a track job that lasted 1.5 hours. At that point the deer had crossed the rural road. I knew it was close but the property was not ours. He asked me what to do?? I told him to put down the bow and go up to the house door, knock and ask VERY VERY nicely if we could continue our track on their property. A 80 or some odd woman answered the door. She was flabbergasted that a hunter was acutally asking for permission, and gave us the green light as long as we did not gut the deer on her property. After an hour more of bloodless tracking (still amazed we found this deer) it was well in the back of her property dead as a door nail. Great Great Buck. My most proudest moments tracking. Well this was a 6+ year old buck that was well over 220lbs undressed. took us 2 hours just to drag it out and load it. he gutted back at camp. The next day he brought the old woman a bunch of flowers and took them to her. It made her year. She still calls him to say thank you.

Do unto other, as you would have done unto you..........

~HH


----------



## c.sitas

In Wisconsin , you are tresspassing the minute you leave the road without written permission.No exceptions.You could try and ask, which is well and good but this the law


----------



## c.sitas

In Wisconsin, You are tresspassing the minute you leave the road.No exceptions


----------



## Meleagris1

HankinsHunter said:


> Sorry I have not read all the post........NY you must have land owners permission. End of story.
> 
> That being said I have positive story about this.
> 
> Last year my friend arrow a nice 8 an gave me a call to track it. He's new to hunting. We did a track job that lasted 1.5 hours. At that point the deer had crossed the rural road. I knew it was close but the property was not ours. He asked me what to do?? I told him to put down the bow and go up to the house door, knock and ask VERY VERY nicely if we could continue our track on their property. A 80 or some odd woman answered the door. She was flabbergasted that a hunter was acutally asking for permission, and gave us the green light as long as we did not gut the deer on her property. After an hour more of bloodless tracking (still amazed we found this deer) it was well in the back of her property dead as a door nail. Great Great Buck. My most proudest moments tracking. Well this was a 6+ year old buck that was well over 220lbs undressed. took us 2 hours just to drag it out and load it. he gutted back at camp. The next day he brought the old woman a bunch of flowers and took them to her. It made her year. She still calls him to say thank you.
> 
> Do unto other, as you would have done unto you..........
> 
> ~HH


As it should be . . . great story.


----------



## old Graybeard

Here in Michigan you have no rights to go after the deer without the landowners permission and that also apply's to a CO. If caught you face a misdomeaner charge with steep fines and loss of future hunting privliges.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> I don't have the time to go through point by point, but generally I think the diffence between you and I is that you see a wanton waste law as kind of silly with not being backed by any public interest.


That may be the silliest thing I have ever read from you. I have no problem with wanton waste laws as they apply to the hunter, and there certainly is a legitimate State interest in applying them to the hunter.

As for the rest...well, it's still nonsense...even if there is a public interest in not letting deer waste, that interest still has to be more important than the Constitutionally protected interest of the LO. Further, the interest of the State must be rational...and it is not, especially when the State does little when the same animals are killed by cars, trains, or whatever else.

Perish the thought that private property interests are more valuable than the personal interests of a hunter...

The hypothetical trespass fee law is also significantly flawed, for a number of reasons...


----------



## Skeptic

Rolo said:


> That may be the silliest thing I have ever read from you. I have no problem with wanton waste laws as they apply to the hunter, and there certainly is a legitimate State interest in applying them to the hunter.
> 
> As for the rest...well, it's still nonsense...even if there is a public interest in not letting deer waste, that interest still has to be more important than the Constitutionally protected interest of the LO. Further, the interest of the State must be rational...and it is not, especially when the State does little when the same animals are killed by cars, trains, or whatever else.
> 
> Perish the thought that private property interests are more valuable than the personal interests of a hunter...
> 
> The hypothetical trespass fee law is also significantly flawed, for a number of reasons...


To add to this....any hunter at any time can offer money for rights to trespass to retrieve game. I'm sure even a PETA puke antihunter has their price that they'd allow it. Money talks and we certainly don't need a law to require this. If a person wants a deer they shot bad enough....they will pay whatever the fee is that the landowner wants. Almost like a free market society.


----------



## Rolo

Skeptic said:


> To add to this....any hunter at any time can offer money for rights to trespass to retrieve game. I'm sure even a PETA puke antihunter has their price that they'd allow it. Money talks and we certainly don't need a law to require this. If a person wants a deer they shot bad enough....they will pay whatever the fee is that the landowner wants. Almost like a free market society.


But everybody wants something, for themselves, for nutt'n in today's world...dare I say they are "entitled" to it because it is what they want...why should they have to pay to go get their deer, that for whatever reason they could not get to die on property they could legally be on...why should a LO tell them 'No'...I mean their desires are far superior to the desires of the person who owns the property...who cares what it took to get to the place that it could be owned...who cares what the LO may have going on on his property at the time..."It's my deer" and I will get it...who cares about anybody else...


