HB 1627 Unlawful Removal of Wildlife Parts from Private Property

[Jacque]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

[pianoman9701]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. 

[pianoman9701]

Tell us how you really feel, Jingles. 

[bowbuild]

It's my property and I'll do what I damned well want with it. If I want to cut all the frigging trees down I will, If I want o build a pond I will. If I put up a fence and post it with signs that say NO TRESPASSING AND THIS MEANS EVERONE I will and if I catch trespassers and hold them at GUN POINT I WILL.  If it is anywhere except on a direct route from public property to nearest door of residence they are trespassing to include the police....

You guys that think you can point guns at anyone....keep thinking that....the trespasser will go away with a ticket, and YOU will have your own court date. 

[pianoman9701]

Bowbuild, you can't read bluster? C'mon.

[JimmyHoffa]

I do agree with fireweed, only hunters get punished....tweekers and hippies not so much.  But also, if the state actually prosecuted trespassing, there really wouldn't be any need for this kind of proposed legislation.

[bowbuild]

Bowbuild, you can't read bluster? C'mon.

Yes, and no....and I have had a firearm pointed at me...on timber property, been threatened and I don't like guys that would risk a life for a non-life threatening reason. Blowing smoke is fine, but to put it to practice is illegal and a good way to get shot yourself.

[Jacque]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. 

No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws.  There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory.  When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them.  If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.

[pianoman9701]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. 

No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws.  There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory.  When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them.  If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.

Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.

I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.

[Rainier10]

 
And it's not just shed antlers.  I work hard on my property to clean, thin, fertilize and plant food.  I do that so my property is better for the wildlife.  Better habitat is better for the wildlife and increases the population.  I am not paying for a piece of property, taxes every year, seed, fertilizer, salt licks, sweat and labor just somebody else can come up during the week and shoot deer, elk and turkeys when I am not there.

[Rainier10]

The other part that gets me is for the first 12 years that I owned my place it was "feel free to hunt everyone enjoy it".  The last three years that my kids have begun to hunt and want to hike around with me I posted my place so we would have a spot to hunt, they can't go for long hike so a 20 minute hunt across the property was just great, but all I hear is what a jerk I am for posting my land and they just trespass anyways.  It's 100 acres, go hunt somewhere else or all around me.  The animals don't just stay on my place.  Makes really think hard about if I will open it back up when my kids are grown and can get out hunt the bigger country.  It's a bummer when a few ruin it for everybody else.

[bigtex]

The common question regarding this bill is how is it different then a basic trespass charge?

The penalties for this offense and criminal trespass 2nd degree are exactly the same.

The only thing that this offense would do is count towards fishing/hunting license suspension. Right now if your removing sheds from private property and are convicted of criminal trespass 2nd degree it does not impact fishing/hunting licenses. If this bill were to pass you could be charged under this law, if you were convicted it would count as a fish and wildlife conviction and if you obtain 2/3 fish and wildlife convictions within a 10 year period your license is suspended for 2 years.

It would also be in addition to a trespassing charge, wouldn't it? And like the trespassing charge, wouldn't fly in court if the land isn't posted and the "picker" hadn't been previously warned off the property? If so, I don't have a problem with this bill. We shouldn't have unfettered access to someone's private land and the resources thereon, especially if we know it's private.

A prosecutor can file both charges however it is likely only one would stick through the plea deal. But that's why you file multiple charges, if you file just the one you may not end up getting a conviction at all. File multiple and it gives the prosecutor something to work with.

In order for the charge to work the prosecutor must prove that the offender knew they were on the land of another and that the owner didn't allow the access.

[bigtex]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. 

No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws.  There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory.  When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them.  If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.

Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.

I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.

There are already laws specific for the unlawful hunting on private property, the unlawful gathering of forest products on private property, and unlawfully riding an ATV/ORV on private property.

[fireweed]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. 

No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws.  There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory.  When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them.  If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.

Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.

I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.

This law is goofy because, in your example, it would be like this: the thief without a driver's license who walked or takes the bus to your house and committed a crime gets less punishment than the thief that happens to have a drivers license but committed the exact same crime the exact same way. 

[pianoman9701]

Not sure what the agenda is on this one, it gets a NO vote from me.

The "agenda" seems very clear to me. It protects a landowner against removal of resources/assets from his property without permission. Are you opposed to landowners doing what they with with their property and what's on it? I don't. 

No at all pianoman, what I am opposed to is redundant laws.  There are enough of them on the books and some are even contradictory.  When laws are created what seem to specifically cover something that is already addressed in other laws, then yes I am opposed to them.  If we enforced the laws we had then it would be a simpler place to live, and land owners would have the protection they needed without BS legislation.

Sorry, but it's not redundant. Presently, if someone enters your unlocked home and takes your television set and gets caught, they're guilty of trespass (entering), and of theft, instead of just trespass. Is that redundant? No, it's not. So, why are the resources on your property any less valuable than your personal household possessions? Answer: they aren't. Redundant would be if you were charged with two kinds of trespass. But, these are two related but different charges for two separate actions; trespassing and stealing (your resources). Jacque, may I make a wild assumption that you don't own any land that's not fenced or posted? Because, the only people I can see opposing this would be those who have nothing to lose if it goes away.

I don't own land where you can find sheds or mushrooms or berries. But if I did, I'd want every available deterrent to people coming onto it to take my stuff. If you're not a trespasser and thief (and I'm not saying you are), why would this law bother you? It will cost us no more to enforce it and it'll help private landowners keep what's theirs. There are people collecting sheds where it's clear they shouldn't be and they don't care. Sensitive wintering ranges that are supposed to be closed or private property which is clearly posted or fenced. Yet, the lure of the sheds or the money to be gained from them, causes unscrupulous people to steal from landowners. Landowners should have recourse.

This law is goofy because, in your example, it would be like this: the thief without a driver's license who walked or takes the bus to your house and committed a crime gets less punishment than the thief that happens to have a drivers license but committed the exact same crime the exact same way. 

That happens all the time with current laws - not goofy at all. If you drive to an area, poach, and are caught you can lose your rig and all the equipment you have on you at the time. If you poach and don't drive to the scene, they can't take your rig because it wasn't used in the commission of a crime. Are you of the opinion that seizure laws to do with poaching are bad laws? And, this has nothing to do with stealing resources from a landowner.

Let me put it this way: what if you owned a tract of timber land. Would you consider that there are already enough laws if someone took a cord of wood off your land and was charged only with trespassing? Shouldn't we change the timber theft laws so that there's only one charge - trespassing? The landowner should be protected against the theft of all of his resources. Someone with 1,000 acres of land in the NE corner of the state may have sheds on his property worth literally thousands of dollars. Why should this resource receive less protection than his timber receives?

I have a hard time understanding opposition to this bill. I you guys are collecting sheds the "right" way, then I would think that supporting someone who has resources on private property would be a no-brainer. I don't get it. 

I'm about done with this one. You know where I stand and why - landowner resource rights. If you're still unsure about why, please read through my previous posts. Have a great weekend legally collecting sheds and mushrooms, all!