Question for any legal types on here..

[nwsoftball]

My friend's brother shot a 360" bull in archery season. It's blood trail led to private property. The land owner would not allow access to retrieve the animal. I told him he should have called the OSP and they would have been forced to allow access. He said that they tried and were told they couldn't. Another friend in the same party shot a spike two days later that did the same thing. They were sickened to think of the waste of the animals.

Is there a law on the books that addresses this??

[Joe]

I was told recently by someone who is pretty in the know that the landowner could be cited for Waste of Game Animal for not allowing recovery. Granted that is just some second hand info but the best I have. I hope somebody has a more concrete answer cause that is a very good question!

[Bobberman]

Originally Posted by nwsoftball

My friend's brother shot a 360" bull in archery season. It's blood trail led to private property. The land owner would not allow access to retrieve the animal. I told him he should have called the OSP and they would have been forced to allow access. He said that they tried and were told they couldn't. Another friend in the same party shot a spike two days later that did the same thing. They were sickened to think of the waste of the animals.

Is there a law on the books that addresses this??

The simple answer from my experience is yes. There is a law, and this is a consideration that should be taken before shooting.

I'm not a legal type by any means. Just been around this situation before.

[loper]

Originally Posted by Joe

...the landowner could be cited for Waste of Game Animal for not allowing recovery.

An OSP Game Enforcement officer gave that same answer to this particular question at one of our OHA chapter meetings.

[Yeti]

Yes. As soon as the property owner denies access they take responsability for the animal. They can be cited if they let the animal go to waste. That is the barganing point OSP can use to get you access.

BTW, this is not new. A couple of years ago ownership vs possesion it was argued in court. I believe the archer won and the elk's head was returned to him.

[woodsy188]

As I remember from my master hunter class, they said if the owner won't grant permission, call the OSP and the owner must grant access.

I suppose the comment about the landowner taking possession and being cited for wasting game could be true?

[Duckwheat]

From landowners perspective, can you imagine all the blood trails that now lead onto your property.

DW

[Hawk]

Yes, but there better be an animal at the end of them or it would be trespassing, wouldn't it? If you think they're pulling your leg, go with them as they trail it.

[RedneckFishin]

gosh i was sure that there was a " retreiving wounded game" law in effect. we always let people on our land if they have a wounded animal. heck weve even helped them look a time or two. thats just plain and simple being a good neighboor

[Teton]

Originally Posted by RedneckFishin

gosh i was sure that there was a " retreiving wounded game" law in effect. we always let people on our land if they have a wounded animal. heck weve even helped them look a time or two. thats just plain and simple being a good neighboor

Actually it is the opposite.

The retrieval of wounded game on private property without permission is trespass.

There are, however, many good landowners out there, who, when asked for permission by respectful hunters, don't hesitate to grant permission to retrieve a wounded animal (like we are).

[Bertram42]

I would have to say it completely depends on the sitution. With that said the game officer will have to make the call. Is the wounded animal dead on the landowner's property or passing through. I also believe that the landowner could tag the animal if they so please, so that will negate the "waste". It would be hard to say if wounding an animal determines ownership.

It is a good thing to remember that in most hunting situations if you tresspass you likely have a weapon with you so it is not "tresspass" it is "criminal tresspass". This also brings into the question of committing a crime with a weapon and can jeopordize your future ownership of all firearms.

[Teton]

Well written Bertram. The landowner has a choice either way.

To merely wound a game animal does not constitute possession for purposes of title. Such is clear in the law. Neither are rights to acquire possession in a wounded game animal greater than private property rights.

I would be very surprised to find a regulation which required a landowner to grant access in such a situation. I would be even more surprised to find a Judge who would enforce such a regulation.

Even though it is hard not to follow a wounded animal onto private land, it is far better to ask for permission first. If somehow a waste regulation is brought up by an officer, the landowner has an incentive to either retrieve the animal for the hunter, let the officer retrieve it, or retrieve it himself.

However, if a wounded animal wanders on my property, and I'm not given actual notice by an officer, there is no way a waste citation will ever stick.

By the way, I am one of the legal types on here...and my legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Don Becker]

Originally Posted by Teton

. . . . By the way, I am one of the legal types on here...and my legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

'Very nice of you to assist with this, though. Thanks! Don

[johndeeregreen]

1] Don't hunt so close to private ground
2] Be a better shot
Your better off to avoid any situation like this.

[Chin Hook]

So what's the scoop with this???

I too had the opportunity to shoot a record class bull this year and was unable to find! I shot the bull near dark at 27 yards broadside and double lunged the bull where we found a blood trail right to a fence line seperating two ranches.