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> That may be the silliest thing I have ever read from you. I have no problem with wanton waste laws as they apply to the hunter, and there certainly is a legitimate State interest in applying them to the hunter.
> 
> As for the rest...well, it's still nonsense...even if there is a public interest in not letting deer waste, that interest still has to be more important than the Constitutionally protected interest of the LO. Further, the interest of the State must be rational...and it is not, especially when the State does little when the same animals are killed by cars, trains, or whatever else.
> 
> Perish the thought that private property interests are more valuable than the personal interests of a hunter...
> 
> The hypothetical trespass fee law is also significantly flawed, for a number of reasons...


The interest of the hunter isn't the issue, its the interest of the state. In the absence of the law, the hunter would be free to stop at the property line, and then take no further action to recover the animal, go back hunting and kill another one.

The tresspass fee is perfect, and it was your idea.


----------



## swanee

AR&BOW said:


> I believe in MN that the DNR officer will come out and talk to the land owner to tell them he is entering to retrieve game. They can not refuse his entering the property, but you the hunter can not.


.

This is incorrect. The DNR can try to convince the landowner, but they can tell them no also.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> The interest of the hunter isn't the issue, its the interest of the state. In the absence of the law, the hunter would be free to stop at the property line, and then take no further action to recover the animal, go back hunting and kill another one.
> 
> The tresspass fee is perfect, and it was your idea.


That is the law. Take all reasonable and legal steps to recover, and if you can' you can go back to hunting. What is the interest of the State again? How does that interest userp the LO rights? If the State was really concerned about your example, the least restrictive approach is to have the hunter cancel his tag in the event of non-recovery. Your exsample still demonstrates the private interest of the hunter, not a State interest. What about deer hit by cars?

The trespass fee was a hypothetical response that a law maker unconcerned about Constitutional principles could likely propose.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> That is the law. Take all reasonable and legal steps to recover, and if you can' you can go back to hunting. What is the interest of the State again? How does that interest userp the LO rights? If the State was really concerned about your example, the least restrictive approach is to have the hunter cancel his tag in the event of non-recovery. Your exsample still demonstrates the private interest of the hunter, not a State interest. What about deer hit by cars?
> 
> The trespass fee was a hypothetical response that a law maker unconcerned about Constitutional principles could likely propose.


Which Constitutional provision are you concerned about?

The state already has the legal right to condemn private property if there is state interest in doing so. 

All I am suggesting is temporarily inconveniencing a landowner and compensating them for that inconvenience. They could even avoid this having a hunter on their property, by just making use of the animal, calling a buddy over to come get it and make use of it, finding the animal themselves and giving it to the hunter, donating it to a soup kitchen, whatever. 

I just don't see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## bigrackHack

Toonces said:


> The interest of the hunter isn't the issue, its the interest of the state. * In the absence of the law*, the hunter would be free to stop at the property line, and then take no further action to recover the animal, go back hunting and kill another one.
> 
> The tresspass fee is perfect, and it was your idea.


There's no absence of the law, there IS a law. Wanton waste applies to recovered deer. If the deer is unrecoverable due to a poor shot, or it being on an unrecoverable property, the hunter is not guilty of wanton waste. If the hunter recovers the deer and cuts off the head and tosses the rest, that's wanton waste. If no one recovers the deer, there's no wanton waste. I'm not even a lawyer and it's really clear. It just seems so basic.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Which Constitutional provision are you concerned about?
> 
> The state already has the legal right to condemn private property if there is state interest in doing so.
> 
> All I am suggesting is temporarily inconveniencing a landowner and compensating them for that inconvenience. They could even avoid this having a hunter on their property, by just making use of the animal, calling a buddy over to come get it and make use of it, finding the animal themselves and giving it to the hunter, donating it to a soup kitchen, whatever.
> 
> I just don't see what all the fuss is about.


The part about taking private property without compensation.

I don't dsee it a a public interest at all. Plus the State would have to compensate each private property owner at the time the property was taken...when the law was adopted...not at some point in the future. Each property owner would be entitled to the compensation...I don't think too many States are prepared for this...if if gets past the public interest thing.

"Temporarily inconveniencing" the landowner? What exactly is this? What if the LO won't be temporarily incomvenienced? What if the LO has a very legitimat e reason for keeping someone out? What if the LO is hunting themselves? What if this temporary inconvenience would result in the destruct of property? Now it just isn't a little fee anymore...

Why should the LO have to do anything to assist the hunter? Now the "inconvenience" is expanded. Such a law would also allow people to purposely hunt in areas where they know the deer will go onto private property after being hit, but they will be free to recover them. Yes, yes, let's give more irresponsibility to the hunter and place the inconvenience on the person who danes to own property and use it as they desire...

The "fuss"...really? The most basic of rights have become a "fuss"?


