Do they have the right?

[hobbeeman]

If you purchase a day lease from a property owner, for hunting/trespass, does the landowner legally have the right to impose further limits on your game harvest? That is, can he tell you to only take one deer, even though the limit set by his county/state is three? Don't the deer belong to the people of the State, and not the landowner? (This is of course not the case if he operates one of those high fenced places)

I would think that any legal game, taken in a safe manner should be covered under the permission to access the land. The landowner does not have the right to charge me extra for taking more than one deer or taking a pig or legal birds etc...

If this is the wrong forum, please move to the correct place.

Likewise, if this subject has been covered before, please provide a link.

 

[mljdeckard]

In Utah, no, he can't. BUT, he can ASK you no follow a certain guideline, and if you refuse, he can always revoke permission.

I'm pretty sure that in every state in America, the wildlife is managed and hunting permitted by a state wildlife resources department.

The only exceptions are when the game you are shooting isn't wild. Meaning, if the landowner raises, AND effectively seperates his animals from the state's animals, then he decides how they will be disposed of. (I've paid for many hutch-raised pheasants, because wild ones are getting tougher to find.)

 

[just one question]

...

Why don't you just be glad he is letting you hunt his land? He doesn't have to you know

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The deer may be managed by the state, but the owner's property is managed by the owner. Doesn't matter if the state allows you to take a dozen animals, if the property owner allows you onto HIS property subject to the condition that you take only ONE animal ... that's a contract between you and the owner, and it supercedes the state's more liberal allowance.

If you don't like being limited to what the owner of the property allows, don't hunt his property.

 

[hobbeeman]

You are acting like the animals belong to the property owner, like his livestock. They do not. The wild game belongs to all of the citizens (including the hunters) and its harvest is regulated heavily enough by the state.

If the landowner wants to charge for each animal, then he should first purchase it from the citizens. If he does not want me hunting on his property then he can refuse my $ and "just say no"

If I shoot one of his cows, you bet I would have to reimburse him. But not for a second deer!

 

[wdlsguy]

This is a contractual issue between you and the landowner. If you don't like the terms he is offering, you can try to negotiate with him, or find another landowner offering better terms.

 

[auschip]

I believe they can make it part of the agreement on the lease. Typical leases should specify the amount, the season (or if it is a year round lease), and any stipulations on the land (I hunted one lease that only allowed guests after the first two weeks of the season). Additionally, the person who owns the land isn't selling you the deer (or other game), he is selling you the area to hunt those animals, and not the animals themselves. In essence, it sounds like he is telling you, that unless you want to pay more money, your lease ends when you kill a deer.

 

[ZeSpectre]

You know what folks, Landowners property, Landowners rules. Don't like the deal then try a friendly negoation or go someplace else.

Could be the guy is greedy. Could be he's trying a little wildlife management. Could be he as some Ass*#@es blastin' away in the past and he's just trying to keep things calmed down a little.

 

[sacp81170a]

Let's put it this way. If you let someone on your property to pick a bushel of wild blackberries for $10, does that mean they can load up their pickup truck? No. The property owner has every right to place limits on your activities while on his property. He can tell you where you can go, how long you can stay, what type of firearm to use, etc. Remember, it's HIS property. You don't like the conditions, go somewhere else.

(The "what type of firearm" is actually pertinent around here. Some of the property owners will only allow muzzle loaders to hunt their land.)

 

[hobbeeman]

You guys are forgetting who actually owns the deer! THEY ARE NOT THE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER!

Here is an example of what chaps me from this weeks classified ads: "3 day lease $250, 6 point $400, 8 point $600, 10 point plus $800"

This property owner is not selling just the right to trespass, he is actually selling the deer from the property. YOUR DEER. He did not pay for the deer. He is not running a captive program of any kind, except on the few cattle he has on the property.

This is the norm in this part of the country. No wonder the fine heritage of hunting is dying.

It is becoming a battle between property owners and everyone else. I typically would fall in line with the rights of the property owners, however, they are shooting themselves in the foot, treating their potential allies poorly :banghead:

I will be less likely to come running to their aid when a nice casual stroll will do

 

[mrsig]

If the owner is leasing/loaning the land to you for the harvesting of one deer, you are bound to it. If he is leasing/loaning the property for a day, you can do whatever the law dictates. His one deer wish, may be a part of the deal that you should follow.

- Sig

 

[telomerase]

You guys are forgetting who actually owns the deer! THEY ARE NOT THE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER!

I understand your point. However, I think everything would work a lot better if the landowners did own the deer, and as far as we can we should act as though they do.

If the deer are no benefit to the landowner, then the landowner has every incentive to eliminate the deer. This has happened to many species of game in Africa and Saudi Arabia, etc.

Theoretically we are more advanced here, but I am skeptical. Most people seem to think that the government owns everything, including their children, their Nintendo Wii, and their other treasures.

Well, maybe not their Nintendo.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Here is an example of what chaps me from this weeks classified ads: "3 day lease $250, 6 point $400, 8 point $600, 10 point plus $800"

Huh, that does seem a little odd.

I do agree with most of the posters that "your lease ends after you shoot one deer" is a fair condition.

However, specifying which of the State's deer you shoot or don't shoot, that does seem a little sketchy. Have you tried saving his classified ad and calling Fish & Game to ask if that's legal?

