permission for hunting

[wytex]

I guess one way to solve that problem in Wyoming is write on the back of the license when you sign it as a landowner , or agent, what the access is for. Written permission is required in Wyoming. We sign the back of the landowner coupon part of the license.
Quite frankly most landowners would rather have repeat hunters they trust every year, that action would not get you access again and may close off access for others.
Our GW would write that up in a heartbeat.

I would have a long conversation with my friend and try and change his or her thinking. In the case he just heard it, why not go to the best source and talk with the game warden and clear it up ?

 

[Ryan2782]

I have a farm I hunt, took a long time to get permission. One thing he hates more than the wildlife eating his crops is hunters, because of all the reasons above, trash, wrong animals shot that he didn't want shot, too many people, list goes on and on. I was able to get permission, and have free range now of his entire place for deer or upland. His only rule is don't shoot the quail, he likes the watch them and listen to them. Pheasants no problem. I have never broken this rule. If he saw me break it, I would lose all hunting privileges.

This is the best example ever though

"If I tell you to grab a beer out of my fridge and you drink a bottle of my good Scotch I'm not going to offer you another drink."

For me, it's not that I wouldn't offer you another drink, I would never invite you back too.

 

[BuzzH]

Set aside for a minute that you buddy sounds like a jerk, your buddy is also very wrong.

There are many hunting-related land access issues that are legally tricky (adverse possession, constructive easement, corner crossing), but this is not one of them. The legal answer is 100% clear. Your buddy's rationalization is mixing two separate issues, permission to take an animal of the state, and permission to be present on someone else's land. To legally take game on private land you need BOTH, but neither trumps the other. If his failed analysis was correct (that a game tag trumped private property rights), he wouldn't have needed landowner permission in the first place (limited or otherwise).

Legally the answer is very straight forward. If a private land owner grants you limited permission to be on his/her land, the minute you violate any one of those limitations you cease to have permission to be on the land and you are a trespasser, subject to all the penalties associated with that violation. Acting outside of the granted permission is essentially the same as never having permission in the first place.

I don't think that's right, and I would have to see case law to support your claim here. Land owners can NOT grant access to anything but their property. You're not asking for the right to shoot a deer, antelope, duck, or whatever...you're asking for access to the property. Landowners don't "own" wildlife, that's held in trust by the State and as such cant tell you what wildlife you can or can not shoot. The only authority that can set bag limits, seasons, method of take, etc. etc. is the GF Commission or State Legislature. A landowner can have RULES, but that's wayyyy different than Statute and Regulation.

What statute would be written, for a person that has trespassing permission, shooting a legal animal they have a license for? They have permission to hunt the land, they have a tag, they took the animal legally...what's the offense?

NO question it would be an a-hole move to shoot, say a bull elk when the land owner asked you to shoot only a cow...but about the worse thing that would happen would never being allowed access via trespassing permission or the landowner completely shutting access off for everyone.

I had a conversation some years ago with a Wyoming Game warden regarding a landowner that was charging "trophy fees" if you shot a certain sized antelope or buck deer. He flat told me, "if you hunt there and he asks for the trophy fee...tell him to pound sand, you have permission to the property and that's all you need."

Another interesting question, what if you have permission to access private property in checkerboard ownership, and the owner only wants you to shoot doe/cows and you find a bull/buck on State or Federal Land within the boundary of their private? Can you be fined for shooting a State owned animal on public land in that case?

I say no to both...there is no hunting violation.

 

[genesis273]

More than once, I've had landowners to give permission to hunt certain birds/waterfowl, but also let me know not to shoot other types of birds. I.e., One told me to shoot all of the geese, but not the ducks. These were critters flying above his property, and not mammals walking on. I never thought anything of it and obeyed his wishes.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't think that's right, and I would have to see case law to support your claim here.

Too simple a question to make it worth digging up first semester law school cases, you can either believe me or not as you wish.

Land owners can NOT grant access to anything but their property.

We agree. But what you are missing is that they can make that grant conditioned upon other terms -- such as, payment of a fee, agreement to only access certain portions of the land, time and date limitations, number of hunters in the party, what animals to shoot at, etc, etc, etc. They could require you to wear purple shoes if they wished. Now of course you can refuse their conditions, but then you are not granted access. If you accept the conditions and then ignore them you are acting outside of the grant and you are now a trespasser.

You're not asking for the right to shoot a deer, antelope, duck, or whatever...you're asking for access to the property.

Yup, and that access can be conditional.