FYI - we have the right to ask the land owner for permission and if they deny, then time to activate the OSP for intervention and recovery or the land owner could be cited for "waisting of game".

How do you know the bull was a 360 class bull and why didn't you try to let the land owner help you if your evidence proved the bull went on their property???

Bummer deal as I feel the emotions and upset stomach.... to top it off, I shot my bull right when my wife went into labor and delivered our new baby girl! Blessings happen in strange ways!

[boanskid]

my hunting partner had this same thing go on the guy would not let my buudy get his deer and he told him he could show him where he shoot from and the blood from his deer he still wouldnt let him get it so he called osp they went out the next day and the guy cutting it up in his shop and arrested him

[baltz526]

call osp if refused access. that is your only option. go to rural mail box of ranch, call 411 for phone number of ranch, ask politely if anyone answers, if no answer call OSP. your only option. yes! you are trespassing when knocking on ranch house door. call first

[boanskid]

i think people like this should move if they dont have the respect if you can show them where you shoot from and the blood trail and hair their should not be a problem it just really gets under my skin but thats my 2

[baltz526]

not many ranches with out some form of posting at the main gates. it is polite to call first.

[tetra]

I had an experience about 15 years ago where a deer I shot with my bow ran from the private property I was hunting into a state park. In the process of retrieving it some passers by saw me and called the authorities. Ended up having 2 state troopers, 1 sheriff, 1 city officer and 2 park rangers all come and have a chat with me. Man I was scared. I took the trooper through the woods following the blood trail back to where I took the shot. He was satisfied that I hadn't broken any laws and ended up re-validating my tag.

Basically what I was told was that when a game animal dies on private property the land owner (in my case the state park, i.e. the park ranger) gets to decide the disposition of the animal. They can allow the tag holder to recover and keep the animal or they can elect to have the state take it. They can't keep it. Only 2 options there.

I was sad to loose my first archery kill but was ok with it and very pleased that the animal didn't go to waste - trooper took it and was donated to a local shelter. Learned a valuable lesson or three from that one!

[RiverMan]

Hard to believe someone would be so selfish as to not let you on to their land to find the animal. It alsmost sounds like they don't want you hunting there at all.

I would suggest finding a place to hunt that isn't so close to a property boundary.

RM

[DogZilla15]

Overfishin'

I'd bet a six pack you're wrong about the trespass law. True, the land owner must give you the opportunity to leave once you have been notified you are on private land. If you are carrying a firearm, you can be arrested on the spot as it is considered criminal trespass.

Any time a person crosses a boundary whether it be natural or man made, the possibility of trespass exists. Know where you are at all times and life will be a whole lot easier. Knowing how to contact local landowners in advance of hunting near their property will save a bunch of time.

[kilchisfisher]

[quote=DogZilla15;2210824]Overfishin'
((( considered criminal trespass. )))

Does anyone know the exact law that is? I know it in general but it would be good to know why it is and why it was enacted.

Thanks

[baltz526]

[QUOTE=kilchisfisher;2211018]

Originally Posted by DogZilla15

Overfishin'
((( considered criminal trespass. )))

Does anyone know the exact law that is? I know it in general but it would be good to know why it is and why it was enacted.

Thanks

look it up in the ORS. i would post the link but i'm on an old lap top with a dead hard drive on my main computer

[The Overfishin Condition]

164.265 - Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor.

[HntnFsh]

Originally Posted by The Overfishin Condition

Knocking on the ranch door is not trespassing, unless the entrance to the ranch is posted with a "no trespassing" sign. Otherwise, the owner has to ask you verbally to leave the property for you to be considered a trespasser.

If the property is not posted, you can legally enter the property. Without postings, you are only trespassing if you commit a crime on the premises. Otherwise, he would need to know you had tracked an animal onto his property, come find you, ask you to leave, and give you an opportunity to leave before you would be considered a trespasser. Depending on the layout of the property, in that situation (if the property were not posted) I'd be torn between asking permission, and simply going and retreiving the animal, which would be my legal right. TOC.

I dont know about Oregon.But in Washington I think you would be fine to knock on a door and ask permission.If told to leave,you better.Or suffer the consequences.

As far as the rest of the property.There doesnt have to be a sign anywhere.Doesnt matter if its fenced.Doesnt matter if there is livestock around.If you dont have written permission you can be cited for trespassing.Its in our game book.

[DogZilla15]

I don't think a persons driveway is considered trespassing because the general public has access. If you open a gate to enter, you are trespassing.

[kilchisfisher]

Originally Posted by The Overfishin Condition

164.265 - Criminal trespass while in possession of firearm(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor.

