Trespassing Question.

[Caseyd]

I find it amazing that anyone cares about shooting a coyote... I  would care less about a Yote even if it was on my property... I might get pissed if it was around my stock, Then i'd be furious... Or if they shot at him skylined or something else stupid...

There are farmers over here that will turn in anyone hunting coyotes on their land, they want the coyotes to control the rodent population and they can get real upset if they see you shooting dogs. It sucks but it happens and then you just move along to another location. Ranchers on the other hand, will sometimes welcome coyote hunters if they are having a problem but often times they would rather just handle the problem themselves if they have time.

 

My grandpas the same way. Certain pieces we cant yote hunt cause the rodents.

[bowbuild]

Falfire,

              I think you are wrong, once a land owner has been contacted he CAN refuse to allow any access to his land, but at that point clearly under wastage of game RCW 77.15.170 he assumes ownership of the animal because of his rufusal to grant access...for the owner to let then animal rot is clearly against the law, to do ANYTHING to the animal including tagging it himself, is a clear choice that could in my reading of the RCW"s end the land owner in hot water.

             People in my opinion get emotionally charged when it comes to this issue (understandably) but just because you own a land tract DOES not afford you the ability to claim ownership of STATE OWNED ANIMALS.

        
             PLEASE, understand I am not looking to undermind the ablity of a owner to protect his land from unwanted intrusion that is a fundimental right I believe.

             I again would refer back to a abandoned vehicle on ones land, just because it is there does not mean without a legal documentation from a officer give a landowner any rights to the vehicle.......Infact if a officer feels there is any relation to a crime he has every right to persue a vehicle and now that I think about it, maybe even a animal as it WAS part of a crime. Once a "CRIME" has been commited and the animal and land are involved that would give officers the RIGHT to any evidence related to said crime.......Trespassing! The removal of the game animal could be EASILY link to evidence hence removal of the animal is now not a CHOICE of the owner, but of the officer!

            Once a officer has confronted a owner , and is met with refusal there is a crime being commited, and a officer has the right to collect any evidence that is related to a crime...including wastage of game!

[JimmyHoffa]

I would assume that animals kind of get a protection status granted due to the type of land they are on.  Whoever owns/manages that piece of land gets the say in what that status is.  I agree that the animals belong to all the state's people, but don't agree that means it becomes your/our property on other people's land.  Example is for some elk....they live in a national park for certain times of the year, the land owner (all US citizens, but managed by the Park Service) says that they can't be hunted there (can't even retrieve one now).  So the elk are in a protected zone.  Then they migrate off to National Forest Land, where the land manager says it's okay to blow em away.  The elk are now in a danger zone.  Next on their route is state forest, still legal to kill them, so still in danger.  Where else they should wind up, they get the rules---state park, a field in a city, tree farm, a person's private land. 

[FALFire]

Bowbuild,

You would be correct to say that if the taking of an animal on private property were a crime, then indeed, the LEO would in fact be responsible for taking such animal for evidence to support the criminal charges against the suspect. No problem there whatsoever. However, there is no such law requiring the land owner to give up the animal to the hunter, which in this case would be a 'Suspect in the crime".

The charging of wasting fish or game meat would be a stretch for this State unless the State could prove the actor willfully intended to let the meat rot as you say, I'm certain most folks would simply say "Don't let this happen again".

If the LEO wishes to resolve the incident without the assistance of the property owner then the LEO could simply turn the animal/evidence over to the hunter and be done with it. Basically....No victim, No crime. The land owner does not own the animals on his/her ground, they belong to the state unless there is a license to raise and or nurture said animal, ie: game farm, etc.

Got to run, hunting time.

[700xcr]

A guy in my office asked me a question today about trespassing.

If you are on public land and shoot a coyote on private land next to
the public land but you never set foot on said private land are you guilty of trespassing?

My first reaction was to tell him that it would be considered trespassing but after I thought
about it for a bit I couldn't accurately answer his question.

Any thoughts on this?

Not along with trespassing charge. They might also get reckless endangerment charges too. For the simple fact that anybody that shoots an animal on my property even though they are not on my property may hit one of my animals. It is best before shooting an animal on somebodies property is get permission. Or else they may get shot themself.

[Bob33]

I'm a hunter education instructor and this question comes up quite often.  We have game wardens (enforcement officers) attend the class and answer that question.  The answer is always the same, and always unambiguous: you are not allowed to enter private property to retrieve an animal without the owner's permission. To do so otherwise is trespassing.

Another point they often make - be prepared to answer the question "what were you doing shooting an animal so close to private land?"  The hunter has some responsibility to ensure that whatever he shoots can be legally retrieved.  Of course, a deer can run a mile or a duck can fly 500 yards and land in someone's yard, but if you shoot a deer 20 feet away from private land and it jumps the fence and dies 10 feet inside, you're not as likely to get much friendly assistance from the officer.  Most will try to help retrieve the animal, but as pointed out if it is private land, the landowner has the final say.

[FALFire]

A guy in my office asked me a question today about trespassing.

If you are on public land and shoot a coyote on private land next to
the public land but you never set foot on said private land are you guilty of trespassing?

My first reaction was to tell him that it would be considered trespassing but after I thought
about it for a bit I couldn't accurately answer his question.

