For all you private land owners in WA

[timberfaller]

Read this, this morning.  It will probably come to this state too, because of who is in charge.  If link doesn't work, type into a search engine, agweb.com 

https://www.agweb.com/news/business/state-sanctioned-trespass-ranchers-defend-property-and-water-rights

[MeepDog]

The argument against it is ridiculous. "Anyone and everyone suddenly can come onto privately owned, non-navigable streambeds,” Sanchez says. “You can be armed; you can be a thief; you can be on drugs. If the landowner confronts you, all you do is say, ‘I’m fishing.’”

It's no different than complaining about a sidewalk in front of your house. Anyone can walk down it, but if they're doing something malicious that is completely besides the point because they'd be breaking the law. If they're going to shoot your cows, the legality of walking in your stream wont make a difference. This article is fearmongering and trying to play the side of mom and pop farms, but in reality the people who are trying to keep you out are big ranches where stream access would allow you to legally reach public property that they have a monopoly on.

[Mtnwalker]

The language differs quite a bit between the NM state constitution and ours in regards to stream access. The WA state constitution pretty clearly states "the beds and shores of all navigable waters" whereas the NM state constitution designates "the unappropriated water of every natural stream". I doubt we have to worry about this coming to get us in WA. Also agree there is a lot of fear mongering in the article, hopefully those people don't have a county road adjacent to their property or they're really in for it 

[timberfaller]

We all and should know by now, the LAW/Constitution doesn't stop the Dem's in Olympia or the Nation.

[HUNTIN4SIX]

   Sounds like some of the property we own would fit the scenario.  So the public comes on my land and gets hurt or drowns....who’s liable? 
Kinda like when 200 elk ran through my fences, as they did, letting 100 head of cattle out.  Car hits cow injures driver....who’s liable?

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

[boneaddict]

  Sounds like some of the property we own would fit the scenario.  So the public comes on my land and gets hurt or drowns....who’s liable? 
Kinda like when 200 elk ran through my fences, as they did, letting 100 head of cattle out.  Car hits cow injures driver....who’s liable?

If you are in a range area, the cow has more rights than you do.

[Platensek-po]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

[LDennis24]

  Sounds like some of the property we own would fit the scenario.  So the public comes on my land and gets hurt or drowns....who’s liable? 
Kinda like when 200 elk ran through my fences, as they did, letting 100 head of cattle out.  Car hits cow injures driver....who’s liable?

If you are in a range area, the cow has more rights than you do.

This is true

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

[Platensek-po]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

lol. I thought you were referring to Washington my bad. However that’s a problem with the state constitution. So if they have issue with it sounds like they need to amend their constitutions

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

lol. I thought you were referring to Washington my bad. However that’s a problem with the state constitution. So if they have issue with it sounds like they need to amend their constitutions

Yeah sure, you just wanted to attack my post. I don't care. The fact is it's more support for taking landowners rights away. What would their constitution have to do with it? They are blatantly breaking the law for public access.

[Platensek-po]

Wait so you don’t even know what this about? You didn’t see the Supreme Court ruling on article xvi of the New Mexico State constitution? Got it. I’ll leave you to continue carry on yelling about stuff you don’t even bother to learn about.

[jackelope]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

Have to cross a fence because they put a fence across the stream.

[EnglishSetter]

My understanding of "navigable waters" is; is/was/can be used for commerce. 

If you can boat/float to/from the ocean to that point it's navigable.  Impediments such as dams not withstanding.

This doesn't sound like a navigable waterway.

There's been a lot of issues in the Sacramento valley where navigable waters, during winter would flood private land and folks figured that gave them access to that flooded land for waterfowling.  IIRC waterfowlers lost (and I tend to agree).

But the arguments presented (people getting hurt, shooting livestock, etc. sounds Henny Penny to me.

If the state is providing access, they can indemnify the landowner.

[HntnFsh]

Commerce isnt just boats etc. A lot of stuff was floated back in the day. Shake bolts for one. I think that is part of the reason for the confusion.