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> The part about taking private property without compensation.
> 
> I don't dsee it a a public interest at all.
> 
> *So a state statute that criminalizes the waste of meat is for the interest of the hunters being penalized? Isn't that like saying that laws punishing car theft are made to benefit the interest of car thieves. If a hunter gut shoots a doe, trails it to a property line, that hunters is probably thinking to himself, great, I did all I could, now I don't have to mess around with smelly carcass, I will just go back to hunting. The wanton waste law is meant to prevent this. *
> 
> 
> Plus the State would have to compensate each private property owner at the time the property was taken...when the law was adopted...not at some point in the future. Each property owner would be entitled to the compensation...I don't think too many States are prepared for this...if if gets past the public interest thing.
> 
> *I don't understand. The state doesn't pay, the hunter pays, all the state does is facilitate the payment. If the hunter refuses to pay the hunter is prosecuted for wanton waste. Payment will be the equivalent of making a reasonable effort to recover the game from private property. If the hunter refuses to pay, the hunter is refusing to make a reasonable effort to recover the animal, and therefore can be prosecuted. The state has to set the rate, otherwise the landowner could set that is not reasonable, and therefore puts a higher burden on the hunter than the statute intended in the first place.*
> 
> "Temporarily inconveniencing" the landowner? What exactly is this? *Allowing the hunter to cross the boundary or retrieving the animal for the hunter (either would trigger the tresspass fee payable by the hunter to the landowner). *
> 
> What if the LO won't be temporarily incomvenienced? *They will be prosecuted for wanton waste. *
> 
> What if the LO has a very legitimat e reason for keeping someone out? *Question of fact for the discretion of the prosecutor or judge, or maybe exceptions could be written into the law *
> 
> What if the LO is hunting themselves? What if this temporary inconvenience would result in the destruct of property? *(Not sure what you mean by destruction of property. We are just talking about removing a dead animal from the property. If the hunter commits a separate crime while doing this, the hunter would be civilly or criminally responsible) * Now it just isn't a little fee anymore...
> 
> Why should the LO have to do anything to assist the hunter? *They don't, there are many options open, as long as there is no waste.*
> 
> Now the "inconvenience" is expanded. Such a law would also allow people to purposely hunt in areas where they know the deer will go onto private property after being hit, but they will be free to recover them. *This happens either way. Now the hunter may just tresspass or let the deer rot. They have a built in loophole allowing them to ignore wanton waste statutes. Now there is a fair law regulating it taking into account both the interests of the landowner and the interest of the state.*
> 
> Yes, yes, let's give more irresponsibility to the hunter and place the inconvenience on the person who danes to own property and use it as they desire...
> 
> The "fuss"...really? The most basic of rights have become a "fuss"?


:darkbeer:


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> So a state statute that criminalizes the waste of meat is for the interest of the hunters being penalized? Isn't that like saying that laws punishing car theft are made to benefit the interest of car thieves. If a hunter gut shoots a doe, trails it to a property line, that hunters is probably thinking to himself, great, I did all I could, now I don't have to mess around with smelly carcass, I will just go back to hunting. The wanton waste law is meant to prevent this.
> 
> *That makes about as much sense as a three dollar bill. Yes, the State has an interest in forcing a hunter to take all reasonable steps to recover wounded animals. The State also has an interest in preventing other law violations when doing this. I guess under your reasoning, the hunter is able to steal a car to help them track and recover the deer too. Wanton waste laws are meant to prevent a hunter from shooting an animal and leaving it there without an effort to recover it, or to prevent them from leaving it after it is recovered. They are not intended to allow a hunter to ignore every other law there is, both criminal and civil*
> 
> 
> I don't understand. The state doesn't pay, the hunter pays, all the state does is facilitate the payment. If the hunter refuses to pay the hunter is prosecuted for wanton waste. Payment will be the equivalent of making a reasonable effort to recover the game from private property. If the hunter refuses to pay, the hunter is refusing to make a reasonable effort to recover the animal, and therefore can be prosecuted. The state has to set the rate, otherwise the landowner could set that is not reasonable, and therefore puts a higher burden on the hunter than the statute intended in the first place.
> 
> *Uh...if the State takes the property, the State has to pay. If the State doesn't pay, and requires the hunter to pay...it is not a taking for a public purpose, and therefore not Constitutional...thanks for proving the elementary flaw with this hypothetical. The State can't just set a flat rate. The taking can differ from situation to situation, and could be longer or shorter. The value of the taking would have to be apparaised. Again, thanks for proving the fallacy of such a "law".*
> 
> Allowing the hunter to cross the boundary or retrieving the animal for the hunter (either would trigger the tresspass fee payable by the hunter to the landowner).
> 
> *Right...so the hunter would have unlimited access regardless of what the LO is doing on the property. They want to get their deer, then they can, by paying the fee, regardless of what the LO wants to do with his property at the time. The whole fundamental with proprty ownership is the right to enjo and exclude.*
> 
> 
> They will be prosecuted for wanton waste.
> 
> *Obviously didn't understand the question. What if the inconvenience is not temorary or minimal? Who gets to decide? What if the LO is hunting himself and the recovery ould inconvenience his hunting? Guess it doesn't matter. Wanton waste of the LO...laughable actually...considering the LO has done nothing to cause the demise of the animal, and there is no assurance that the animal is actually on his property. How long does the hunter get to inconvenience the LO to look for an animal that might not even be there?*
> 
> Question of fact for the discretion of the prosecutor or judge, or maybe exceptions could be written into the law
> 
> *So, exceptions written into the law...novel...but must the LO then defend himself from criminal charges, at his cost and expense, because he chose to exercise legal control over his property? Now we are criminalizing the most basic of rights.*
> 
> (Not sure what you mean by destruction of property. We are just talking about removing a dead animal from the property. If the hunter commits a separate crime while doing this, the hunter would be civilly or criminally responsible) Now it just isn't a little fee anymore...
> 
> *Well, what if the animal died in a freshly planted field and the retrieval results in crop destruction? How could this be a seperate crime because the hunter gets to retreive his animal under your theory.*
> 
> Why should the LO have to do anything to assist the hunter? They don't, there are many options open, as long as there is no waste.
> 
> *You're right about this...the LO doesn't have to do a thing, and the State should not require him to do a thing. The waste would be caused by the hunter...whether it is criminal or not, is another matter all together. Again, we are only assuming that the dead animal is on the property.*
> 
> This happens either way. Now the hunter may just tresspass or let the deer rot. They have a built in loophole allowing them to ignore wanton waste statutes. Now there is a fair law regulating it taking into account both the interests of the landowner and the interest of the state.
> 
> *Right so inconvenience and potentially penalize the inncoent party because of the lack of responsibility of the hunter. Novel...the person who does nothing to cause the deer to die, has to relinquish their property rights in the face of sanction because another person was irresponsible. Interesting concept of "fair". How bout we just criminalize the hunter if they don't recover their animal period? They are irresponsible enough to allow the animal to die on someone's property, they should be responsible for the waste. They were the one's who had all the power and ability to avoid it from the beginning. They can't get permission, they are the one's wasting the animal because they caused the whole thing. A much fairer approach than forcing the LO to do something they are not required to do. The State's interest remains the same.*
> 
> 
> :darkbeer:


