Trespass
 

I was talking with a guy that works for a large outfitter (in one of the states that is somewhere South of Montana and North of New Mexico). He told me that they had occasional problems with clients that used their service for deer or pronghorn and would in later years trespass on their leased property to hunt on their own. It sounds like they would consider legal action anytime they could absolutely prove the trespass, but other times they would not.

He told me about one guy that did this to them, was seen on the property by one of the guides, and of course claimed he was only hunting nearby public land. I do not know the hunter but apparently he is now a big internet expert on hunting in that area.

I can tell you there are a lot more outfitters and landowners out in Wyoming where you're probably talking about that try to BS people off the legally accessible public lands in and around their leases than there are trespassers on private property. A guide for the biggest outfitter in the state pulled that a couple times on me and the second time he also did it to 4 guys from Wisconsin and we filed written harassment complaints with the G&F. A couple weeks later the area GW told me he had warned the outfitter that if he had any more complaints filed against him that he would be risking having his outfitters license rescinded. The landowner chips available for our GPS units now eliminates any trespassing other than people who do it intentionally.

I have to agree with Top. I don't have a lot of sympathy for most outfitters. Many of them lease hunting rights from a state on public land but that doesn't mean they can keep legal hunters that don't hire them off the land. I've also had outfitters try to run me off National Forest and BLM land. So, just because they have a lease doesn't mean they have exclusive control unless it is private property.

Point in fact, if a fishing guide takes someone out on a public lake that doesn't mean they have exclusive rights to any particular fishing spot on that lake.

A lease is a contract and you had better read it carefully. Around here a hunting lease is a contract with a private land owner and in effect all wild game is your property. Though you are regulated by a government agency.

Most of the problems I've had are with ranchers who lease the grazing rights from BLM, the State or some other government entity and think they own the land and everything on it.

Or somebody who owns a tract of land across the mouth of a canyon and claims the whole canyon. I've seen people do that, who own the entrance point and in effect control (claim) hundreds of square miles that aren't theirs to control.

I've been sited for trespass half a dozen times and maybe once they were right. I've even been sited for trespass on private property with written permission from the owner to be there. I rarely fight it, it is easier to pay than fight. Usually a $15-$20 fine, cheaper than taking the time off work to fight it. My guess is the local Cops have some sort of understanding with the locals to run off the riffraff.

My way is to make sure I know where I am, so if it turns really ugly, I'm right and they are wrong.

But that isn't how it works everywhere. In MT, WY, ID, UT, CO, AZ, NM, ID etc... many outfitters lease the hunting rights from the Forest Service or BLM. That lease gives them exclusive rights to outfit in that area but it does not give them exclusive rights to all the hunting. I or any other legally licensed hunter can legally hunt those areas without hiring the outfitter. Many outfitters don't like that and try to run off the regular hunters so they can "reserve" the game for their paying clients.

Point in fact, I once had an outfitter try to run me and my brother off of National Forest land south of Silt, CO. He didn't like the fact that we had 2 of "his elk" hanging from our game pole and his paying clients had been skunked. Bottom line, we had us a talk with the Sheriff of Garfield County and the local Forest Service office and they told the outfitter to back off because we were legally hunting ON PUBLIC LAND!

Used to be an outfitter had the right to make limited, non permanent, improvements on BLM land and had some limited motorized access to areas that are designated as wilderness areas and normally closed to motorized traffic. Other than that they had no more right to the game than anybody did. But I've been out of the loop for awhile and things do change.

I'v never had any run ins with them anyway. The cattle or sheep ranchers were my main headache. Some guy would come driving up really fast, jump out of his pickup truck, ranting and raving about me hunting on private property and threatening to call the Sheriff.

Most of these guys were all bombast and bluster, but a few were downright mean. I'd pull out my map and ask where his property began and ended. My map says I'm on BLM land.

Most of the time when I was sited by a Cop, he was waiting by my truck, likely called by the rancher who thought he owned the BLM land. Where have you been? That is private property you know. Same thing, I'd dig out my map and say show me. The Cops who could read a map usually agreed with me. The ones who couldn't, usually sited me and advised me to bring my map to court. I'd always ask them to make an X on the map, where we were at and initial it, they always refused. ;)

