Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

permission for hunting

C

corndog1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
455
Location
Bozeman Mt
Hey folks, had a quick question. I will preface this by saying when I get permission from land owners I always follow their wishes on where to go, how to access, what animals you can hunt ECT.
I had a buddy tel me that they can't tell you what animals you can or can not shoot since they do not own the animals, the state does. Is this a valid point? I know I would respect their wishes as not to would surely result in ruining access for me and most likely others
 
corndog1 said:
Hey folks, had a quick question. I will preface this by saying when I get permission from land owners I always follow their wishes on where to go, how to access, what animals you can hunt ECT.
I had a buddy tel me that they can't tell you what animals you can or can not shoot since they do not own the animals, the state does. Is this a valid point? I know I would respect their wishes as not to would surely result in ruining access for me and most likely others
Click to expand...

If you're hunting their land they can damn sure tell you what you can shoot. If you get permission to shoot a cow elk, and you harvest a bull elk there will probably be some consequences.
 
I haven't seen this in a court situation, but I do know someone that shot a bull when the landowner's permission slip only said cows. The landowner called the game warden and the hunter was issued a citation.
 
It may be possible a person could be charged with trespassing if they were only allowed to hunt for cow elk on the property but instead shot a bull. The idea behind this reasoning is the landowner specified only allowing cow elk and they were not allowed access to harvest a bull. Thus the hunter violated the access agreement.
It would be an interesting court case if it has not been decided by now.

Any thoughts??

Dan
 
Their property, their rules. Simple as that. Sounds like your buddy is one of those guys that makes it hard for the rest of us to get permission.
 
I would hope no hunter in his right mind would be so disrespectful after a landowner so graciously allowed a hunter on his property to hunt first off.
Having said that I feel pretty darn certain a person could be charged and convicted of unlawful taking of a game animal especially if his or her permit states what can be taken on the owners land.
 
I remember being told by a landowner that FWP had told them they couldn't make rules like that, in that case they really didn't want hunters shooting mule deer, just whitetail. I told them I'd just leave any mulies alone. They were appreciative.
 
My protocol when on private property is simple: I am a guest and have been given the privilege to hunt on this person's land. Whatever they say, goes. If I don't like it or agree with it, I can take myself somewhere else. To me, this is one of those situations where it doesn't matter if the landowner technically cannot tell you what you can and can't harvest. It would be such a short term gain with the possibility of huge consequences in the future.
 
Looks like one person has heard the same thing but I think the land owner has every right to make rules on his or her property. I didn't mean to insinuate that my buddy would go against land owner wishes, its just something he heard.
 
We as land owners can absolutely say what you can hunt. You should never hunt on a piece of property without written permission and one that specifies what is going on, It protects both owner and the visitor. Most private land tags or general tags specify anyways so shooting something else is a another set of problems. I allow several people to hunt my property but I set ground rules to protect everyone.
 
Regardless of the law, hunting an animal other than that for which permission was given is being a jerk, to put it mildly.
 
It is that kind of action that makes it harder and harder to gain access. Between trashing property, and disrespecting landowners’ wishes, it is nearly impossible to get landowners to allow hunting. Just this past year, I had multiple landowners tell me they used to allow hunters on their property, but no longer did because of abuses. One was because of littering, and the others were because hunters brought more buddies than they had permission for, and then harvested animals they had no permission to harvest. It’s easy to understand why they become frustrated and cut off access. Sticks it to those of us who go to the extreme to care for their land and respect their instructions.
 
Sounds like your buddy shouldn’t be your buddy. No way I’d ever hunt with someone like that.
Why would you give a landowner a big “F you I’ll shoot what I want” if he lets you on his land?...
I’m just happy to gain access to otherwise unreachable public lands, and stuff abusing landowners rules would even jeopardize that...no good
 
Set aside for a minute that you buddy sounds like a jerk, your buddy is also very wrong.

There are many hunting-related land access issues that are legally tricky (adverse possession, constructive easement, corner crossing), but this is not one of them. The legal answer is 100% clear. Your buddy's rationalization is mixing two separate issues, permission to take an animal of the state, and permission to be present on someone else's land. To legally take game on private land you need BOTH, but neither trumps the other. If his failed analysis was correct (that a game tag trumped private property rights), he wouldn't have needed landowner permission in the first place (limited or otherwise).

Legally the answer is very straight forward. If a private land owner grants you limited permission to be on his/her land, the minute you violate any one of those limitations you cease to have permission to be on the land and you are a trespasser, subject to all the penalties associated with that violation. Acting outside of the granted permission is essentially the same as never having permission in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Dan O said:
It may be possible a person could be charged with trespassing if they were only allowed to hunt for cow elk on the property but instead shot a bull. The idea behind this reasoning is the landowner specified only allowing cow elk and they were not allowed access to harvest a bull. Thus the hunter violated the access agreement.
It would be an interesting court case if it has not been decided by now.

Any thoughts??

Dan
Click to expand...

It was decided hundreds of years ago, and is such well settled law that I would be very surprised to see a published case at this point. The answer is simple - violate the scope of the permitted access and you are a trespasser.
 
My daughter drew an antelope tag on private ranch a few years back. Met with the rancher to go over his wishes. Extremely helpful but had one rule. Do not shoot the antelopes around the ranch house because they were pets. If your daughter doesn't connect elsewhere, he would reconsider.

She shot an old buck a few miles away and I missed a coyote. He was happy for her and po'd at me for missing.

It was his home and we treated it as such and no we would have never considered shooting his pets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dougfirtree
"Killing Animals Helped Me Make Peace With Death" by Nicole Qualtieri
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
howl
H
MontanaHunter222
Wounded animal meat safety #2
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
howl
H
RyeGuy74
New to coyote hunting
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Hammsolo
Hammsolo
9
Hello from Colorado
Replies
11
Views
161
Rzrbk
R
Redman
2023 season has been great
Replies
1
Views
419
BearFoot
BearFoot

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,005
Messages
1,943,309
Members
34,956
Latest member
mfrosty6

Share this page

Back
Top