Uh...how come you didn't respond to the rest...?


----------



## Dakota79

mez said:


> SD you can make unarmed retrieves of game without permission.
> 
> Also, Game Wardens play by different rules than other LEO's. In SD they can enter private property, including homes, without a warrant or consent and search what they want.


you are completely wrong and better know what you're talking about before posting on a public forum.;


----------



## Toonces

That makes about as much sense as a three dollar bill. Yes, the State has an interest in forcing a hunter to take all reasonable steps to recover wounded animals. The State also has an interest in preventing other law violations when doing this. I guess under your reasoning, the hunter is able to steal a car to help them track and recover the deer too. Wanton waste laws are meant to prevent a hunter from shooting an animal and leaving it there without an effort to recover it, or to prevent them from leaving it after it is recovered. They are not intended to allow a hunter to ignore every other law there is, both criminal and civil.

*Not suggesting they do. My point is temporarily inconveniencing a landowner, and then compensating them for that inconvenience, is not a large price to pay to prevent waste. If you want to change the law to allow a hunter to appropriate a car for a public purpose, we can discuss it, but that is not what I am suggesting here. *

Uh...if the State takes the property, the State has to pay. If the State doesn't pay, and requires the hunter to pay...it is not a taking for a public purpose, and therefore not Constitutional...thanks for proving the elementary flaw with this hypothetical. The State can't just set a flat rate. The taking can differ from situation to situation, and could be longer or shorter. The value of the taking would have to be apparaised. Again, thanks for proving the fallacy of such a "law".

*Fair enough. But I think its a matter of interpretation. If the State interest is preventing waste, does the State have to make use of the animal, or just ensure that the animal is used in some fashion? The state isn't interested in appropriating the carcass for a public purpose, it is interested in making sure that a public resource is not wasted, whether the use is public or private. If the State can tell a private landowner he cannot waste a public resource located on his property, is it really a stretch to say that the landowner also has a duty to prevent public waste caused by a third party if that waste occurs on his property? The landowner may not have pulled the trigger, but by his subsequent actions (or inactions) are certainly an intervening cause of the waste.*


Right...so the hunter would have unlimited access regardless of what the LO is doing on the property. They want to get their deer, then they can, by paying the fee, regardless of what the LO wants to do with his property at the time. The whole fundamental with proprty ownership is the right to enjo and exclude.

*How did going on to a property and collecting a deer turn into unlimited access regardless of the LO is doing? If there is a reasonable reason to prevent access, it could certainly be taken into a account. Also the landowner is free to deny access, retrieve the deer himself, keep the deer, etc.*

Obviously didn't understand the question. What if the inconvenience is not temorary or minimal? Who gets to decide? What if the LO is hunting himself and the recovery ould inconvenience his hunting? Guess it doesn't matter. Wanton waste of the LO...laughable actually...considering the LO has done nothing to cause the demise of the animal, and there is no assurance that the animal is actually on his property. How long does the hunter get to inconvenience the LO to look for an animal that might not even be there?

*Its not about who causied the demise of the animal, its about causing waste. The hunter may have caused the death, but landowner can cause the waste, even if they didn't cause the death.
*

So, exceptions written into the law...novel...but must the LO then defend himself from criminal charges, at his cost and expense, because he chose to exercise legal control over his property? Now we are criminalizing the most basic of rights.