We're not in Germany MC and you're making incorrect statements! Animals, unless they are enclosed within a legal game proof high fence here in the states, are not owned by the land owner. If they are low fenced or have no fence and they outfit their private property or lease it to an outfitter, they still have to abide by state and Federal game laws. If they have legally accessible public land within their deeded property they have no right to stop the public from hunting on it and that was the case that I mentioned in my previous post about the outfitter being warned to quit harassing people on that legal BLM land. Flags is talking about a completely different scenario where it's all public land that's controlled by either the USFS or BLM Federal agencies. They fully control those lands and anyone who is going to make a profit from them has to go through the proper channels and apply for and receive the necessary permits before they can outfit on that land. That permit does not give them the right to keep anyone else from hunting DIY, but just like in my scenario a lot of them think they own the land and try to bluff people off of it. With the Modern GPS equipment and now even the fancy phones people have that can load maps into them and have GPS capabilities, there is no reason for a person to trespass on private property unless they do it intentionally. It's a fact that all the GWs in Wyoming for the last few years are equipped with Garmin GPS units with landowner chips and they use them to settle disputes and possibly write trespass tickets based on them because they are accurate within 20' or less. Marking an X on a map nowadays to say you were at such and such a spot would have you laughed right out of court. Furthermore, your comment about wilderness areas is way off base, as not even state or Federal employees are allowed to access those other than on foot or by horseback. They can't even take a chainsaw in them to cut trails open and have to use hand saws and axes. In a designated wilderness area here in the states it's so strict that you can't even take a game cart into them. Your mentioning of a person that owns a tract of land at the mouth of a canyon and thinks it allows them full control of the rest of the property may do just that. If that land beyond the part they own is not legally accessible by any route other than through their property, they don't have to give access to anyone to go through their place to get to it. That, in effect, legally landlocks that property and there are millions of acres of public land like that, mostly in the western states. I won't even get into what is called "corner jumping", since that can go either way depending on what jurisdiction is handling the matter where it might occur.

The last time I read the rules for BLM lands and wilderness areas (about a year ago), There were limited exceptions for motorized travel by ranchers, mining, BLM, Forestry Service and outfitters. It wasn't plain language, but a kind of legalize, I may have misunderstood? I don't think I misunderstood, that is what they said.

If you can find a way into a canyon in BLM land, around the private property, why would they have any say at all? I'm a walker and covering 10 miles a day is doable even now and I'm old as dirt.

I may be off on some points, but most of it is just semantics and not substance. For instance if you control the access to private property, you control the game on it, to the degree the game regulations and law allows. You can contractually sell the access to the game on your property. Your right, they don't own the game and the game does wander. My fifty states knowledge is a little limited, but most times somebody speaks of a lease, they are thinking of the Texas model, at least I am. There isn't much public land in Texas. Lease may mean different things, different places, the contract varies.

For instance, I hunted Boar on Catalina Island (private property). I paid for my state license and then paid a fee for a set number of days. They subcontracted the game management on the island and "leased" the hunting rights to the contractor (Outfitter). Pretty much the same model they use here and many places.

My point was, an outfitter on BLM lands doesn't have or own the hunting rights. In effect I was agreeing with Flags. Your explanation is better, the Outfitter has a licence to run a business on BLM lands, if I'm understanding it correctly? He doesn't contractually own the hunting rights?

I really wish the BLM would publish the regs in plain language.

There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!

Do you know what legally accessible means? You must not because what I stated would be needed to get into that canyon another way if the canyon mouth is blocked by private property. If there are other legally accessible ways into that canyon property, then the owner of the private land at the mouth would have no say in the lands past his as you have now stated.

FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.

We are not talking about a lease between an individual and a landowner. Your concept regarding a lease in Texas is a far cry from what flags and I are describing in this thread and if you're wrong you're wrong, whether you want to try to get out of it by saying it's just semantics, rather than anything of substance. It seems as if I've heard that same excuse on other threads when you're proven wrong and come up with that line, LOL!

The BLM manages 221 wilderness areas, with around 8.6 million acres.

I found something not in legalize for you.

Are motor vehicles allowed in wilderness?
No. The Wilderness Act generally prohibits the use of motor vehicles in wilderness. The law contains special provisions for motor vehicle use when required in emergencies or as necessary for the administration of the area. Motor vehicles may also be permitted for special uses such as access to a private inholding, to support grazing, or to exercise valid existing rights.

I'd post the links for you, but I did my own homework, I'm not going to let you copy mine.:)

***See above regarding your ...Deleted by CalHunter..., unattributed quotes/links. You know a real man just flat admits when he's wrong, but you continue to post baloney about bird propagation, etc. and now this. Either back up what you post or don't post it!

You can laugh at my maps, but they come from the USGS, the batteries don't die, the satellite doesn't go down, sun spots don't affect them and unlike some other devises they are accurate. Good quality maps are even water resistant.

The only real downside is it takes some talent and practice to read one and they are hard to see in the dark.

...Deleted by CalHunter...

Maybe I misread your posts?

There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!

FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.

You are right, I'm wrong for arguing with ...Deleted by CalHunter...

All of the ancillary issues just muddy the intended point.

As I first said this was lease. To be clear this was a lease of privately owned property. No BLM, state lands, National Forest. The outfitter is not one of the rouge outfitters that bend the rules to their favor, block roads, chase people from public property, etc. This was intentional trespass by a former client that knew the ranch and it's borders.

A sad act of a pathetic individual - and now apparently an internet expert!

[quote=MudderChuck;4206572]You can laugh at my maps, but they come from the USGS, the batteries don't die, the satellite doesn't go down, sun spots don't affect them and unlike some other devises they are accurate. Good quality maps are even water resistant.

The only real downside is it takes some talent and practice to read one and they are hard to see in the dark.

...Deleted by CalHunter...[/QUOTE]

I believe what I bolded is against site rules and is called attacking a member when you have been outed and can't come up with anything to back yourself up, rather than just debating what is posted! Also, nobody laughed at your maps, just the "X marks the spot" comment as far as getting out of a legal jam. FYI I know how to read maps and use them all the time in conjunction with the compass my Dad used in WWII and the GPS I carry. I'd bet I could shoot an accurate azimuth with the best of them! You do know what an azimuth is, don't you? ...Deleted by CalHunter...

You didn't misread anything I posted and your last two posts are nothing but baloney and talking down to someone that knows what he's talking about! You're just being argumentative making statements that you can't and won't back up because they aren't there to back you up. It would have been very easy for you to post up a link and not just type something out to make it look like you were correct. Unlike you, I don't enter a debate and post a bunch of conjecture with no legal backup or facts to back myself up. These last two posts of yours show exactly what I've stated in that you are now attacking the messenger in violation of site rules because you have nothing to back up anything you've stated. When you have some extra time take a look at these two links: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm...ilderness.html and www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/wilderness In those links you will find that the BLM administers 222 wilderness areas with 8.7 million acres in 10 western states and that is only 3% of the total acreage that the BLM oversees in the coterminous US! The USFS has 442 wilderness areas under its jurisdiction and along with other areas under its control has a total of 762 areas under the NWPS totaling 108,916,684 acres! Seems as that is what I stated in a previous post when I said most is under USFS and not the BLM! PS: I will give you one thing that under the Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 it does allow limited motorized vehicle use, but only in case of an emergency as you mentioned and that would be few and far between like when there is a man made fire that has to be extinguished since natural fire under the Act is allowed to burn itself out for the most part.

I would agree 100% if we had known what you have now stated at the beginning of this thread. Everything since that first post has been scenarios of what can happen on both ends and many times it's the outfitter or landowner who is in violation of the law. If what you've mentioned is accurate, it's a shame and too bad the guy hasn't been nailed to the cross for being a scofflaw!

It's not something I have any direct or anecdotal experience with, and I'm certainly not an attorney, but I would think that the outfitter would need to seek redress only through the landowner who could certainly charge such a former client with trespassing. However, I suppose it's possible that the language in the lease itself could delegate the ability to make a charge of trespassing to the lessee. If they take the matter into their own hands ("run the trespasser off", etc.) though, they're likely just opening the door for bigger problems.

All things aside, it's incredibly poor judgement - in my opinion - to trespass on privately-owned land, whether you're a former client or not.

But, on the other hand, three times I've encountered "professionals" who were absolutely convinced that no one would walk like we did to greet them on the public side of the fence bordering their easy-access private lease. I doubt they could have found their position on the map if I'd drawn a circle around it for them. I mean, how cool is it to not have to get out of the sack at 0300 for a three-hour hike when instead, you can sleep in, have a good breakfast, and ride ATVs up to the fenceline and get onto public land the easy way?

Actually neither the landowner nor the outfitter would press the trespassing charge against the alleged violator. It would normally be pursued through the County Sheriff or GW assigned to the area after evidence was presented to them to document the charge or they witnessed the violation themselves and were asked by the landowner or outfitter who had the lease to cite the violator. Normally a ticket would then be written just like a traffic ticket and the violator can either not challenge it and pay the fine or plead not guilty and go to court.

TG...you seem to be getting pretty edgy.

MC is absolutely correct in that motorized vehicles can be used in certain circumstances on wilderness areas. Most of the time things are just left to nature. One instance that I know of where motor vehicles were allowed onto Wilderness area was here near my home. Following a tornado that came through the area a logging company was contracted to remove trees that posed a threat to vehicles and hikers. The road formed the border of the wilderness and they were asked to clear off a couple hundred yards up the hill from the road. They didn't clear cut but simply removed the trees that were a threat.

Oh get freaking real, you use exceptional circumstances to agree with someone who talks through his hat most of the time. I assure you Topgun is more knowlegable then mud puppy who seems to want people to believe he knows everything about everything.

Since when does presenting facts backed up by links and personal knowledge to contradict someone who is incorrect in what they are saying mean I'm "getting pretty edgy"? The only thing MC stated that was remotely correct is that in emergencies just like you have now mentioned it is possible that motorized vehicles might be allowed into a wilderness area. That is a far cry from normal everyday use like we were actually talking about! Furthermore, there was absolutely no reason for you to bring up a dead thread to start something by posting your negative comments about something that was already discussed and agreed upon by myself.