[LDennis24]

Wait so you don’t even know what this about? You didn’t see the Supreme Court ruling on article xvi of the New Mexico State constitution? Got it. I’ll leave you to continue carry on yelling about stuff you don’t even bother to learn about.

Wait, so you went and looked it up and want to post now to make it sound like you knew what was up all along! 🤡 I saw it, it's another socialist program for hunters and anglers who don't support landowners rights. The ones who think it's ok to intrude on someone's private land they worked hard for because they can't just go somewhere else. It's totally socialist behavior. Prove me wrong. 

[LDennis24]

This goes hand in hand with the UIA and the Wyoming corner crossing case. I said it on that thread and people didn't like it. But don't be surprised when every landowner in the state stops letting people access their land because of stuff like this! 

Stops letting people do what? Float down a river that they have property on? Can’t do that. Just like on the sound. As long as I am floating on the water and not touching the ground I’m not trespassing.

Maybe you should read the article. It's non navigable water only accessible by crossing their land. THEIR LAND! It's called trespassing. Remember, reading comprehension! I didn't post anything about floating the river but that's not possible either.

Have to cross a fence because they put a fence across the stream.

Nope, you have to cross a fence AND their land to even get to the water is what the article says.

[Platensek-po]

Wait so you don’t even know what this about? You didn’t see the Supreme Court ruling on article xvi of the New Mexico State constitution? Got it. I’ll leave you to continue carry on yelling about stuff you don’t even bother to learn about.

Wait, so you went and looked it up and want to post now to make it sound like you knew what was up all along! 🤡 I saw it, it's another socialist program for hunters and anglers who don't support landowners rights. The ones who think it's ok to intrude on someone's private land they worked hard for because they can't just go somewhere else. It's totally socialist behavior. Prove me wrong.

A Supreme Court ruling a socialist program? Lolololol.

[LDennis24]

Focus on the wrong part of my statement, that's your problem. Taking landowners rights away by allowing people to cross their property to get to public land or water is taking someones rights to give rights to another person. What is it called when you take from one person or group to provide for another group? I'll use that term instead. Please teach me!

Wait wait wait... I found it! It's COMMUNISM!

Your right, it's not Socialist

[Platensek-po]

Focus on the wrong part of my statement, that's your problem. Taking landowners rights away by allowing people to cross their property to get to public land or water is taking someones rights to give rights to another person. What is it called when you take from one person or group to provide for another group? I'll use that term instead. Please teach me!

Wait wait wait... I found it! It's COMMUNISM!

Your right, it's not Socialist

Pretty sure I already explained that you need to go back to grade school if you need to be taught these things. From the looks of it you seem to really hate America and its system of government. You call a Supreme Court ruling on a state constitution communism and socialism! ***text censored***  Good luck with that! You really seem to be winning people with your fallacious arguments and false equivalencies.



This is a reminder that name calling is not allowed on the forum, please keep comments civil!

[LDennis24]

Focus on the wrong part of my statement, that's your problem. Taking landowners rights away by allowing people to cross their property to get to public land or water is taking someones rights to give rights to another person. What is it called when you take from one person or group to provide for another group? I'll use that term instead. Please teach me!

Wait wait wait... I found it! It's COMMUNISM!

Your right, it's not Socialist

Pretty sure I already explained that you need to go back to grade school if you need to be taught these things. From the looks of it you seem to really hate America and its system of government. You call a Supreme Court ruling on a state constitution communism and socialism! ***text censored*** Good luck with that! You really seem to be winning people with your fallacious arguments and false equivalencies.

Right! You sure know me! Your opinion of me doesn't matter. Your spewing garbage about the New Mexico Supreme Court somehow being right about everything yet if they ruled tomorrow that guns and hunting are not allowed then you will suddenly be against their rulings right! Your arguments a joke. That's how the left operates. ***text censored***


This is a reminder that name calling is not allowed on the forum, please keep comments civil!