*We seem ok with people defending themselves from murder on the basis of necessity or self defense. Affirmative defenses are not novel. *


Well, what if the animal died in a freshly planted field and the retrieval results in crop destruction? How could this be a seperate crime because the hunter gets to retreive his animal under your theory.

*The landowner could sue the hunter in tort. The hunter could use the wanton waste law as a defense. Judge or jury decides whether the landowner should be further compensated. Nothing really new here.*

You're right about this...the LO doesn't have to do a thing, and the State should not require him to do a thing. The waste would be caused by the hunter...whether it is criminal or not, is another matter all together. Again, we are only assuming that the dead animal is on the property.

*Your just ranting now.*

Right so inconvenience and potentially penalize the inncoent party because of the lack of responsibility of the hunter. Novel...the person who does nothing to cause the deer to die, has to relinquish their property rights in the face of sanction because another person was irresponsible. Interesting concept of "fair". How bout we just criminalize the hunter if they don't recover their animal period? They are irresponsible enough to allow the animal to die on someone's property, they should be responsible for the waste. They were the one's who had all the power and ability to avoid it from the beginning. They can't get permission, they are the one's wasting the animal because they caused the whole thing. A much fairer approach than forcing the LO to do something they are not required to do. The State's interest remains the same.

*If LO prevents the deer from being used, then landowner is the cause of the waste.*


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Not suggesting they do. My point is temporarily inconveniencing a landowner, and then compensating them for that inconvenience, is not a large price to pay to prevent waste. If you want to change the law to allow a hunter to appropriate a car for a public purpose, we can discuss it, but that is not what I am suggesting here.
> 
> *No...what you are suggestion is that the State should appropriate private property rights for the benefit of another individual. Maybe the best way to prevent the possible waste is to eliminate the hunting. Why should the LO have to be temporarily inconvenienced? Nothing he did caused any of this.*
> 
> Fair enough. But I think its a matter of interpretation. If the State interest is preventing waste, does the State have to make use of the animal, or just ensure that the animal is used in some fashion? The state isn't interested in appropriating the carcass for a public purpose, it is interested in making sure that a public resource is not wasted, whether the use is public or private. If the State can tell a private landowner he cannot waste a public resource located on his property, is it really a stretch to say that the landowner also has a duty to prevent public waste caused by a third party if that waste occurs on his property? The landowner may not have pulled the trigger, but by his subsequent actions (or inactions) are certainly an intervening cause of the waste.
> 
> *Really...then why aren't the states building deer proof fences along all the public roads? How can the State tell a LO that he can't waste a public resource that is located on his property? Only if the LO kills said public resource on his property can the State tell him what to do or not to do (and this killing only applies to intentional killing.) The Lo is free to remove all the habitat...and in the process kill a wjhole bunch of those public resources, and unless there is an endangered species involved, the State can't criminalize the LO if a deer gets killed and wasted in the process. Why should the LO have to assist in anything? The hunter, through his own negligence caused the waste. If the State's interest is primarily preventing waste, then the State should be appropriating the carcass. The State is interested in preventing waste, and uses wanton waste laws to do this...protecting the public resource...but preventing waste by allowing a private interest to supercede another private interest...doesn't make it a public interest. Don't forget...the State also has an interest in protecting the rights of its citizens..otherwise, there wouldn't be trespass laws to begin with. Under your own example, the LO would have a duty to take car of deer injured by collisions that happen to die on his property...the deer is still a public resource...doesn't matter how it dies.*
> 
> How did going on to a property and collecting a deer turn into unlimited access regardless of the LO is doing? If there is a reasonable reason to prevent access, it could certainly be taken into a account. Also the landowner is free to deny access, retrieve the deer himself, keep the deer, etc.
> 
> *Well...the hunter has to find the deer. Maybe conduct a grid search...who knows, but it is not a simple as walking right up to it and taking it in all cases. "Reasonable reason" who decides and when? At what costs? Seems reasonable that the LO should be able to control access to his property...seems very unreasonable that the State should tell the LO who gets access to his property and under what conditions. The LO is not free to retreive and keep the deer himself...it would be illegal...at least until it was wasted.*
> 
> Its not about who causied the demise of the animal, its about causing waste. The hunter may have caused the death, but landowner can cause the waste, even if they didn't cause the death.
> 
> *The LO did nothing to cause anything. There is no guarantee that the deer will ever be found, and no certainty that it is dead to begin with. Just like collisions between a deer and a car...the LO has no duty to do anything. I mean if it doesn't matter hwho killed the deer, it also shouldn't matter how it was killed. Guess the LO will have to allow access to poachers too...so as not to let the deer go to waste. Remember...it is about causing the waste...not how the potential waste occurred.*
> 
> We seem ok with people defending themselves from murder on the basis of necessity or self defense. Affirmative defenses are not novel.
> 
> *So, a LO exercising his right to control his property has to defend himself because a negligent hunter couldn't responsibly kill an animal? Interesting that you compare the human life tto the life of an animal...a very slippery slope indeed.*
> 
> The landowner could sue the hunter in tort. The hunter could use the wanton waste law as a defense. Judge or jury decides whether the landowner should be further compensated. Nothing really new here.
> 
> *Right...let's encourage litigation where it is not necessary. And remember, the LO has the duty to mitigate his damages...if he allows the access under threat of sanction, he allows the damage to occur, thereby failing to prevent and mitigate the damage to begin with. Your theory also allows the hunter to escape the damages he may cause if the finder of fact thinks it was reasonable. So now, the LO doesn't get to control his property, and doesn't get compensated for damages caused to it. Novel...*
> 
> Your just ranting now.
> 
> *Really...how do we even know that the animal is on the property and is dead? We don't. Ranting would be to suggest that your theory resembles communism and state control and ownership of property...but I wont do that.*
> 
> If LO prevents the deer from being used, then landowner is the cause of the waste.
> 
> *The LO isn't preventing any such thing...the LO is controlling his property as he wants too. Such a thing is a protected right...and again you assume the deer is there and dead.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how this is even remotely Consttutional. Your argument in the end comes down advancing private interests over personal rights. We haven't even touched on the liability issues for such a law, and the lack of protections that would exist for a LO whi is forced to allow access to his property by the State to an individual he doesn't want to, only to have the individual get hurt in the process, and sue the LO.*


