Any landowner that will not allow a unarmed hunter to be ******ed by a CO in the recovery of a wounded animal that was shot on permissible property and fled to the land owner's imperissible property is nothing more then a grade a Ahole and is allowing his or her personal pride and authority to allow this deer to go unrecovered.

Many times these properties are shut off because the property owners were tired of finding unrecovered carcasses from hunters that they once allowed on the property. Now their stuborness is allowing a deer to rot. Talk about hypocritical.

In my neck of the woods our hunting is confined primarily to small woodlots in farmcountry where most people don't have a chioce but to hunt close to some adjacent property because that one woodlot may actually be three tracts of land with three different owners such as the land that I've been hunting for ten years. Thankfully with no problems.
This thread has definitely been an interesting read!!

I think if you go on someone's property trailing a deer without the owner's consent or knowledge and purposely violating a trespassing law, then you have NO respect for another person's rights.

If it were me, I'd first contact the owner. If he says "No", then I contact the warden.

If the warden can't help me by being there as an enforcer/middle man, then I'm SOL, but I tried.

A man still has his rights to his property he's paying taxes on and if he wants to be an ass about letting people on his property for this scenario, then he's the one with the problem and I'm not going to escalate a situation by violating a trespass law. I have at least that much respect for his ownership. However, back in the day, I did say f'it and looked for someone's deer for them. LOL! Times change, opinions change. This is so on-the-fence for me, my opinion may be different next year.

Trespass is the intrusion onto another's property withOUT the right.

iSnipe

I don't hesitate to cross a fence to recover a deer. If I were to ask permission and was denied, I would just go and get it anyway, so there is no point in asking. Having said that, I don't think anyone I border would have a problem with it anyway.

Not here in Montana or Alberta. It is illegal to waste wildlife. That means if the CO informs the landowner that theirs a dead deer on there property, the land owner can be cited for wasting wildlife if its not retrieved. Kinda dirty tactics but its been used up here before.

Bobby

If that were cited against me, I'd simply say "Prove it."

The evidence of blood crossing a fenceline is no proof of a dead deer and I'd warn the warden I'd have no problem seeing him in court if he made that decision. All of course, if I were an ass about it. Of course I'd let the hunters on my property, but first, I'd be there. I'd also get them to sign liability release papers or I'll search for them myself. Protecting myself and family against liability suits is priority over everything else.

iSnipe

I like canada's style on this. I wish more states would take wasted wildlife more seriously.

People who seek permission prior to needing it and appear to be responsible hunters who respect our property are allowed recovery rights. They must call 1st as we do for them. This is an indication they take their hunting seriously enough to be prepared - and knowing what you can do after the shot is part of proper preperation.

All others are denied access and all legal methods will be used to stop them.

This is by no means a legalism. It goes back to the ancient Greeks and the church dealt with issues like this from the beginning. Obligation to civil authority is acknowledged by Jesus himself in the "render unto ceasar" remark and his acknowledgment that Pilate bears a legitimate authority.

The question is really about knowing when one can disobey a law. There are instances when you can and cannot, and its vital to know the distinctions because if its done incorrectly, it leads to anarchy.

Some serious biblical sholarship on this passage would benefit you. "What is in your heart" was not the basis for David's actions, nor for Jesus' acceptance of them. The real basis was the intent and purpose of the precept. That particular injunction was highly restricted in its scope to concerns about proper honor to God in Jewish religious ritual.

It simply isn't the case that this passage auhorizes someone to disobey a legitimate civil law. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that Jesus was giving anyone that kind of authority. There are certainly instances where civil law can be set aside, but this passage doesn't indicate that. The example is really about the role of the old law in the new covenant.

Be sure that you don't compare apples and oranges. Civil law and the Old Law are not the same thing. They're very different and the bases for setting them aside are very diferent as well. When Martin Luther King and Ghandi did it, they didn't refer back to passages like this; they referred back to precepts that were much more universal.

so in essence, this is kinda a true statement, and good advise...

"Really not an issue! Your son LOST his deer, simple as that. Private land is just that... PRIVATE.

You shouldn't EVER assume that anyone should allow you to tromp around their private property while you search for your deer.

Here in Illinois, no one can enter your property to pursue or search for wounded game, regardless of wether it's posted or not. I like it that way and for that reason our property is strictly PRIVATE! I'm not allowing anyone to cross my fence. My best advice to them is this.... you shouldn't have been hunting close enough to my property line for your deer to cross in the first place."