[MADMAX]

.

[LDennis24]

  I can flip crap just as good as anyone else. Moving on...

[walt]

I can flip crap just as good as anyone else. Moving on...

Keep up the fight LDennis24.  This should be a great concern to anyone who owns property and values property rights.  I’m all for access to public land but it should be done through a legal easement, not tromping through and over private property.  I’d like to think our legislators could write and pass a bill allowing eminent domain or whatever to create public easements to isolated public lands at the most reasonable access point and the current landowner paid market value for their loss.

[LDennis24]

I can flip crap just as good as anyone else. Moving on...

Keep up the fight LDennis24.  This should be a great concern to anyone who owns property and values property rights.  I’m all for access to public land but it should be done through a legal easement, not tromping through and over private property.  I’d like to think our legislators could write and pass a bill allowing eminent domain or whatever to create public easements to isolated public lands at the most reasonable access point and the current landowner paid market value for their loss.

I don't disagree with access to public land at all. I have asked and been denied access to walk 20 yds across a guys property and been told no. Life goes on. I don't think pushing it in court and getting people's rights taken away is the way to go about it though. I don't know that I agree with eminent domain either. I would not be happy if the state came and took half of my land even if they paid me 1.5 times market value. I use the land. A land swap would be acceptable if it was equal acreage but not monetary value to me in most situations. I would need to move somewhere else to have the same amount of land and resources I once had. Cheering for laws to take away from landowners rights is lazy and dangerous.

[walt]

Cheering for laws to take away from landowners rights is lazy and dangerous.

lol.  You have no idea what I believe and advocate for.  Land owner rights are right near the top

[Dan-o]

Name calling is against forum rules. 
Stop now. 
I don't have time to clean this up right now.

If you're unaware of the forum rules, please refresh yourself with them as you agreed to abide by them when you signed up.

They are listed under quick links near the top right of the forum home page. 

P.S.   This is not directed at Walt.   He was simply the last person to post, but I don't see him calling names or throwing insults.

[LDennis24]

Cheering for laws to take away from landowners rights is lazy and dangerous.

lol.  You have no idea what I believe and advocate for.  Land owner rights are right near the top

I was referring to other people's posts if that was confusing

[Fidelk]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

[Ghost Hunter]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

  to play that game.   

[blackdog]

Interesting that they never show a picture of the stream.

[kodiak06]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

No disrespect but, you were either drunk posting or dumb lol. The game animals do not belong "to the people" and to think any clown should be able to enter private property is just ignorant.

[Fidelk]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

No disrespect but, you were either drunk posting or dumb lol. The game animals do not belong "to the people" and to think any clown should be able to enter private property is just ignorant.

Probably both......just trying to keep the convo on track. However, I do think that game animals are considered to be owned by the people of the state where they are located.

[Tbar]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

No disrespect but, you were either drunk posting or dumb lol. The game animals do not belong "to the people" and to think any clown should be able to enter private property is just ignorant.

Wildlife does belong to the people.  Under the public trust doctrine it is to be managed for the benefit of the people.  Wildlife is a trust resource. 

[hunter399]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

No disrespect but, you were either drunk posting or dumb lol. The game animals do not belong "to the people" and to think any clown should be able to enter private property is just ignorant.

Wildlife does belong to the people.  Under the public trust doctrine it is to be managed for the benefit of the people.  Wildlife is a trust resource.

I'm just gonna say it here.
Very high amount of "surplus" game animals live on private.
This state is ridiculous to even count animals that live on private .
You will see it all over the state,public land is a dead zone with very little game. But your biologist will say game herds are healthy and thriving. Some of the proposals,such as a statewide bait ban.
Will only effect public land hunters,not private where as bait ban will be not enforced.
Back to topic .
Game animals are owned by the state period. Held in trust for the people under a game commission that continues to strip opportunities. Private land animals are not for hunting unless permission is granted for you to access.
Only reason we have surplus animals is because of private land owners. If there was no private land for animals, hunting in this state would be gone a long time ago.
That's the reason some of the biggest bucks/elk being taken are town deer or shot on the edge of private.