:darkbeer:.


----------



## Toonces

I think we have hashed this out enough.

As for the Constitutional issue, I don't concede wanton waste laws have anything to do with private interest, it is solely public interest. Wanton waste laws aren't there to protect a hunters right to collect his kill, they are they to prevent waste of a public resource. As a public interest, the state has the ability infringe on personal rights, including property rights to enforce that public interest.

If you believe wanton waste laws are about private interests, first you would be wrong :tongue:, and second we have reached an impasse.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> I think we have hashed this out enough.
> 
> As for the Constitutional issue, I don't concede wanton waste laws have anything to do with private interest, it is solely public interest. Wanton waste laws aren't there to protect a hunters right to collect his kill, they are they to prevent waste of a public resource. As a public interest, the state has the ability infringe on personal rights, including property rights to enforce that public interest.
> 
> If you believe wanton waste laws are about private interests, first you would be wrong :tongue:, and second we have reached an impasse.


That's actually kind of funny...I fully well understand that the State has a public interest in encouraging the individual hunter to retreive his deer...but the State's public interest in doing this ends when that deer crosses onto other private property that hunter cannot go on. At this time, then it becomes a private interest of the hunter v the private interest of the LO. If the State was really worried about the waste...the law would require the hunter to cancel his tag if the deer went unrecovered. This way the hunter is not killing multiple deer on one tag, and the property rights of the LO remain as they should be. You also forget that while the State may have this public interest, it would be the State's responsibility to go in and retreive the deer...while in certain instances the State might be legally able to infringe on individual rights...the State cannot assign this authority to the private person...


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> That's actually kind of funny...I fully well understand that the State has a public interest in encouraging the individual hunter to retreive his deer...but the State's public interest in doing this ends when that deer crosses onto other private property that hunter cannot go on. At this time, then it becomes a private interest of the hunter v the private interest of the LO. If the State was really worried about the waste...the law would require the hunter to cancel his tag if the deer went unrecovered. This way the hunter is not killing multiple deer on one tag, and the property rights of the LO remain as they should be. *You also forget that while the State may have this public interest, it would be the State's responsibility to go in and retreive the deer...while in certain instances the State might be legally able to infringe on individual rights...the State cannot assign this authority to the private person..*.


Incorrect. There is some precedent for the exercise eminent domain for private parties if there is a public benefit as a result.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London


----------



## thewolff32

Here in NJ, If you have a verbal warning or there are "posted" signs, you can call DNR, and they will send out an officer to assist you in recovering a deer. The deer is state property until it is tagged. If there was no sign, or verbal warning you can recover the deer. If you are spotted and get the police or DNR called on you.That will be your Warning/slap on the wrist. I wasd told you wont be charged for anything. From the mouth of Lt. Don Cole. (retired NJ Game Warden)


----------



## Toonces

*Kelo v. City of New London*

Rolo?

You just going to ignore this case because you don't like it?:boink:


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> *Kelo v. City of New London*
> 
> Rolo?
> 
> You just going to ignore this case because you don't like it?


Yeah...that was the case that lead to a whole bunch of States adopting Constitutional prohibitions about doing the same thing.

Don't forget that the public interest was economic development and the hopeful creation of thousands of jobs. Which creates a larger tax base for the public good....the case was a logical stretch len, and even bigger one now..it was not taking private property fom one, so another could recover a deer. The comparisons are not even reasonably close.


----------



## buzzard1

you cant go on private property in nys to retrieve game if the owner says no, period, dec can not force land owner to let you


----------



## Wapiti07

Does anyone know the law, and/or how it is enforced, in MD?


