I completely agree with all of that.

This thread has gone a stray. now we have hunters arguing with hunters .

Some of you fail to see the forest for the trees. Most land owners are not hunters! Some are anti hunters. And that too is their right.

By saying you will wantonly disregard the landowners wishes you are only bolstering there personal disregard for our sport.Why give them more ammo in their battle to end the sport we love.

Some of you really need to get some fresh air.

No, I wouldn't go after the deer. But, I would go ask again for permission.

This actually happened to me and posession was awarded to the hunter who inflicted the killing shot. In my case it was simple because it had only one wound and was shot from my direction rather than on the other side. The other hunter thought he hit the deer but was proven wrong. It gets a little more complex if there are 2 or more wounds on the animal.

I would not break the law. I would contact landowner to advise them there is an injured deer on the property.

No

The elements of a necessity defense vary from state-to-state, and from the federal standard. Generally, the defense must show 1) that the defendant did not intentionally bring about the circumstance which caused the unlawful act; 2) that the defendant could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive (i.e. "more legal") alternative available to the defendant; and 3) that the evil sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it. Under federal law, a defendant must establish the existence of four elements to be entitled to a necessity defense: A) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; B) that he acted to prevent imminent harm; C) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and D) that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law. See , e.g., United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662, 693 (9th Cir. 1989).


Retrieving a lost crying child on private land would qualify for a necessity defense against a trespassing charge. The question I would ask as a prosecutor would be: Number one was the situation created intentionally? The answer would be yes if the deer was shot across the line and no if it was shot on your land and ran across the line.Item 2 would pose a problem retrieving the deer because the hunter elected to trespass first without first attempting to secure permission from the land owner. Item 3 would be the crux of the problem simply stating what was the lesser of two evils? Is deer recovery more important to the letter of the law than personal property rights? Note the deer technically isn't your property until you take physical legal possession as prescribed by state or federal statutes. My opinion is that there wouldn't be a qualified legal defense against a trespassing charge. All of this is assuming a person shot the deer, it ran off the property onto private property and the hunter elected to retrieve it without attempting to secure permission and was caught.

[blockquote]

Quote:

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: HuntinGUS



[blockquote]quote:

Just ask, if the guy says no call a CO.[/blockquote]

I going to play Devil's advocate here Germ. What if the CO says there is nothing you can do about it and that you cannot legally go after it?

What do you do then? Suppose this has happened in the past year and you find yourself in the same situation. The owner said no before and you know that the CO cannot make him allow you to go onto his land.

What do ya do then?
[/blockquote]

Quote:

Then in MI the deer belongs to the land owner and I am SOL.

In that case I would go get the deer. It might be against the law and frowned upon, but it is the right thing to do IMO.

Get in...... get out........ and move on.


Given the situation above. Ladowner has said no andCO can't or won't help. Are you actully saying that you would track it to the property line....... see the deer laying there....dead and just through you hands up and say oh well and leave it?
[/blockquote]

At this point I am done, I would talk to the owner again, and even offer money.

I will do anything legal I can to get the deer back.

Retrieval of an animal is one area where I don't have a problem with having a chink in someone's else's perceived ethical armor! I don't care who is watching,I am telling you what I would do I am not hiding from the truth!
Who here claims tax deductions that are not completely on the up and up?Who speed's in there vehicle's? Who is not being faithful to their spouse,who spends more on hunting equipment than they do on their families need's.
When I think of a man's character it is not diminished one iota for crossing a property line to retrieve a dead or wounded animal.
According to some of the folks logic here some of the finest,most decent people I know are scumbags.NOT!!!