Landowners don't "own" wildlife, that's held in trust by the State and as such cant tell you what wildlife you can or can not shoot. The only authority that can set bag limits, seasons, method of take, etc. etc. is the GF Commission or State Legislature. A landowner can have RULES, but that's wayyyy different than Statute and Regulation.

We agree that the state regulates G&F. States also have laws (civil and criminal) regarding trespass. Two different areas of the law. Compliance with one does not then automatically grant compliance with the other - you have to comply with both.

What statute would be written, for a person that has trespassing permission, shooting a legal animal they have a license for? They have permission to hunt the land, they have a tag, they took the animal legally...what's the offense?

The offenses would be trespass and breach of contract - safe to assume WY has both already on the books. The permission to hunt the land is conditional in the scenario we are discussing, so outside the bounds of the conditions permission does not exist.

I had a conversation some years ago with a Wyoming Game warden regarding a landowner that was charging "trophy fees" if you shot a certain sized antelope or buck deer. He flat told me, "if you hunt there and he asks for the trophy fee...tell him to pound sand, you have permission to the property and that's all you need."

He is simple wrong about real property law.

Another interesting question, what if you have permission to access private property in checkerboard ownership, and the owner only wants you to shoot doe/cows and you find a bull/buck on State or Federal Land within the boundary of their private? Can you be fined for shooting a State owned animal on public land in that case?

I assume a land owner could grant you the following hypothetical permission to cross/hunt his/her land, "You may hunt my land, but you may not use my land to cross over my eastern boundary or to corner cross to other properties. You may also not carry harvested game across my land unless the animal was harvested on my land." Seems a little complicated scenario, but would work legally.

I say no to both...there is no hunting violation.

Then we agree to disagree.

 

[bobbydean]

Buzz,

I agree with you on your legal points.

But if you gained access to a ranch and the rancher said do not shoot that 4 point with the club. Would you shoot it? Hell no!

I think you are one of the most ethical hunters on the site. You would not. Legally you can, morally you wouldn't.

You like to win discussions and do on a regular basis.

Legal is legal. Doing the right thing is totally different.

 

[SherpaPhil]

This is really clear legally. The landowner can set whatever restrictions on the use of his land he wants. If you violate them, you're trespassing.

"On November 5, 2000, Mr. Heilig was hunting pheasants in Walk–In Area No. 28 located in Big Horn County. The area was not designated for pheasant hunting by the Atlas, and Mr. Heilig had not asked for nor received the landowner's permission to hunt pheasants. He was cited by a Game and Fish warden and prosecuted in the circuit court of the Fifth Judicial District for allegedly violating § 23–3–305(b)1 by entering private property in Big Horn County to hunt without the landowner's permission—a seventh degree misdemeanor. These facts are not in dispute."

Heilig v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n, 2003 WY 27, ¶ 4, 64 P.3d 734, 736 (Wyo. 2003)

 

[Topgun 30-06]

This is really clear legally. The landowner can set whatever restrictions on the use of his land he wants. If you violate them, you're trespassing.

"On November 5, 2000, Mr. Heilig was hunting pheasants in Walk–In Area No. 28 located in Big Horn County. The area was not designated for pheasant hunting by the Atlas, and Mr. Heilig had not asked for nor received the landowner's permission to hunt pheasants. He was cited by a Game and Fish warden and prosecuted in the circuit court of the Fifth Judicial District for allegedly violating § 23–3–305(b)1 by entering private property in Big Horn County to hunt without the landowner's permission—a seventh degree misdemeanor. These facts are not in dispute."

Heilig v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n, 2003 WY 27, ¶ 4, 64 P.3d 734, 736 (Wyo. 2003)

That is correct even though it was a WIHA because the landowner had specified that no pheasants be shot on his land. This is so cut and dried that I can't believe anyone would say it's legal to shoot whatever they want to if the season on that species is open even if the landowner has certain game off limits in order to hunt his land. Also, the GW that made that statement BuzzH mentioned to tell the landowner to "pound sand" was out to lunch and needs a swift kick in the butt by his Superiors!

 

[elkduds]

If you gain access to CO private property through a CPW-issued landowner tag, that landowner cannot restrict you from taking an animal the tag is valid for.

6. The transfer of a voucher by a landowner
or designated land manager must include
permission to access and hunt all of the
registered land for which the voucher was
awarded, and for the entire season for which the
voucher was awarded, without discrimination
among hunters entering the land. Restrictions
are not allowed, except for manner of access (i.e.
foot, horseback, vehicle) reasonably necessary to
prevent damage to land.