----------



## JezterVA

The original post.....



caseyjoeindiana said:


> If i arrow a deer and it goes onto a neighbors property. Say this guy says "no" is there any options? I hunt a property that is surrounded by woods that are owned by anti hunters. Well shouldn't call them that, they just do not like people hunting their beloved pet deer/children. I was told when i was a kid that if they said "no" to call the DNR and they would assist in the recovery regardless of the land owners consent. N.E Indiana.


After getting caught up in the discussion and losing the original thought of my reply....
To the OP......you should see now that the laws vary by state. You should go to your states Dept of Conversation website and read the rules for yourself until you have a complete and thorough understanding of the rules. If you don't understand them, then you should call a local conservation office or warden and have them explained to you personally until you do understand them. As you can see from some of the replies, two people from the same state can interpret the laws two different ways. Why take that chance when the Cons. Dept. gets paid to teach you what you don't know or understand?

In MO, trespass is illegal even to track wounded or dead animals without the land owners consent.

I love the fact that everyone can discuss their thoughts and feelings on the subject and I love reading them as well as it helps me to form my own thoughts and opinions. It doesn't do the OP much good or service though with his initial question.


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> Yeah...that was the case that lead to a whole bunch of States adopting Constitutional prohibitions about doing the same thing.
> 
> Don't forget that the public interest was economic development and the hopeful creation of thousands of jobs. Which creates a larger tax base for the public good....the case was a logical stretch len, and even bigger one now..it was not taking private property fom one, so another could recover a deer. The comparisons are not even reasonably close.


Can you at least admit that there is a Constitutional basis for what I am suggesting? It may be bad policy and a stupid idea, but it is not inherently unconstitutional, agree?


----------



## JimD215

L.I.Archer said:


> In NYS, you have every right to go onto a neighbor's property to recover a deer without permission. However, it is always polite to ask permission first. If the neighbor says "no," then we call the DEC, who will then approach the landowner and politely ask him/her to go onto the property to recover the deer. If the landowner still says "no," and the deer is in plain sight on his land and he has no license to hunt, then s/he can be fined up to $5,000 for illegally possessing game meat. That's enough incentive for the landowner to comply with state law.


IN NYS you have no right to enter someones property to retrieve your animal. You need permission. If they won't let you enetr call the DEC Officer and he can ask. The landowner does not have to let you or anyone else on his property to retrieve your animal. I don't know where you got your info from.


----------



## JimD215

JimD215 said:


> IN NYS you have no right to enter someones property to retrieve your animal. You need permission. If they won't let you enetr call the DEC Officer and he can ask. The landowner does not have to let you or anyone else on his property to retrieve your animal. I don't know where you got your info from.


Question: If I shoot a deer and it runs onto posted property, do I have the legal right to go on the property to retrieve it?
Answer: No. the DEC recommends that hunters finding themselves in this predicament seek out the landowner, explain the situation, and ask permission. If the landowner refuses, the hunter will not be able to enter the property, and the DEC cannot compel a landowner to grant access. If the hunter has reason to believe that the landowner intends to illegally possess the deer, it should be reported to the nearest Environmental Conservation Officer. This situation illustrates the need for hunters to establish good landowner relations prior to going afield, and to take only good clean kill shots when hunting for any game.

Straight from the NYS DEC Manual.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Can you at least admit that there is a Constitutional basis for what I am suggesting? It may be bad policy and a stupid idea, but it is not inherently unconstitutional, agree?


No, because what you are proposing in the end, comes down to allowing one person to take private property for their individual benefit. The _Kelo_ Court performed a an intellectual tight-rope act to get to a public purpose...a public purpose that would provide benefits to a whole bunch of the public...not one person.

And remember...this is the same Court taht also once said: some humans really weren't full humans...it was o.k. for humans to own other humans...seperat but equal, really was "equal"...what relationships 2 adult people engaged in, in the privacy of their home was a State interest...like cases before _Kelo_, I assime the Court will correct its past mistakes...


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> No, because what you are proposing in the end, comes down to allowing one person to take private property for their individual benefit. The _Kelo_ Court performed a an intellectual tight-rope act to get to a public purpose...*a public purpose that would provide benefits to a whole bunch of the public...not one person*.
> 
> And remember...this is the same Court taht also once said: some humans really weren't full humans...it was o.k. for humans to own other humans...seperat but equal, really was "equal"...what relationships 2 adult people engaged in, in the privacy of their home was a State interest...like cases before _Kelo_, I assime the Court will correct its past mistakes...


NOOOOOOOOO! :frusty:

The public purpose is not the benefit to the individual hunter collecting his deer, but the larger benefit of preventing waste of a public resource - this does benefit a whole bunch of the public.

Claiming the Supremes often ride the short bus to work, doesn't change the fact that they get to interpret the Constitution. If we lived in the Republic of Rolo, your interpretation would be law.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> NOOOOOOOOO! :frusty:
> 
> *The public purpose is not the benefit to the individual hunter collecting his deer, but the larger benefit of preventing waste of a public resource *- this does benefit a whole bunch of the public.
> 
> Claiming the Supremes often ride the short bus to work, doesn't change the fact that they get to interpret the Constitution. If we lived in the Republic of Rolo, your interpretation would be law.