Thank you

[gully_20]

Be interesting if that Bull's antler's don't have the landowner's tag on it as well as the meat in his freezer. My brother in law watched a landowner come pick up his elk a few years ago and take it back to his place. Similar situation where he shot it on private property he was allowed to hunt and it got into a game management area where he was told he would be prosecuted if he tried to come pick it up.

[GDuck]

Originally Posted by The Overfishin Condition

Knocking on the ranch door is not trespassing, unless the entrance to the ranch is posted with a "no trespassing" sign. Otherwise, the owner has to ask you verbally to leave the property for you to be considered a trespasser.

If the property is not posted, you can legally enter the property. Without postings, you are only trespassing if you commit a crime on the premises. Otherwise, he would need to know you had tracked an animal onto his property, come find you, ask you to leave, and give you an opportunity to leave before you would be considered a trespasser. Depending on the layout of the property, in that situation (if the property were not posted) I'd be torn between asking permission, and simply going and retreiving the animal, which would be my legal right. TOC.

NO, you cannot do this. I don't know where you get your information but after being in law enforcement around here for 20 years I can tell you you are misinformed. Its Criminal Trespass with a Firearm, and even though your game regs talk about boundaries such as roads, fences ditches, whatever, google up "Oregon" and "trespass" and pretty soon you will see an appellate case affirming that you can completely by accident wander onto a piece of property that is NOT posted nor marked nor defined in any way and you CAN be charged with trespassing. That court decision has the "GI Ranch" in it I believe......money talks.

Call OSP and yes, they can make a good faith effort to retrieve an animal.

G

[Teton]

Originally Posted by The Overfishin Condition

Hmm, I can believe that is true for Oregon... I'm not so sure about Washington, which is where I'm from. I got my information from a reputable lawyer who is paid big bucks to know these kinds of laws. He also uses them as a basis to mushroom pick private property that is unposted. I'll take his word for it since he is sworn to uphold the law. We had a long discussion about trespassing laws in Washington just the other night, I'll clarify some of these things next time I talk with him. TOC.

PS. I also make don't make a habit of going on private property, unposted, or especially posted.

TOC, I would like to kindly set the record straight here (again). The information about trespassing you received from your "reputable lawyer" is false. An uninvited guest upon private property trespasses whether or not the property is posted. One of the reasons for a "no trespassing" sign, in addition to deterring trespassers is to aid law enforcement with issuing citations to trespassers (regulatory law). Tell your trespassing "reputable lawyer" to cut it out, or come see me so I can explain property law to him/her. Again, I'm trying to be kind here, but there are no two ways about it.

Here is a statement of controlling law (Washington):

A trespasser to real property is defined as a person who enters or remains upon land of another without permission or invitation, expressed or implied. A person is liable for trespass, even though he causes no damage, if he intentionally (1) enters the land in possession of another, or causes a thing or third person to do so, (2) remains on the land, or (3) fails to remove from the land a thing which he has a duty to remove. Trespass can also occur by means of water. The tort of intentional trespass requires proof of four elements: “(1) an invasion of property affecting an interest in exclusive possession; (2) an intentional act; (3) reasonable foreseeability that the act would disturb the plaintiff's possessory interest; and (4) actual and substantial damages.”

Although trespass is called an intentional tort, it is not necessary that the actor intend to enter the land of another. Washington courts apply the Restatement definition of intent in determining if a person intentionally trespasses upon another's property. Intent exists where the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or where he believes that the consequences of his act are substantially certain to result. Intent to commit a trespass is not limited, however, to consequences that are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, from his act, and he still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. Intent to trespass can also include an act that the actor undertakes realizing that there is a high probability of a trespass occurring and yet the actor behaves with disregard of those likely consequences.

What bugs me about these public boards is the scenario where someone reads something (maybe takes it out of context), goes out and does it, gets in doo-doo, and says "I read it on the internet."

I practice almost exclusively in property law in both Washington and Oregon, and had many years experience long before that owning property (knowing the law before going to law school) dealing with the very issues (including others relating to trespassing) we discuss here on this thread.

The only intent required to trespass is the intent to actually set foot (or drive) across the boundary line on the ground, sorry "reputable lawyer". Ignorance of the fact that a person stands upon private property is no defense. You are trespassing either way because you do not possess a license to enter. If, on the other hand, the trespasser had no reason whatsoever to believe he was on private property, the intent element is not easily established. That is why landowners fence or somehow mark the boundaries of their property. Just placing a boundary marker of any kind helps to establish the intent element against a trespasser. A "No Trespassing" sign is not necessary to establish the intent element, merely a fence or demarcation of some sort, stream bed, ditch, etc.

