Bob H in NH

This is NOT true here in NH, it's partially true.

If its not posted, its open to public use.

However if its posted by the letter of the law, or posted not by the letter of the law, or you've been told to leave and you come back, then you WILL be ticketed/arrested for tresspassing. However the amount varies.

It's a nice balance, basically if you know the owner doesn't want you there, you have to respect his wishes. If its not posted, or they have "current use" tax reduction, then its open.

If it's current use and they tell you to leave, they are in violation and will loose the current use status and have to pay higher taxes. They cannot keep it open for some and not others while classified as current use.

dtabor

Bob, I believe the current use restriction is the same in VT, just another "penalty" for owning land and posting it. Im not up on current use, but isnt the purpose of it to keep it wild and not develop it? THAT is why they lower your taxes for doing it...yet if you want your land to be YOURS, they penalize you and raise your taxes.

mustang17936

Don't get me wrong I support Castle Doctrine Laws, but Kevin you would be charged with Murder. Read your IN Statutes below: see (c) in particular

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and

[hr]

(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

Edcyclopedia

I've got a good grasp on NH trespassing laws and I've had this conversation with two game wardens a few years back... So unless they have changed the law, I believe it to be correct. Considering the game wardens are sometimes the ones who will be called in on the trespassing violation and have to act on it. The only thing that might have changed, is from 50' to 100' between signs, not 100% on that though!

There are a lot more details / stipulations in the law that I have been left out to make some of your statements 100% correct. Bottom line, I would never want to lead anyone on with miss-information and they should take it upon themselves to check with each state you hunt, as we've seen with this post, it sure does vary.

Bob H in NH

It was within the last couple of years that it changed. The gist of the change was that some landowners thought it was to strict to say that if you didn't follow the letter of the law, then your posted signs don't count. The compromise was that if the landowner makes a "legitamate effort" to post, or tells you to get off, then its posted. the compromise part was that teh penalty changes depending on it ifs posted letter of the law or not.

this was from a game warden that I got the info.

Then again, who really knows. However, if you believe they don't want you there and its not current use, you shouldn't be there.

Bob H in NH

the idea of current use, as I understand it, is to encourgage land owners to keep the land open for recreational activities, including hunting. However if the landowner wants to restrict it, which is his right, he doesn't get current use status and pays "normal" taxes. I don't view this as a penalty for posting, but a bonus for not posting.

Edcyclopedia

I got ya Bob on your reply back to me, thanks and agree whole heartily that if the land owner doesn't post the property,
but tells you to get off his property you must abide...

To clarify the current use for "NH", the way I understand it is...
First off, there are multiple "current use" tax breaks available to land owners.
The one I am familiar with is the "recreational ~ current use" tax break.

It states that the land owner has to allow hunting, fishing, hiking, etc., and for this, the land owner is granted the highest
tax break in the current use program. The land owner can post his land if it is deemed a threat to the area,
like a field that has cows or horses in it, etc., but has to be approved from the town.

If the land owner does post his land without any approval, in essence illegally/stealing gov. money under the "recreational" current use tax program, he will be stripped from this tax break program and can re-apply in 3 years.

dtabor

OK, must be current use is different from state to state. Vermont current use is to prevent development and encourage proper forestry. Nothing to do with recreation.

"Vermont’s Use Value Appraisal (UVA) Program, also called “Current Use” or “Land Use”, enables landowners who practice long-term forest management to have their enrolled land appraised for property taxes based on its value for forestry, rather than its fair market value. When land is enrolled, the State attaches a permanent lien to the deed. Productive forestland appraised under this program receives this assessment as long as it is actively managed, unless the landowner decides to withdraw the land from the program, the legislature ends the program, or the parcel is discontinued by the Division of Property Valuation & Review. If enrolled forestland is developed or harvested improperly, a land use change tax is levied on the developed portion and all or a portion will be discontinued from Current Use."