-MV

 

[hobbeeman]

Saving this one ad might make an example of this one landowner. This is not what I want to do. This guy is simply doing what the other people in this area are doing...To draw attention to this ONE would be wrong IMO.

Any other suggestions?

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Well, you could check with Fish & Game, find out if it's legal, and then file a more general complaint.

If you wanted to be confrontational, you could get the info on the laws and inform hunters that they can't be made to pay any deer-related amount other than the lease rental. But that might get ugly when Joe Hunter gets in a fight with Farmer Bob as to whether he owes $200 more for shooting an 8-point instead of the 6-point the Farmer Bob "sold" him.

On the bright side, the lawndowner has a heck of an incentive to let the State's game animals continue to live on his land. I'd be plunking out neon signs saying "Farmer MV's Totally-Nude Doe Extravaganza! No Cover Charge for Bucks Over 8 Points!!!"

-MV

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In Oklahoma,

The deer is the property of the land owner while the deer is on the property. Same for the rain that falls onto his property. Once the rain runs off, it belongs to his downstream neighbor. Once the deer hops the fence, it belongs to his neighbor on the other side of the fence.

It isn't the same for cattle and other such chattel.

Woody

 

[HankB]

A landowner is selling you access to his land for the purpose of hunting it - he can impose any restrictions he wants to, reasonable or not (other than requiring you to break the law) and if you don't like the terms, you're free to take your money elsewhere.

Now, if the papers you signed on the lease don't spell out cost per deer based on antlers, then you're under NO obligation to pay him anything more, even if you take a 200-class monster . . . once he takes your money, he CANNOT arbitrarily change the terms of the lease agreement.

If it's not in writing . . . it's simply not.

That's one reason I haven't gone hunting since I moved to Texas . . . virtually all of the good deer hunting is on private land, where, IMHO, the landowners have an inflated idea of what it's worth to me to hunt on their back 40.

 

[LoveMyCountry]

Here is an example of what chaps me from this weeks classified ads: "3 day lease $250, 6 point $400, 8 point $600, 10 point plus $800"

Heck, that ain't bad. I paid over $1,400 for a little doe

Of course I got it with the front of my car.



LoveMyCountry

 

[mljdeckard]

The issue I am having in Utah, big sportsman's associations are buying th'hunting rights' to large parcels of land. Meaning, they don't necessarily own the land, but they have contracted with the state to control who may hunt it. Membership is not cheap.

I know cost is relative, and people who make a lot less money than me and my dad pony up not just for membership, but also for campers, 4-wheelers, etc. I've told my dad, when I'm done with law school, I'll buy us membership, not because I want to be a member of the club, but because I want fewer restrictions on where I can and can't hunt.

Or maybe we'll just start hunting in Wyoming. This wouldn't be the only reason.

 

[sacp81170a]

Or maybe we'll just start hunting in Wyoming. This wouldn't be the only reason.

There's some big controversies in Wyoming, too. A lot of property owners control access to public hunting lands by virtue of the fact that the only roads to that land cross their property. They charge big $$$ for people to use their roads. It's stood up in court, AFIAK, as long as the state or county doesn't own and maintain the road. Where they've tried to charge tolls on public roads they've been shut down.

 

[mrelijahgardner]

If I were to let someone hunt on my land. Whoever hunted on my land would be subject to my rules. If they did not like they are more than welcome to leave.

 

[MCgunner]

You guys are forgetting who actually owns the deer! THEY ARE NOT THE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER!

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. No one "owns" the deer. However, the land owner OWNS the property. It is his. If you don't wanna play by his rules, look elsewhere for a lease. No one's forcing you to hunt there, are they? Do you pay the taxes on the land? Do you have the deed to the property? Did you pay for the place? If you don't like the terms of the lease, find another lease or buy your own land so you can set your own rules. Pretty simple, eh?

If you don't play by his rules, you are in breach of contract. That means whatever penalties provided for in the lease contract can be enforced. If it's verbal, it's still legal, but I know of no land owner in his right mind that does verbal contracts, nor would I as the leasee want one. I want the rules spelled out on paper when I lease property.

 

[ID_shooting]

I have a cousin that lets me and some friends hunt his private property. He set the restrictions that we can only take one rooster and two ducks each per day, no more than four of us can hunt at one time. No more than 3 days may be hunted by any group (more than just me and my friends go) in any week.

Seems kinda restrictive and some get all bent out of shape when they ask to go and I give them the rules. Some even claim the same as you, He doesn't own the game.

Well, his land is never hunted out, the game is not skittish, you can actually get within shooting range. And the place isn't trashed. If his rules are keeping it this nice and productive, I am not going to complain.

 

[MCgunner]

Another way to think of it, if no one owns the deer and you have the right to shoot as many as the law allows, try going out on land you don't own and excersizing your "rights". In Texas, that's felony trespass, poaching. I know a kid that did 9 months in prison for that.

 

['Card]

If the landowner was simply asking you to abide by certain reaonable restrictions as a condition to securing his permission to hunt on his property, then there's nothing wrong with that.

But this crap?

" ...6 point $400, 8 point $600, 10 point plus $800"

That's absurd. If that kind of garbage is legal, then it shouldn't be. The landowner should be ashamed of himself for even attempting that, and any hunter that agrees to it should be ashamed of himself too.