Hunters, please, do not enter private property unless you have permission. You do not have the right to be there, and it doesn't matter if your trophy bull with an arrow through it just crossed the line on its last breath. Contact an officer if a wounded game animal wanders onto private property. Not only are you subject to prosecution (criminal trespass), but can be sued (civil liability), a very expensive endeavor to defend. The law has been clear on this for a long time.

A good landowner, if contacted by an officer, or a responsible hunter (many hunters are not responsible when it comes to private property because they get it in their heads they have a right to be on private land otherwise) would be willing to help retrieve a wounded animal, allow the officer to assist in retrieving it, or retrieve it himself (for you). If the landowner refuses, and the animal was not reduced to possession at the property line, you are probably out of luck.

If you want your questions answered about private property, may I recommend you consult with an experienced attorney who practices in that area of the law (or an experienced law enforcement officer, who, if he/she cannot give you the advice you seek, will point you toward someone who can).

Again, since I represent no one who reads the above, my advice, although correct, is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by nwsoftball

My friend's brother shot a 360" bull in archery season. It's blood trail led to private property. The land owner would not allow access to retrieve the animal. I told him he should have called the OSP and they would have been forced to allow access. He said that they tried and were told they couldn't. Another friend in the same party shot a spike two days later that did the same thing. They were sickened to think of the waste of the animals.

Is there a law on the books that addresses this??

Sorry but if this would have been my case the land owner would have found a gut pile in the morning...

[Teton]

Originally Posted by gweedo#1

Sorry but if this would have been my case the land owner would have found a gut pile in the morning...

Hmmm, and the respectful hunters wondered when we shut down 1500 acres just below the Tetons to everybody. It doesn't take too many occurrences of cut fences, vehicles stuck in a plowed/planted field, and other property damage for a landowner to exclude everyone.

You want landowners to cooperate with the hunting public? Don't pull a stunt like Gweedo here.

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by Teton

Hmmm, and the respectful hunters wondered when we shut down 1500 acres just below the Tetons to everybody. It doesn't take too many occurrences of cut fences, vehicles stuck in a plowed/planted field, and other property damage for a landowner to exclude everyone.

You want landowners to cooperate with the hunting public? Don't pull a stunt like Gweedo here.

Sorry but I would have a hard time letting a 360 bull go to waste(or any elk for that matter) all because a fat headed land owner dont want you on his property I have no respect for that kind person...

[Teton]

Originally Posted by gweedo#1

Sorry but I would have a hard time letting a 360 bull go to waste(or any elk for that matter) all because a fat headed land owner dont want you on his property I have no respect for that kind person...

No respect eh? Well, you've now proved my point to perfection for all to understand, except yourself, I guess.

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by Teton

No respect eh? Well, you've now proved my point to perfection for all to understand, except yourself, I guess.

Thats right NO RESPECT that LAND OWNER had NO RESPECT for those hunters THERE FOR THEY HAD TWO ELK GO TO WASTE!!! The right thing to do would be letting those hunters retreive their elk...You cant controll were an elks gona run when shot with a bow. In this case a land owner being hard headed and the osp aint doing nothing about it...What next??...If these were the responses that I got) Well I will take my chances thats my elk I worked hard for it and I aint letting it go to waste...And anyone that would let it go shouldnt be hunting...

[croation2]

Seems cut and dried! The landowner had something to hide, maybe a fall cash crop??

[Troutinator]

Originally Posted by Teton

No respect eh? Well, you've now proved my point to perfection for all to understand, except yourself, I guess.

Exactly the attitude that closed our 160 acres up the Miami. We used to be pretty generous about access 20 years ago. But then the slob "sportsmen" started to outnumber the real outdoorsmen. By a huge margin lately. Now, if you come ask about access, the answer is a polite no. If you have an animal down on our property and ask FIRST...maybe. Attitude will open or close the gate. If we catch you hopping the fence, it's an automatic invitation to leave pronto. Give me any grief and we'll let the sherrif settle it. And based on how it's gone on the last handful of occasions, you best just leave before he shows up. He's got a worse attitude than I do about trespassers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap...

[Teton]

Originally Posted by gweedo#1

Thats right NO RESPECT that LAND OWNER had NO RESPECT for those hunters THERE FOR THEY HAD TWO ELK GO TO WASTE!!! The right thing to do would to let the hunters retreive their elk...You cant controll were an elks gona run when shot with a bow. In this case a land owner being hard headed and the osp aint doing nothing about it...What next??...If these were the responses that I got) Well I will take my chances thats my elk I worked hard for it and I aint letting it go to waste...And anyone that would let it go shouldnt be hunting...

