Post by: Russ McDonald on December 11, 2012, 10:05:28 AM
Post by: CP on December 11, 2012, 10:09:07 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2012, 10:14:21 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on December 11, 2012, 10:18:29 AM
There's no reason you can't hunt a "green belt" as long as you have permission from the landowner(s). I would think a lot of the times a greenbelt might be off limits to hunting due to Homeowners Association rules. But there's no law against it.That was my thoughts too. This gal that stopped me was concerned so I just told her to contact the WDFW incase it isn't a master hunters up there. There are deffinantly elk up there around wear I live.
Post by: bigtex on December 11, 2012, 12:12:29 PM
I know the 460 isn't open for elk, only deer right now.
If it isn't Master Hunters, it may be a tribal hunt. The Muckleshoots have really started to hit the 460 hard the past couple years.
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2012, 12:15:58 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 11, 2012, 12:38:13 PM
Greenbelts are private property, I don't see how the Indians would have rights to hunt there.
As long as permission is documented and secured prior to hunting then yes, we can. Speaking in general terms as it relates to our regs. on hunting private property on the Rez and Ceded Areas.
Post by: bigtex on December 11, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
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.
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 11, 2012, 12:49:46 PM
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.
Again, the area has to be clearly and legibly marked as private property otherwise it's considered "open and unclaimed".
Post by: Russ McDonald on December 11, 2012, 12:57:04 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2012, 01:07:41 PM
Honestly never heard of land that was not owned by anybody.
Post by: Curly on December 11, 2012, 01:20:21 PM
Great! If it's unclaimed land that means I can hunt it too!
Honestly never heard of land that was not owned by anybody.
:yeah:
And I wouldn't use the term "greenbelt" unless it is related to a subdivision. If it is property that is simply timberland and undeveloped, then I would use the term undeveloped. When I hear the term greenbelt, I think of open space that is set aside as part of a developed property............ :twocents:
Post by: Goldeneye on December 11, 2012, 01:27:01 PM
A member on here pointed me ot the King County Parcel view. I looked at the tract they are hunting and it isn't posted and it show on the parcel view that is it unclaimed land. http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/ (http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/) So some visual information to show you what I am talking about. If you go to North Bend go up Cedar Falls Way. It is between parcel 0360, 0380 and Cedar Falls Way. It is labeled TRCT. Oh by they way you can click on Basemap and put it in the hybrid. Much easier to view. I would like to know because 460 is open in the early archery season and I would like to hunt here if at all possible.
If you dig a little deeper the property number is there. It's 883580trct . Read the red print of the link I provide. This is what it says about this tract. TRCT means multiple owners. My guess would be a HMO. http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=883580TRCT (http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealProperty/default.aspx?ParcelNbr=883580TRCT)
Post by: Curly on December 11, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
For example, I live in a subdivision of 12-lots. Each of the lot owners has a 1/12th interest is an open space area that is on a creek. If someone wanted to hunt or fish on the open space property, they would technically need permission from the home owner's association.
Post by: Curly on December 11, 2012, 01:38:27 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on December 11, 2012, 01:39:19 PM
If someone wanted to hunt or fish on the open space property, they would technically need permission from the home owner's association.
Exactly
Post by: bigtex on December 11, 2012, 01:45:09 PM
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.
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2012, 01:49:09 PM
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. :stirthepot:
Post by: Russ McDonald on December 11, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
It is kind of a subdivsion all the way up that road. This whole thing has been peaking my interest.
Post by: Russ McDonald on December 11, 2012, 02:00:18 PM
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. :stirthepot:
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?
Post by: Curly on December 11, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
@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.
Post by: Curly on December 11, 2012, 02:29:41 PM
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. :stirthepot:
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....... :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2012, 02:32:49 PM
Post by: jaymark6655 on December 12, 2012, 05:16:10 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on December 12, 2012, 04:22:08 PM
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.
Post by: lokidog on December 12, 2012, 07:07:14 PM
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.... :bash: Plateua, I usually find your responses relatively well thought out, but not sure about this one. :dunno: 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.
Post by: bobcat on December 12, 2012, 07:13:26 PM
Post by: lokidog on December 12, 2012, 07:26:23 PM
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. :dunno: 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.
Post by: Russ McDonald on December 12, 2012, 07:47:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 12, 2012, 07:53:22 PM
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. :dunno: 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.
Post by: cuzsis on December 26, 2012, 10:07:58 PM
The HOA laws specifically state no hunting in the Uplands. In addition to that there are "No Hunting" signs posted at the beginning of the development.
It sounds, from the description by OP, that this person is likely treading on grounds where they are not allowed. :bdid: