Tresspass Laws--everywhere

I'm with you Ron. I don't and won't hunt private land. I live where I do because there is way more public land than I could ever in ten lifetimes use. Far as I'm concerned if you own private land you are not welcome on MY public land. Frank

 

[Poor Private]

I'm with you Ron. I don't and won't hunt private land. I live where I do because there is way more public land than I could ever in ten lifetimes use. Far as I'm concerned if you own private land you are not welcome on MY public land. Frank

The only probelm with that, is that it's NOT your public land! My tax dollar also goes to help maintain it, buy more, fight the forest fires, cut in the trails and maintain them so you and I can use them. So in effect it's OUR public land.

 

[hoochiepapa]

In effect? No, it belongs to all of us because of the Pittman Robertson Act of 1933. Signed by T. Roosevelt, THis Act takes a percentage of all hunting and fishing gear and pays for the PUBLIC land. Not Camping, biking, or anything else just our gear. And anybody can use it.

 

[KHickam]

Mike - Wouldn't that be Franklin Roosevelt?

 

[Dave K]

The ground that you hunt is a blessing for those that are close enough to use it. There is no such thing where I live but about 2 hrs. away. So private ground is what I use, because of it.

 

[longcruise]

I have one. My dog.

Maybe I should get a dog! :haha: Nah, it would probably turn on me! :rotf:

 

[lonehunter]

I'm with you Ron. I don't and won't hunt private land. I live where I do because there is way more public land than I could ever in ten lifetimes use. Far as I'm concerned if you own private land you are not welcome on MY public land. Frank

That is one of the biggest problems with public land, Attitudes like this, People think they own it. The land belongs to every tax payer in the country, people that own private land have as much right to hunt on public land as anyone else.

 

[Dave K]

Right, I wonder if that is why they call it Public Land? :grin:

 

[hoochiepapa]

Yessir! You are right.

 

[longcruise]

Here is another flip side to the public/private land thing. Here in the west much public land is leased for grazing rights. It does not give the lessee any rights other than grazing rights. Neverthless, some ranchers have the attitude that it is their land and some even go so far as to post it! :shocked2: They know it is wrong but want to do all they can to give themselves exclusive use of ourpublic lands. The BLM and Forest Service will deal with these false postings immediately upon noticing or being notified, but there is not much they can do other than remove the signs since there is no certain evidence of who put them there.

About 20 years ago I and a friend were hunting in the San Luis valley just north of Saquache for antelope. I had good up to date maps that showed where the BLM land was. We headed for a spot that looked good on the map and encompassed several square miles of BLM land. When we got to the gate we saw it to be posted! :shocked2: There was a guy in a pick up truck in the back end of the property checking on some cattle. I double and triple checked the dates and locations on my maps. There was no doubt that it was an illegal posting of public land. We went straight on in and hunted the area. It was perfectly clear to the guy in the truck that we were there (in orange) and hunting. He never said "boo". :haha:

 

[hoochiepapa]

But that doesn't apply to STATE land that is leased by cattle owner. I investigated some land that was posted but showed as state land on my map. When I called the state, they told me the lessee has ALL rights.

 

[Idaho Ron]

Not in Idaho. ROn

 

[wirehairman]

But that doesn't apply to STATE land that is leased by cattle owner. I investigated some land that was posted but showed as state land on my map. When I called the state, they told me the lessee has ALL rights.

Not in Idaho. ROn

Nor in Montana. One can legally hunt on any State land accessible by a public road or other public land. Unfortunately, we do have a few "islands" of State land surrounded by private property that are inaccessible.

 

[bobman]

Not really relying to anyone specifically just wanted to say that access and the commercialzation
of hunting through leasing is slowly ending hunting in this country.

Eventually because kids cannot get hunting access they will turn to other things for recreation.

Then as hunter numbers drop over a few generations the SOBs in congress will start to get cocky and try to erode our gun rights that they currently leave alone due to the fact that there are lots of hunters on both side of the political spectrum they now fear angering.

Its a downhill slide and hunter numbers drop with each generation. I dare say most of the guys on here are old farts like me, new recruits are getting rarer and rarer.

I dont have a problem with landowners posting there land for personal use but when they sell hunting rights they are selling public property they don't own IE game animals. Its a form of market hunting and should be illegal IMO. All game animals are public property here in the USA as opposed to the European model where the landowners own the game sell it to the priviledged.

I'll get off my soapbox

 

[henbrook]

I dont have a problem with landowners posting there land for personal use but when they sell hunting rights they are selling public property they don't own IE game animals. Its a form of market hunting and should be illegal IMO. All game animals are public property here in the USA as opposed to the European model where the landowners own the game sell it to the priviledged.

I'll get off my soapbox

Selling "hunting rights" IS illegal here.that said,a landowner can certainly grant or deny access to whomever he chooses,and if there's some under the table,shady dealings going on,who's to know?