Strict Scrutiny. The goal of preventing the public waste can be arrived at in a less obstructive way than a taking...don't want waste...don't allow the public to hunt. The purpose must match the interest. The purpose of what you propose is to allow a single private citizen access to private property to retreive his deer to prevent the "public waste". Easier, and less obtrusive to prevent the possibility for waste before it occurs. Remember...property ownership, and all the things that go along with it, Constitutional Right...ability to retrieve an animal from private property...not so much. Even if a State has rcognized the "right to hunt" that does not equal the right to retreive...

Under your theory...and I think you would agree...a government has a strong interest in promoting the health and sanitary conditions of its citizens...therefoire, in order to promote both, a law allowing a private person to enter another's house to use the can to relieve themselves would also be perfectly Constitutional...because of the public purpose and benefit to all, of not haveing excriment in an uncontrolled and unsanitary state that could lead to disease and a whole bunch of other things...certainly the welfare of the citizens is a bigger public interest than the wellfare of a deer... 

As far as my interpretation on this issue...don't need my own republic...


----------



## Toonces

Rolo said:


> Strict Scrutiny. The goal of preventing the public waste can be arrived at in a less obstructive way than a taking...don't want waste...don't allow the public to hunt. The purpose must match the interest. The purpose of what you propose is to allow a single private citizen access to private property to retreive his deer to prevent the "public waste". Easier, and less obtrusive to prevent the possibility for waste before it occurs. Remember...property ownership, and all the things that go along with it, Constitutional Right...ability to retrieve an animal from private property...not so much. Even if a State has rcognized the "right to hunt" that does not equal the right to retreive...
> 
> Under your theory...and I think you would agree...a government has a strong interest in promoting the health and sanitary conditions of its citizens...therefoire, in order to promote both, a law allowing a private person to enter another's house to use the can to relieve themselves would also be perfectly Constitutional...because of the public purpose and benefit to all, of not haveing excriment in an uncontrolled and unsanitary state that could lead to disease and a whole bunch of other things...certainly the welfare of the citizens is a bigger public interest than the wellfare of a deer...
> 
> As far as my interpretation on this issue...don't need my own republic...


Finally, a logical response from you. I can live with this. 

At least you seem to concede that my proposal would be subject to a Constitutional balancing test before being declared unconstitutional, and that therefore there is a Constituional basis for what I am proposing. All I would need is more folks wearing robes that think it should pass the test than don't and I win. 

As you already noted regarding this Supremes and their past decisions, this is not an impossible outcome.

Funny story, my brother in law once made public use of a private toilet in an apartment complex without the permission of the owner. Of course the door to the apartment was left open, so maybe there wasn't an expectation of privacy.


----------



## Rolo

Toonces said:


> Finally, a logical response from you. I can live with this.
> 
> At least you seem to concede that my proposal would be subject to a Constitutional balancing test before being declared unconstitutional, and that therefore there is a Constituional basis for what I am proposing. All I would need is more folks wearing robes that think it should pass the test than don't and I win.
> 
> As you already noted regarding this Supremes and their past decisions, this is not an impossible outcome.
> 
> Funny story, my brother in law once made public use of a private toilet in an apartment complex without the permission of the owner. Of course the door to the apartment was left open, so maybe there wasn't an expectation of privacy.


Everything has been logical...you just haven't liked it.

I don't concede there is a Constitutional basis...there is an argument, but there is an argument for everything.

As far as your BIL...the expectation of privacy is an expectation of privacy from the State, at least as the Constitution applies...


----------



## deerslayer4331

pendejo37 said:


> The DNR officer will attempt to get permission from the landowner again and if that fails most likely you lose your deer.That is how it works in ohio anyway.


 I had a game warden tell the landowner that the deer belong to the state of Ohio and he went with me to retrieve my deer.


----------



## SilentElk

deerslayer4331 said:


> I had a game warden tell the landowner that the deer belong to the state of Ohio and he went with me to retrieve my deer.


Interesting thread you resurrected on your second post ever. It looks familiar to me and I probably read it years back


----------



## Dafis

a 12 year old thread brought up, by a guy who wants his post count up

not a record but close


----------



## LFM

Each State varies as tor Laws on their Books, most don't allow you to "Trespass" Michigan Included. It requires Landowner Permission. Too Many Trespass as it is maybe why some States frown on this!
LFM


----------



## rogerkummerer

colo_dually said:


> No you cannot recover game from property you do not have permission to be on. At a minimum its tresspassing, and you can also be tagged with poaching depending on local laws. I have never heard of DNR getting involved with recovery of dear, where the land owner does not grant consent. In the end that land owner has property rights.


 In Pa.Game Commision laws supercede local laws and you must try to recover the deer.


----------



## dougell

rogerkummerer said:


> In Pa.Game Commision laws supercede local laws and you must try to recover the deer.


Trespassing is a state law and land owners do not have to give permission to enter their property and recover a deer.


----------



## Dafis

Ole Rodger is tryng to get his post count up bringing up a 12 year old thread


----------