Any thoughts on this?

Not along with trespassing charge. They might also get reckless endangerment charges too. For the simple fact that anybody that shoots an animal on my property even though they are not on my property may hit one of my animals. It is best before shooting an animal on somebodies property is get permission. Or else they may get shot themself.

Problem with that is that Reckless Endangerment does not apply to animals or other property, it only applies to persons, people, human beings. If someone were to shoot at a deer for example and the bullet hit and killed a steer then the crime would be malicious mischief and that is not a shootable offense. You can simply take them to civil court and sue for restitution instead of spending years in prison for murder or manslaughter. Even though your prized Bessie is no longer with you, shooting someone for a property crime is not taken lightly in this state.

[700xcr]

Not along with trespassing charge. They might also get reckless endangerment charges too. For the simple fact that anybody that shoots an animal on my property even though they are not on my property may hit one of my animals. It is best before shooting an animal on somebodies property is get permission. Or else they may get shot themself.

Problem with that is that Reckless Endangerment does not apply to animals or other property, it only applies to persons, people, human beings. If someone were to shoot at a deer for example and the bullet hit and killed a steer then the crime would be malicious mischief and that is not a shootable offense. You can simply take them to civil court and sue for restitution instead of spending years in prison for murder or manslaughter. Even though your prized Bessie is no longer with you, shooting someone for a property crime is not taken lightly in this state.
[/quote]My animals are a part of my family. Like I said reckless endangerment and if I am out with my animals a some body shooting at an animal on my property is going to have return gun fire no matter if they are shooting a coyote to a gopheror whatever. If they want to hunt on and take shoot that is on my property better in (Beep) check with me first.

[FALFire]

Not along with trespassing charge. They might also get reckless endangerment charges too. For the simple fact that anybody that shoots an animal on my property even though they are not on my property may hit one of my animals. It is best before shooting an animal on somebodies property is get permission. Or else they may get shot themself.

Problem with that is that Reckless Endangerment does not apply to animals or other property, it only applies to persons, people, human beings. If someone were to shoot at a deer for example and the bullet hit and killed a steer then the crime would be malicious mischief and that is not a shootable offense. You can simply take them to civil court and sue for restitution instead of spending years in prison for murder or manslaughter. Even though your prized Bessie is no longer with you, shooting someone for a property crime is not taken lightly in this state.

My animals are a part of my family. Like I said reckless endangerment and if I am out with my animals a some body shooting at an animal on my property is going to have return gun fire no matter if they are shooting a coyote to a gopheror whatever. If they want to hunt on and take shoot that is on my property better in (Beep) check with me first.
[/quote]

OKAAAAAY THEN, You told me! But the law dosen't look at it that way.

[Special T]

Bob I find that interesting, "but if you shoot a deer 20 feet away from private land and it jumps the fence and dies 10 feet inside, you're not as likely to get much friendly assistance from the officer."
I know of small tracks of public land that have no/little public acess... Because of their small nature something like this is quite possible. How is 500 ft MORE ethical than 20 ft? It may eliminate some headache but if you property is adjacent to public land you run that risk... In either case i am on land and not trespassing...If a game warden or any one else asked why i shot one within 20yrds of private land my response would be " Its public land and that is where the deer where."  How is it any different than hunting on 5 acres of private land? You stick a deer and it  falls on the neighbors property?  Is it unethical for you to stick a deer with a bow because you only own 5 acres? What if it was 10? Or only 2?

[Bob33]

Special T: I'm just a messenger so don't shoot me

I think the point is that a hunter should consider retrieval before shooting.  If you're duck hunting and shoot a duck over water, you should have a plan to retrieve it before shooting, right?  I think the same applies to big game. You know an animal can easily run 50 feet after being shot.  It's not illegal to shoot one very close to a boundary, but shouldn't you consider the possibly that it might not be retrievable if you do?

It's just something to consider: what happens "if"?

[ribka]

You know it really comes down to a common sense approach.

Do not shoot game, even yotes, on posted property and when you shoot game and it travels to private property have the common sense to contact land owner before pursuing game.


Land owners on the E side help protect animals. A lot more animals would be poached without landowner protection

The neighbors and I help a lot of elk and deer every year and really help cut down on the illegal harvest

[carpsniperg2]

FALFire and ribka you guys are spot on with my thoughts and what I would say. I have dealt with this type of case as much as probably anyone on here. It is a HUGE problem for us and on our ground. As far as the waste of game. Throw that out the window already, the landowner can have "said animal" donated to the local food shelter. Once it is on your private property you can choose to do what you want with it. No land owner has to let anyone do anything. The LEO can suggest that the owner of the land let the hunters have the animal but they or I can say NO. Here is a prime case that happen to us a lot. We have a road that runs threw a piece of our property. Public ground right said hunters shoot deer, from public ground, on private ground. Or blast the deer in the road or the ditch. The deer runs onto or falls on private property, then said hunters says, O I want my deer. There is no way that I am going to let anyone be rewarded for breaking a law in the first place. There is no way they are leaving with that animal. WE/I have been threw the courts and am very familiar with the laws and what will and won't stick in court. This is a very sore subject for me and my family. I spend more time messin with people shooting from the road,trespassing,poaching then I do hunting for myself. During the deer seasons.