I will try to be kind here...

Hope one of us doesn't have to learn the hard way when OSP is called by the landowner, and the hunter is trespassing (possibly with a weapon). Then, if the hunter displays the same attitude (the one which says that they have a right to trespass), on top of Criminal Trespass, he'll ask his attorney to slap the trespassing hunter with a civil lawsuit, just for kicks. Now, not only is the hunter in doo-doo with the Officer/Judge under criminal law, he has to spend a boat load of money to defend a lawsuit where both the landowner and the Officer are witnesses against him.

You know, just to make sure the trespasser receives the message that this hunter is not to enter on his property for any reason.

The law is clear that exclusive possession is a right of a landowner. This means he can exclude anyone he chooses, especially a hunter who thinks he has a right to be there.

As a hunter I totally understand how important it might be to trespass and attempt to retrieve a wounded animal, but property rights are far greater. I appreciate the fact that a hunter thinks that a wounded elk is "his" elk. However, in most states, until a game animal is reduced to possession, it is still "owned" by the state in trust (not the hunter).

Like I wrote before. Better ask first. If denied, call OSP to see if the landowner can be "talked" into allowing the Officer (or the hunter) to retrieve the animal. Most landowners will cooperate if they can tell you are respectful of their rights. Its good to get to know the landowners in the area you hunt anyway. If the landowner has had run-ins with disrespectful hunters, you are out of luck anyway.

A good deed will be returned in kind, but a bad deed by a hunter with the wrong attitude will likely get returned by a landowner with a heavy hand, because they have the upper hand when it comes to property rights.

[Teton]

Originally Posted by Troutinator

Exactly the attitude that closed our 160 acres up the Miami. We used to be pretty generous about access 20 years ago. But then the slob "sportsmen" started to outnumber the real outdoorsmen. By a huge margin lately. Now, if you come ask about access, the answer is a polite no. If you have an animal down on our property and ask FIRST...maybe. Attitude will open or close the gate. If we catch you hopping the fence, it's an automatic invitation to leave pronto. Give me any grief and we'll let the sherrif settle it. And based on how it's gone on the last handful of occasions, you best just leave before he shows up. He's got a worse attitude than I do about trespassers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap...

You wouldn't believe how many bozos we have pulled out of our fields with tractors, and then they have the gaul to ask if they can come back? What about the guy who runs off the road chasing an animal, and damages a high pressure irrigation pipeline? What about the guys who left three elk gutpiles up the canyon on our property where we were going to fill our landowner tags the same day? What about the guys who cut the fence so they could go from one field to another? What about the guys who got their snowmobiles stuck in our pond, and wanted help to get out? I could go on and on and on...

All who were trespassers?

Do you think any of them were invited back? Do you think they spoiled the opportunity for all? The attitude of the trespasser is the problem. They get on property they don't own, and take no responsibility for the damage they cause.

[The Overfishin Condition]

Teton and all- I removed my posts that contained what I thought were accurate interpretations of the laws. It appears apparent they were not. You cleared it up quite nicely Teton.

I'll be interested to see what the gentlemen who told me about this has to say, I'm sure there is a large possibility that I misinterpreted some of what he said.

As for people doing something because they read it on the internet, it's a tough topic. I've always disliked pictures of people handling native fish for that reason, even if one guy knows how to do it, another, who may not know how to properly handle a fish is apt to go out and try it because they believe it to be acceptable. Internet has it's positives and negatives. All the same, I hope nobody would ever base their decision about game regulations or laws on something they read on here. Knowing the laws and and game regs is every individual's duty. I'm glad I am clear and set straight so I can better perform my duty now! Sorry for all the confusion and the "alleged" misinformation. Apparently, I'm not suited as the "legal type" TOC.

Originally Posted by Teton

TOC, I would like to kindly set the record straight here (again). The information about trespassing you received from your "reputable lawyer" is false. An uninvited guest upon private property trespasses whether or not the property is posted. One of the reasons for a "no trespassing" sign, in addition to deterring trespassers is to aid law enforcement with issuing citations to trespassers (regulatory law). Tell your trespassing "reputable lawyer" to cut it out, or come see me so I can explain property law to him/her. Again, I'm trying to be kind here, but there are no two ways about it.

Here is a statement of controlling law (Washington):




What bugs me about these public boards is the scenario where someone reads something (maybe takes it out of context), goes out and does it, gets in doo-doo, and says "I read it on the internet."