Luckily,50% of NB is Crown(public)land.Most of that is leased to a handful of big forestry companies,but they lease the wood rights only,pay stumpage,maintain roads etc. and keep the land accessable to the public,with the temporary exception of small immediate areas where active forest operations are under way and sometimes posted "No Hunting",I assume for the safety of the workers?Point is,there's more public land within a 50mile radius of my home than i could ever hopre to hunt in a lifetime.The other 50% of the land here is a private including large tracts of industrial freehold,again,often owned by the lumber giants.Some of that is open,some is gated and reserved for "employees only".Basically only about 20-30% of all the huntable land here would be what you would consider "private property",and alot of that is open to hunting as well.We have a system of posting land with 8" colored discs to indicate whether or not hunting is allowed on privately owned land.Yellow discs mean hunting by permission only,in effect,the same as a "No Trespassing" sign.Red discs mean "No Hunting" whatsoever,not even by the land-owner,and are generally only posted by the landowning antis or in some cases where it might be unsafe or illegal to discharge firearms.(within 400m of a dwelling)Private land that is not posted at all,right or wrong,is generally considered to be fair game.This is land owned by absentee owners,companies and corporations,and people who just don't care if anybody hunts there or not.

In 30+ years of hunting here,I can only recall once ever asking permission to hunt a particulair farm because of the frequent deer sightings I'd had driving by there.It was not posted either Red or Yellow,but was obviously private property,so out of respect for the landowner,I knocked on the door and asked."No problem,anytime,fill yer boots" he said,and I've had some great bird and deer hunts there over the last 15 years or so.

Paying for hunting rights.... :youcrazy: ....not in this lifetime.That's such a foreign idea to me that I think I'd probly give up hunting first?I do feel for you fellas south of the border where hunt clubs and leases are often the norm.It's no wonder hunting participation is shrinking when some kid(or adult) that would maybe like to get into it simply can't afford to hunt anywhere.

 

[longcruise]

But that doesn't apply to STATE land that is leased by cattle owner. I investigated some land that was posted but showed as state land on my map. When I called the state, they told me the lessee has ALL rights.

That is absolutely correct as it relates to State Trust Lands. State trust lands were originally designated for the purpose of producing income for the school districts in which they are located. When they are illustrated on maps they are tyically sections 18 and 36 within any given township (a township is equal to 36 sections and is not related to a township as we might consider the confines of an actual town). This has changed over the years as some land has been traded or added to. There are other lands that show up on the maps as state land too, such as state parks, etc. They are a public in the traditional sense and subject to the rules and regs of the State Parks system.

State Trust lands are under the control of the state land board. They are responsible for producing a maximum income stream from these properties for the benefit of the school districts.

Some of these trust lands are open to hunting because the Div of wildlife has negotiated a lease for the specific purpose of hunting. Here is a link to a list of them;

State trust lands open to hunting

Leases on trust lands can be for anything including grazing, mining, logging, etc. and one lease does not necessarily exclude another lease. Could be a grazing lease and a logging lease. Or in the case of DOW leased lands, a public hunting lease. Also, a public hunting lease does not make the property available for other recreation such as hiking or horseback riding unless it is directly associated with hunting.

Any of these leases allows the lessee to treat the property as their own private property. When the DOW negotiates a lease of trust land for hunting it must be agreeable to all other lease holders.

A lot of hunters in the past have beefed about this system, but from a practical standpoint, it is only appropriate that someone who pays a lease fee should not see the rights that he paid a fee for being ignored by those who have not paid. Always keeping in mind that the system is meant to maximize revenue from these lands for the benefit of the school districts and that that is the only reason they exist!

Fortunately this is not usually the case on NF and BLM land. There are exceptions though. One good example is the Henderson mill in the Williams Fork valley in unit 28. Their lease allows them to post the mill property for safety and they do just that.

 

[hoochiepapa]

You'll notice that the majority are on the west slope. Hard for me to get to without lots of driving. I guess I'm spoiled.
Thank you for your effort, I'll go there and print off some of the Larimer Co. ones.
Good work. :thumbsup:

 

[longcruise]

Your welcome, Mike. While you are at it, take a look at some of the Park county properties. Some are huge.

Over the years I have visited quite a few trust land leases and have found them to range form near useless to fantastic. Often you can make a pretty good call just from the mapping of them. Some of them provide a good access to other public land that otherwise might not be accessible.

There is also a little booklet available from DOW that lists them by county. Notice that the list I linked goes by the name of the lease and calls for going through the entire list just to check out any given county. That booklet is also available on the dow site at;
Booklet

You need to use both links. One is the map the other is driving directions and regulations. Some are not open year round.

We have hunted some of the Larimer leases in unit 8 and have killed some antelope there.

 

[hoochiepapa]

Have you ever tried Pawnee Grasslands?

Killed this nice buck two years ago there, did not have one landowner turn me down. But they did laugh at my rifle! :rotf: Had a doe permit this year, but wifeangel taliked me into not going, we had too much meat in the freezer (she fancies herself as a vegetarian :haha: )
PT me and I'll tell you where to go.

 

[bigbore442001]

Not add any more fuel, well..

Here in Massachusetts it has been tradition and law that in most towns any land that is not posted is open to trespass. With the exception of about one fifth of the towns in the Bay State if you see a stretch of woodland and there aren't any signs, you can go hunting.

It has been that way for centuries.