 

[BuzzH]

We agree. But what you are missing is that they can make that grant conditioned upon other terms -- such as, payment of a fee, agreement to only access certain portions of the land, time and date limitations, number of hunters in the party, what animals to shoot at, etc, etc, etc. They could require you to wear purple shoes if they wished. Now of course you can refuse their conditions, but then you are not granted access. If you accept the conditions and then ignore them you are acting outside of the grant and you are now a trespasser.

Yup, and that access can be conditional.

We agree that the state regulates G&F. States also have laws (civil and criminal) regarding trespass. Two different areas of the law. Compliance with one does not then automatically grant compliance with the other - you have to comply with both.

The offenses would be trespass and breach of contract - safe to assume WY has both already on the books. The permission to hunt the land is conditional in the scenario we are discussing, so outside the bounds of the conditions permission does not exist.

He is simple wrong about real property law.

I assume a land owner could grant you the following hypothetical permission to cross/hunt his/her land, "You may hunt my land, but you may not use my land to cross over my eastern boundary or to corner cross to other properties. You may also not carry harvested game across my land unless the animal was harvested on my land." Seems a little complicated scenario, but would work legally.

A couple things, I believe you are right regarding the trespass if a person shot an animal the landowner didn't want you to, it could be trespass based on conditions of entry.

I believe there would have to be something in writing on the conditions of the contract to access the property detailing the specifics. Even then, I don't believe there is a violation of a Game and Fish regulation or statute, and would have to be written by a Sheriff as trespass.

As to the trophy fee scenario, you are definitely wrong. If any ticket were to be issued for refusal to pay a trophy fee, the landowner would get the citation. There is specific laws regarding the selling of wildlife in Wyoming. You can sell all the access you want, sell all the hunts you want, but you CANT set a price and sell specific wildlife. So, in that case, the Warden I talked with is 100% correct...the landowner would be in violation of selling wildlife.

The stickier one would be killing an animal on Federal or State land that you gained access to via the trespass permission. I agree with you that it would have to spelled out in the written permission...and again, it would be a trespass violation and not a hunting violation.

IMO, I think what would happen is the hunter would just not be invited back and kicked off the property. IF, and that's a big IF, the landowner wanted to prosecute trespass they could but I bet it would be thrown out of court.

No matter the legality, as others have stated, it would be a hugely unethical thing to do and not how sportsmen conduct themselves.

 

[BuzzH]

That is correct even though it was a WIHA because the landowner had specified that no pheasants be shot on his land. This is so cut and dried that I can't believe anyone would say it's legal to shoot whatever they want to if the season on that species is open even if the landowner has certain game off limits in order to hunt his land. Also, the GW that made that statement BuzzH mentioned to tell the landowner to "pound sand" was out to lunch and needs a swift kick in the butt by his Superiors!

No he doesn't, he understands the law...you cant sell wildlife in Wyoming and imposing a trophy fee is a violation of Statute. You're no longer selling access, selling a hunt, but rather, you're selling individual wildlife based on what the landowner thinks qualifies as a trophy. In that case, yes, the landowner can pound sand, or choose to call the warden, which is confessing to selling an animal based on size. If a ticket were written in that case, it would go to the person selling the wildlife.

Also, there is a difference between a written agreement with the State on WIHA and HMA's over just knocking on a door and getting verbal permission to hunt. You've signed that you understand the conditions of the WIHA and HMA rules...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you gain access to CO private property through a CPW-issued landowner tag, that landowner cannot restrict you from taking an animal the tag is valid for.

6. The transfer of a voucher by a landowner
or designated land manager must include
permission to access and hunt all of the
registered land for which the voucher was
awarded, and for the entire season for which the
voucher was awarded, without discrimination
among hunters entering the land. Restrictions
are not allowed, except for manner of access (i.e.
foot, horseback, vehicle) reasonably necessary to
prevent damage to land.

This is a separate issue because the the state is issuing a landowner a transferable voucher provided that they adhere to specific terms. So as per viking the state is saying we will allow you to sell your right to hunt an animal on your property if you agree to allow trespassing on said property with with the following conditions, here the state is creating a contract for trespass for the buyer of the voucher.

So this is a bit of a red herring... especially so because even if you have a private voucher for deer that doesn't give you the right to kill an elk on that property even if you have a tag for that unit.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

If you gain access to CO private property through a CPW-issued landowner tag, that landowner cannot restrict you from taking an animal the tag is valid for.

6. The transfer of a voucher by a landowner
or designated land manager must include
permission to access and hunt all of the
registered land for which the voucher was
awarded, and for the entire season for which the
voucher was awarded, without discrimination
among hunters entering the land. Restrictions
are not allowed, except for manner of access (i.e.
foot, horseback, vehicle) reasonably necessary to
prevent damage to land.