I practice almost exclusively in property law in both Washington and Oregon, and had many years experience long before that owning property (knowing the law before going to law school) dealing with the very issues (including others relating to trespassing) we discuss here on this thread.

The only intent required to trespass is the intent to actually set foot (or drive) across the boundary line on the ground, sorry "reputable lawyer". Ignorance of the fact that a person stands upon private property is no defense. You are trespassing either way because you do not possess a license to enter. If, on the other hand, the trespasser had no reason whatsoever to believe he was on private property, the intent element is not easily established. That is why landowners fence or somehow mark the boundaries of their property. Just placing a boundary marker of any kind helps to establish the intent element against a trespasser. A "No Trespassing" sign is not necessary to establish the intent element, merely a fence or demarcation of some sort, stream bed, ditch, etc.

Hunters, please, do not enter private property unless you have permission. You do not have the right to be there, and it doesn't matter if your trophy bull with an arrow through it just crossed the line on its last breath. Contact an officer if a wounded game animal wanders onto private property. Not only are you subject to prosecution (criminal trespass), but can be sued (civil liability), a very expensive endeavor to defend. The law has been clear on this for a long time.

A good landowner, if contacted by an officer, or a responsible hunter (many hunters are not responsible when it comes to private property because they get it in their heads they have a right to be on private land otherwise) would be willing to help retrieve a wounded animal, allow the officer to assist in retrieving it, or retrieve it himself (for you). If the landowner refuses, and the animal was not reduced to possession at the property line, you are probably out of luck.

If you want your questions answered about private property, may I recommend you consult with an experienced attorney who practices in that area of the law (or an experienced law enforcement officer, who, if he/she cannot give you the advice you seek, will point you toward someone who can).

Again, since I represent no one who reads the above, my advice, although correct, is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Teton]

TOC, you are a good man. No worries at all.

[tikkahunter]

well said teton. it's the hunters with out permission that believe they have a right to be on private property that cause all the problems

[ommedia]

I agree that attitude is key, as many laws have gray areas and interpretation by the officer / judge can and do vary.

The land owner in this case has an outfitter leasing his property, both knew the bull was on the other private property, and the hunter did everything by the book as instructed by the Officer he spoke with.

End result, the animal is presumably 3 weeks dead, presumably still on that property and no actions have yet been taken by the land owner or the OSP to my knowledge.

It appears as though the interpretation of the law, the intent, and multiple variables come into play. It doesn't appear the law is cut and dry as results in similar/identical situations do not always arrive at similar/identical conclusion.

Cooperation and dilligence by all parties is always best.

Attitude of a land owner is just as suspect at times, and intentionally breaking the law should have it's consequence for anyone.

I too would have a hard time stopping at a fence with any game animal let alone something of this class. We all hunt near private property at one point or another and don't expect game to run/survive so long. I think a better point here would be to hope for and foster better neighborly relations, as that would have definitely servered this situation better.

[WapitiBob]

Originally Posted by GDuck

NO, you cannot do this. ....

Call OSP and yes, they can make a good faith effort to retrieve an animal.

G

I believe a good faith effort is all they can do. OSP can't just walk onto private property, nor can they force a landowner to grant access.

[feelthefish10]

had a friend that this happened to and osp made him show him the blood trail from where it was shot to where it was trcked on to private land. if you can do that no problem to get your animal. if not the land owner can press changes. the land owner also does not have to let clean or quater the animal on there property.

[Esq]

Too many damn laws. I trespassed today while walking through town I decided to cut the corner and took two steps on a corner dwellers lawn. Lock me up and throw away the key. Perhaps the D.A. has better things to do.

I prefer "do unto others."

[Northwest Pest]

An armed society is a polite society. Shoot first ask questions later. This stuff is crazy. Too many laws. Our country needs some serious help. After this next election we will all be robots told what to do and how to do it because there are too many laws. ESQ had it right ..."do unto others." Taxes are high and we wonder why. It is a result of too many rules and regs. Deep down in all of us there is right and wrong in this thread and it shouldn't be an issue. Too many laws and not very good neighbors is the problem.

[WSU]

These property laws, such as trespass, are very old laws that have been established for longer than anyone on this board has been alive. Pure and simple, you have right as a landowner to exclude others from your property.

[Teton]

Originally Posted by WSU

These property laws, such as trespass, are very old laws that have been established for longer than anyone on this board has been alive. Pure and simple, you have right as a landowner to exclude others from your property.

In fact, firmly established law such as Trespass to Land was established long before this country was founded, and the Founding Fathers adopted those laws from the common law. Complaining about it is futile.

