Master Hunter Question

[Goldeneye]

If someone wanted to hunt or fish on the open space property, they would technically need permission from the home owner's association.

Exactly

[bigtex]

Ok, so it is a greenbelt/open space area and it is not open and unclaimed. 

But remember, if there is no signs/marking then tribal members cannot be convicted of a crime. So if you can't be convicted of a crime for hunting there, is anything going to stop you? Not saying 100% of the people think that way, but it is an interesting situation.

[bobcat]

Ok, so it is a greenbelt/open space area and it is not open and unclaimed. 

But remember, if there is no signs/marking then tribal members cannot be convicted of a crime. So if you can't be convicted of a crime for hunting there, is anything going to stop you? Not saying 100% of the people think that way, but it is an interesting situation.

The same is true of non-tribal people.

If it's not fenced or posted you can hunt it.   

[Russ McDonald]

@Curly what I was told is that he is showing up at 4:30 pm and going out.  No shooting was told he had a bow.  This is also second hand information too.  Wasn't from a disgruntled anti either.  They grew up around hunting.

It is kind of a subdivsion all the way up that road.  This whole thing has been peaking my interest. 

[Russ McDonald]

Ok, so it is a greenbelt/open space area and it is not open and unclaimed. 

But remember, if there is no signs/marking then tribal members cannot be convicted of a crime. So if you can't be convicted of a crime for hunting there, is anything going to stop you? Not saying 100% of the people think that way, but it is an interesting situation.

The same is true of non-tribal people.

It it's not fenced or posted you can hunt it.   

This is why I was bringing this up because hey it isn't posted, not fensed.  IMO you can hunt there but you never know right?

[Curly]

@Curly what I was told is that he is showing up at 4:30 pm and going out.  No shooting was told he had a bow.  This is also second hand information too.  Wasn't from a disgruntled anti either.  They grew up around hunting.

It is kind of a subdivsion all the way up that road.  This whole thing has been peaking my interest.

Well, that is odd then. 

[Curly]

Ok, so it is a greenbelt/open space area and it is not open and unclaimed. 

But remember, if there is no signs/marking then tribal members cannot be convicted of a crime. So if you can't be convicted of a crime for hunting there, is anything going to stop you? Not saying 100% of the people think that way, but it is an interesting situation.

The same is true of non-tribal people.

It it's not fenced or posted you can hunt it.   

Even if there are no signs/markings, you would think that people would know that somebody owns that land and it is not simply public.  I understand the rule about cultivated, fenced, blah blah blah..........but in a case like this, shouldn't a person who wants to enter that property try to figure out ownership?  It's not like it's adjacent to public land and a guy just accidentally wanders onto the property....... 

[bobcat]

That was my point. Tribal people shouldn't hunt it either (without permission from the landowner)

[jaymark6655]

Maybe he's a noob looking for a blacktail.  At 4:30 he's got 20 minutes of walking around to get lucky and late deer for 460 is good until the Dec 15.  Not sure about the whole property thing.

[PlateauNDN]

That was my point. Tribal people shouldn't hunt it either (without permission from the landowner)

I get your point but if I'm in an area and all i see is a fence with no markings then as far as I'm concerned it's open because a lot of land has fences and it could be there for any number of reasons.  What bigtex is referring to is case law, i've read the cases and know that if it's not clearly marked, identified or legible by a person of minimal knowledge/experience that it is private property then they can't be held liable.

I personally don't take that risk, I like to know the boundaries of areas and have respected the laws in regards to private property and trespassing.

[lokidog]

Greenbelts are private property, I don't see how the Indians would have rights to hunt there.

Russ stated they are hunting "greenbelts between properties" doesn't really state they are marked as private, or even if they are private.

If they appear to be "open and unclaimed" (no signs, fences, etc) they can hunt there. Now if turns out the land is private, they cannot be convicted of a crime. In order for a tribal member to be convicted there must be some type of sign/marking.

AND

That was my point. Tribal people shouldn't hunt it either (without permission from the landowner)

I get your point but if I'm in an area and all i see is a fence with no markings then as far as I'm concerned it's open because a lot of land has fences and it could be there for any number of reasons.  What bigtex is referring to is case law, i've read the cases and know that if it's not clearly marked, identified or legible by a person of minimal knowledge/experience that it is private property then they can't be held liable.

I personally don't take that risk, I like to know the boundaries of areas and have respected the laws in regards to private property and trespassing.

Isn't "A FENCE" part of the criteria?  You'd advocate just going over it?  That's a bunch of BS in my book.  Do you think hunting the woods between my house, garden and driveway is OK too since there is no sign....     Plateua, I usually find your responses relatively well thought out, but not sure about this one.     I'm not trying to stir the native/white pot with this response but just find it disturbing and odd.

BTW OP, sorry about the threadjack.

[bobcat]

He's right in that a lot of fences aren't on property lines, they are just there for livestock or some other purpose and don't necessarily mark a boundary between private and public (or open and unclaimed) lands. These fences would usually be barb wire though and in undeveloped areas, not in a developed area with housing subdivisions and greenbelts like we're talking about here.

[lokidog]

He's right in that a lot of fences aren't on property lines, they are just there for livestock or some other purpose and don't necessarily mark a boundary between private and public (or open and unclaimed) lands. These fences would usually be barb wire though and in undeveloped areas, not in a developed area with housing subdivisions and greenbelts like we're talking about here.

Yes, but a fence in the middle of a 40 acre or more parcel seems "DEVELOPED" to me.     I'll let this go at that.  To the original, I don't honestly know how a person could think that in a development a greenway was not somebody's property, even just the association's. 

[Russ McDonald]

You guys talk all you want....it gives me good information to go on.

[bobcat]

He's right in that a lot of fences aren't on property lines, they are just there for livestock or some other purpose and don't necessarily mark a boundary between private and public (or open and unclaimed) lands. These fences would usually be barb wire though and in undeveloped areas, not in a developed area with housing subdivisions and greenbelts like we're talking about here.

Yes, but a fence in the middle of a 40 acre or more parcel seems "DEVELOPED" to me.     I'll let this go at that.  To the original, I don't honestly know how a person could think that in a development a greenway was not somebody's property, even just the association's.

I know, and I agree. I just think Plat, being from the eastside, is thinking of a fence in a little different way than we are thinking of it.