As mentioned in the previous post, I believe you're comparing apples and oranges here since the voucher is for a specific species that probably has certain requirements to fill the tag in each area and the voucher would be what the hunter must legally go by and could only shoot that species.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

No he doesn't, he understands the law...you cant sell wildlife in Wyoming and imposing a trophy fee is a violation of Statute. You're no longer selling access, selling a hunt, but rather, you're selling individual wildlife based on what the landowner thinks qualifies as a trophy. In that case, yes, the landowner can pound sand, or choose to call the warden, which is confessing to selling an animal based on size. If a ticket were written in that case, it would go to the person selling the wildlife.

Also, there is a difference between a written agreement with the State on WIHA and HMA's over just knocking on a door and getting verbal permission to hunt. You've signed that you understand the conditions of the WIHA and HMA rules...

Would you please post the Statute you're referring to because it doesn't seem that would be selling wildlife any more than charging a trespass fee to hunt and kill that species on that private land?

 

[BuzzH]

This is a separate issue because the the state is issuing a landowner a transferable voucher provided that they adhere to specific terms. So as per viking the state is saying we will allow you to sell your right to hunt an animal on your property if you agree to allow trespassing on said property with with the following conditions, here the state is creating a contract for trespass for the buyer of the voucher.

So this is a bit of a red herring... especially so because even if you have a private voucher for deer that doesn't give you the right to kill an elk on that property even if you have a tag for that unit.

Yeah, and when a landowner sells a tag, and then denies access to their private (which has been proven on this very board happens)...exactly nothing is done legally to the landowner who sells the tag. Oh, they're told, "don't do that again"...and that's about it.

I would guess along the same line of what would happen if you shot one of the "landowners" "bucks, bulls, etc." that he told you not to. You'd get kicked off and scolded and told not to come back...

 

[Gr8bawana]

Sounds like your buddy shouldn’t be your buddy. No way I’d ever hunt with someone like that.
Why would you give a landowner a big “F you I’ll shoot what I want” if he lets you on his land?...
I’m just happy to gain access to otherwise unreachable public lands, and stuff abusing landowners rules would even jeopardize that...no good

People like the OP's buddy make it difficult for landowners to justify allowing hunting on their property. While they may not technically own the game, it can't be hunted at all once the landowner gets fed up with jerks who feel they can do as they please.

 

[BuzzH]

Would you please post the Statute you're referring to because it doesn't seem that would be selling wildlife any more than charging a trespass fee to hunt and kill that species on that private land?

23-3-302. Sale, disposition or acquisition of edible portion of game animals, game birds or game fish.

No person shall sell, barter, or dispose of for pecuniary consideration or advantage, or obtain by sale or barter any edible portion of any game animal, game bird or game fish in this state except as permitted by this act.

Confirmed with a warden, a landowner can not charge a trophy fee once an animal is in your possession...violation of 23-2-302.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yeah, and when a landowner sells a tag, and then denies access to their private (which has been proven on this very board happens)...exactly nothing is done legally to the landowner who sells the tag. Oh, they're told, "don't do that again"...and that's about it.

I would guess along the same line of what would happen if you shot one of the "landowners" "bucks, bulls, etc." that he told you not to. You'd get kicked off and scolded and told not to come back...

Do you know of a case where someone has purchased a voucher, hunted the private land of the landowner who sold it to them and then had trespassing charges pressed or are you referring to landowners who use agents to sell there tags and the agent withholds the landowner info and/or makes the buyer sign a contract that they won't hunt the land.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That 23-3-302 appears to be quite a stretch, especially your: "once an animal is in your possession" and doesn't appear to cover what we're talking about. I guess that GW confirmation is the same one that said to go pound sand too, LOL! I know SY in the SnS booklet he puts out shows that he charges more for his different antelope hunts depending on how big a buck you want to pay him to hunt. Is that legal just because it's before the hunt and in your version the Statute would make it illegal only after the animal is killed and he looks at it?

 

[belshawelk]

At the end of the day if a land owner set restrictions you should follow. The tag itself will determine what you can hunt. If your word is useless than you should not be hunting

What really matters is respect for each other and both people honoring their word. Lets just remember in the long run that the landowner holds all the cards. They don't have to allow anyone on their property so why even have a discussion. I allow people on my property to both hunt and to access public land adjacent because its virtually landlocked. IF you don't like my rules or respect them, you can walk your ass 15 miles around to get to the public. Good luck retrieving your animal.