To say that there are too many laws is common. I think so too in most areas, especially in land use regulatory law. However, to say there are too many laws with respect to private property possession is shortsighted. The law governing private property possessory rights boils down to something quite simple, that is the right of the landowner to exclude ALL (exclusive possession right) if he or she chooses.

Licenses can be granted (and revoked without cause) for entry into private property. Implied licenses such as a sidewalk from my front door to the street for the public to knock (until I find out they are from Our Ocean, trying to peddle crap like Marine Reserves ) can be revoked immediately, and without cause to individuals. Use of property is another matter, a subject which would take volumes on this board to explain.

The public has been trying to chip away at this (and other) firmly established private property rights in this country for a long time. You name it, there is some justification out there to steal from the landowner one of the solid rights he possesses.

A hunter whose wounded game animal wanders onto private land where the hunter does not possess a license (permission) is just one of many who falsely claim a right to enter private property.

Its all about attitude here. The non-landowning public treats public land like theirs (sometimes with respect, and sometimes without), and attempts to treat private land the same. Easy come, easy go, they didn't pay for the property, right? (See the "respect" posts above)

For those who still believe they have a right to enter private property for any reason, may I kindly turn the tables on you. How would you like it if I said I had the right to walk in your front door, grab a drink out of the fridge, and plop down on your easy chair and change the channel to SportsCenter and stay there as long as I wished? How about if I needed somewhere to store my other boat, and tore down one of your fences, and parked it in the middle of your back lawn? What if I boldly walked into your duck lease, set up my decoys, and wouldn't leave when you asked me to? Would you give me permission? Wouldn't you call the cops too?

Too many laws, eh?

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by Teton

In fact, firmly established law such as Trespass to Land was established long before this country was founded, and the Founding Fathers adopted those laws from the common law. Complaining about it is futile.

To say that there are too many laws is common. I think so too in most areas, especially in land use regulatory law. However, to say there are too many laws with respect to private property possession is shortsighted. The law governing private property possessory rights boils down to something quite simple, that is the right of the landowner to exclude ALL (exclusive possession right) if he or she chooses.

Licenses can be granted (and revoked without cause) for entry into private property. Implied licenses such as a sidewalk from my front door to the street for the public to knock (until I find out they are from Our Ocean, trying to peddle crap like Marine Reserves ) can be revoked immediately, and without cause to individuals. Use of property is another matter, a subject which would take volumes on this board to explain.

The public has been trying to chip away at this (and other) firmly established private property rights in this country for a long time. You name it, there is some justification out there to steal from the landowner one of the solid rights he possesses.

A hunter whose wounded game animal wanders onto private land where the hunter does not possess a license (permission) is just one of many who falsely claim a right to enter private property.

Its all about attitude here. The non-landowning public treats public land like theirs (sometimes with respect, and sometimes without), and attempts to treat private land the same. Easy come, easy go, they didn't pay for the property, right? (See the "respect" posts above)

For those who still believe they have a right to enter private property for any reason, may I kindly turn the tables on you. How would you like it if I said I had the right to walk in your front door, grab a drink out of the fridge, and plop down on your easy chair and change the channel to SportsCenter and stay there as long as I wished? How about if I needed somewhere to store my other boat, and tore down one of your fences, and parked it in the middle of your back lawn? Would you give me permission? Wouldn't you call the cops too?

Too many laws, eh?

You can sit here and talk about property rights until your fingers fall off but it still dosnt change the way I feel (and many others) ABOUT THIS situation..Its happened to me and the end results was a rotting 6x6 75 yards from the property line all because a land owner from califoria didnt want me on his property...NOW the way I look at it....IIIts REEAL HARD TO RESPECT someone like that...So what it comes down to....
1. You can be a respectful land owner investigate the situation and allow permition to retreve their game (and receive a slab of backstrap) or
2.You can be a disrespectful landowner and not investige and not let them reteive their game
-Respect goes both ways-

[Teton]

Yes, I can agree with you on that one Gweedo. Pretty hard to respect a landowner who wouldn't at least allow an officer to retrieve such an animal for the hunter. Good ones and bad ones out there.

We always went out of our way to help people who didn't damage our property. If a hunter who didn't have permission could prove to me that they didn't shoot such an animal on our property, I would have gone out and helped him retrieve it myself. Because I would hope another landowner would return the favor if I was in the same position. Plus, as you write, there might be a taste of backstrap in it for me. Win-win for everyone.

Respect of the law is another matter altogether, and I'm not implying that you don't respect the law. The bottom line here is that a landowner doesn't have to "respect" (as you put it) a hunter in this situation. The law doesn't require it. The law does, however, require the hunter to "respect" the landowner's legal rights.