[Mtnwalker]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

No disrespect but, you were either drunk posting or dumb lol. The game animals do not belong "to the people" and to think any clown should be able to enter private property is just ignorant.

Wildlife does belong to the people.  Under the public trust doctrine it is to be managed for the benefit of the people.  Wildlife is a trust resource.

Careful Tbar that’s socialist talk around here 🙄

[kodiak06]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

No disrespect but, you were either drunk posting or dumb lol. The game animals do not belong "to the people" and to think any clown should be able to enter private property is just ignorant.

Wildlife does belong to the people.  Under the public trust doctrine it is to be managed for the benefit of the people.  Wildlife is a trust resource.

Management and ownership are 2 different things but I get your point. Landowners dictate what goes on inside property boundaries but, that's as far as it goes. 99% of landowners put up with so much BS from disrespectful hunters it has ruined the public relationships. People fail to realize that there are liability issues that are involved with those decisions.

[idaho guy]

Commerce isnt just boats etc. A lot of stuff was floated back in the day. Shake bolts for one. I think that is part of the reason for the confusion.

I think I read for Idaho it was if you could float a log of at least a specified size. Was pretty common way of getting logs at least part way to the mill

[chukardogs]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

Seriously? If that's the case, we the people, should be able to hunt elk in Rainier National Park. Damn, who knew? National parks and Wildernesses are owned by the people so I guess it's open season in all of them. If the animals are owned by the citizens of the state, then why do the citizens need a licenses to kill aminals that they already own? I'm so confused! 

[Fidelk]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

Seriously? If that's the case, we the people, should be able to hunt elk in Rainier National Park. Damn, who knew? National parks and Wildernesses are owned by the people so I guess it's open season in all of them. If the animals are owned by the citizens of the state, then why do the citizens need a licenses to kill aminals that they already own? I'm so confused!

Yes, seriously. The point was that a private land owner does not own game animals that happen to be on his property.....if that was so, he could kill them all. But he can't. Game animals are collectively owned by the people in the state where they are located. This has already been argued on this thread and on the corner crossing thread. Not being allowed to hunt in national parks is an entirely different matter. Same with the need to buy a hunting license. But by all means, if you are serious.....go to Rainier National Park next week and shoot an elk in broad daylight and maybe stop in Park HQ and tell them what you think you have a right to do. Why not build a cabin there also without permission and without a building permit.

[Ridgeratt]

Why not build a cabin there also without permission and without a building permit.

That has already happened.

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/01/12/california-couple-builds-house-in-glacier-national-park-without-permission/

[jackelope]

Game animals belong to all of the people of the state in which the animals live. No fatcat property owner owns the animals that trespass on his land, it's we the people. Therefore, any hunter (with a valid state license) should be able to pursue any game animal wherever the critter is located.

Seriously? If that's the case, we the people, should be able to hunt elk in Rainier National Park. Damn, who knew? National parks and Wildernesses are owned by the people so I guess it's open season in all of them. If the animals are owned by the citizens of the state, then why do the citizens need a licenses to kill aminals that they already own? I'm so confused!

Yes, seriously. The point was that a private land owner does not own game animals that happen to be on his property.....if that was so, he could kill them all. But he can't. Game animals are collectively owned by the people in the state where they are located. This has already been argued on this thread and on the corner crossing thread. Not being allowed to hunt in national parks is an entirely different matter. Same with the need to buy a hunting license. But by all means, if you are serious.....go to Rainier National Park next week and shoot an elk in broad daylight and maybe stop in Park HQ and tell them what you think you have a right to do. Why not build a cabin there also without permission and without a building permit.

So anybody should be allowed to trespass in your front yard or on your property to shoot a buck if they want to?

Stop being a troll.