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by WSU

These property laws, such as trespass, are very old laws that have been established for longer than anyone on this board has been alive. Pure and simple, you have right as a landowner to exclude others from your property.

To bad my native ancesesters of this land couldnt say the same thing...Im not the one for tresspassing (without permition)or destruction of other peoples property but Im also not the one to let anything go to waste cause of ignorence....

[Yeti]

Originally Posted by gweedo#1

You can sit here and talk about property rights until your fingers fall off but it still dosnt change the way I feel (and many others) ABOUT THIS situation..Its happened to me and the end results was a rotting 6x6 75 yards from the property line all because a land owner from califoria didnt want me on his property...NOW the way I look at it....IIIts REEAL HARD TO RESPECT someone like that...So what it comes down to....
1. You can be a respectful land owner investigate the situation and allow permition to retreve their game (and receive a slab of backstrap) or
2.You can be a disrespectful landowner and not investige and not let them reteive their game (And end up with some tubesteak on your doorstep as a thanks anyways)))
-Respect goes both ways-

It is fine to not hold respect for a land owner. There are bad ones out there.

But it is wrong to not respect property law when it is not convienient for you.

[WSU]

If you are knowingly going to trespass, for whatever reason (disrespect for landowner, 6X7 bull down, whatever), you don't have much room to whine about the laws when you get busted, sued, or whatever befalls you as a result of your actions. It is your choice, you deserve the consequences.

[Joe]

Couple cases of this type of situation on this months OSP report. I can't figure out how to copy and paste from Adobe but here is the link. Two different instances of how NOT to deal with this situation...

http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/FW/docs/Ne.../september.pdf

[WSU]

Here is one. There are all kinds of trespass charges.


Tpr. Marvin Ritter (John Day) investigated a complaint from a rancher
that an archery hunter killed a 1 x 6 bull elk on ranch property without
permission. When Ritter contacted the suspect via phone, he said he
initially shot the elk on adjoining BLM property and trailed it onto the
ranch, where he shot it again and killed it. He did not contact the
landowner or manager prior to entering upon the ranch property. The
elk was seized. The suspect will be cited for

Hunting on the

Enclosed Lands of Another.

[Esq]

"Do unto others" precedes and colors property law. There is a reason that our society thinks relatively little of a property owners right to exclude others. "CLASS A MiSDEMEANOR" Good luck obtaining a conviction or civil recovery when a hunter trails bleeding game onto another's property. What a bunch of wind spent on something little more than a traffic offense.

[gweedo#1]

Originally Posted by WSU

Here is one. There are all kinds of trespass charges.

Tpr. Marvin Ritter (John Day) investigated a complaint from a rancher
that an archery hunter killed a 1 x 6 bull elk on ranch property without
permission. When Ritter contacted the suspect via phone, he said he
initially shot the elk on adjoining BLM property and trailed it onto the
ranch, where he shot it again and killed it. He did not contact the
landowner or manager prior to entering upon the ranch property. The

elk was seized. The suspect will be cited for

Hunting on the
Enclosed Lands of Another.

....Here is one. There are all kinds of trespass charges.....

I only see one charge ...The guy should have contacted the land owner and asked for permision first...

[ORsouthpaw]

So I just want to make sure I get this. If I shoot an animal (on Public Land) and it proceeds to move onto private ground where it then falls over dead. I have to and ask the land owners permission to retrive it, No problem there! But that may also mean that I have to drive to town, look through public records and try to attempt to locate the contact information if there is none posted. Say this happens within a 24 hour period during the early archery season in which the 70 plus degree heat has spoiled most if not all the meat. Why bother at that point. Unless you are just pursuing a trophy class animal and simply are wanting to remove the antlers for ego points.

It seems to me that a hunter in pursuit of wounded wild game should be allowed to cross property lines without seeking permission if and when it means that the animal will like be wasted as a result of trying to obtain permission.

I believe there is a law that says a hunter has to attempt to retire an animal whenever that animal has become deceased but does that rule not apply to private land? By the ODFW's definition of waste failure to retrieve edible portions of a game mammal is punishable. So I'm a little unclear on this.

The landowner who denies retrieval (Either by the Hunter or OSP) and does not promptly claim the animal is in fact "Wasting" a game mammal by definition. Personally I believe that if the land owner denies retrieval they should be required to tag the animal. If they do not have a valid tag for the animal in question the hunter should be allowed to claim it.

Perhaps rather than trying to fight trespass laws we should be encouraging private land owners to post their contact information in a way that is easily obtainable.