# Posting of land not necessary!



## elkfromabove

There is a bill in the Utah House of Representatives, H.B. 86, that makes it unnecessary for landowners to post their land in order for the Division to cite you for trespassing! All they have to do is fence it or otherwise enclose it.

While it appears to benefit most landowners, I can see it creating a problem for some landowners and for hunters and fishermen. Most of the ranchers I know who have cattle or sheep west of Cedar City have fences to keep their animals in, not to keep hunters out. They hate the wildlife (mostly pronghorns) who get into their alfalfa fields and want them gone! Along with coyotes! 

Additionally, many of the cattlemen and sheepmen who have grazing rights on BLM and National Forest properties have fences around their portion in order to keep the animals in, so how do you know who owns it?

And further, the checkerboard pattern of public and private land in the west and southwest deserts would make it impossible to get to most of the public land if the private land were fenced, and with each section owned by someone different, you'd have to get permission cards from a half dozen people just to walk to a waterhole.

I also see many other landowners fencing public property next to their land without being prosecuted because the law only says they can't post it.

It's a bad bill for outdoorsmen, IMHO, of course and I'm going to email my local Rep and Senator.


----------



## Huge29

I don't know how bad it is or not, but certainly unnecessary! Is a landowner really going to go to the expense of thousands of dollars to put up a fence and NOT post it rather than just paint some rocks, posts and trees for $20 for a few cans of paint? If the field is irrigated, sprinklered or furrowed or cultivated it doesn't even have to be posted or fenced. I can't think of any possible application of the purpose of the law, simply a waste of time and resources!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I still contend Wyoming has it figured out. It is up to the individual to know where they are at. No gray, no questions.


----------



## wyogoob

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I still contend Wyoming has it figured out. It is up to the individual to know where they are at. No gray, no questions.


I concur. It's been that way over here long before GPS's. Somehow all of us over here in the checkerboard part of Wyoming get through it.


----------



## Airborne

I guess Utah Wildlife Cooperative is for limiting hunter access--I will remember that


Plenty of land owners don't mind people moving through their property and the ones that do have already posted their ground. This is an attempt to criminalize yet something else so the state can make money and issue citations and further curtail free movement. I have always been thankful that Utah has opted to hold the landowners responsible for their own land--this is how it should be. Do you actually think in Wyoming if there were no outfitters lobby that their stiff trespass laws would even exist. They would not, this is another side affect of the monetizing of wild game--all of which the organization you tout claims to be against--ya right--you probably support the yahoos that got access to public water ways limited as well--freakin A


----------



## Huge29

Airborne said:


> I guess Utah Wildlife Cooperative is for limiting hunter access--I will remember that
> 
> This is an attempt to criminalize yet something else so the state can make money and issue citations and further curtail free movement. I have always been thankful that Utah has opted to hold the landowners responsible for their own land--this is how it should be.


You need to put the foil hat back on! Hold them responsible?! As a proponent of responsibility....should a law require a landowner to monitor, patrol and chase off trespassers or should each individual simply be responsible for knowing where they are and obey all other laws? I love the victimization and entitlement that combines so smoothly with your responsibility platform.


----------



## Airborne

Let's take it a step further and do what Colorado does. If you are hunting or are with a hunter and step one foot--I mean one stinkin foot--no fences needed-- onto private or even state land that has been leased by an outfitter the DWR will cite you with a trespassing ticket. AND you will be accessed 20 points on your record which just happens to be the level that the DWR needs to take away all of your hunting privileges for up to 5 years--in almost all the 50 states. You will have to answer to one bureaucrat who decides if you hunt for the next five years or not. Poaching a non trophy elk/deer will get you 15 points on your record--no suspension of hunting privileges. So ya lets toast the little guy so outfitters and those with the most wealth can crap on the common man.

If you enjoy your freedom of movement in this state I suggest you contact your legislator and tell them this is no good--If you enjoy being limited, and controlled then send some money to Treehuggers org


----------



## Airborne

Huge29 said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Utah Wildlife Cooperative is for limiting hunter access--I will remember that
> 
> This is an attempt to criminalize yet something else so the state can make money and issue citations and further curtail free movement. I have always been thankful that Utah has opted to hold the landowners responsible for their own land--this is how it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to put the foil hat back on! Hold them responsible?! As a proponent of responsibility....should a law require a landowner to monitor, patrol and chase off trespassers or should each individual simply be responsible for knowing where they are and obey all other laws? I love the victimization and entitlement that combines so smoothly with your responsibility platform.
Click to expand...

All land owners are reponsible for their land--its called taxes and a thousand other regs. I guess because I like the status quo I am the crazy tin foil hat person huh. I didn't think a couple cans of orange spray paint on corners and entrances was to terribly much to ask. Some of you nitwits really love laws and being controlled--it is crazy to me. You will mitch and bone when a group wants to cut deer tags and limit your area to hunt but are all about limiting yourself when it comes to this--just crazy.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

:rotfl: 

Pure entertainment.


----------



## bwhntr

I don't understand the big deal here. Take responsibility and know where you are hunting. If you want to cross a fence onto private land, get permission. It really isn't that hard. 

Airborne, your really making this into something bigger than it needs to be. Seems to me WY made up their laws using a little something called common sense.


----------



## bwhntr

Treehugnhuntr said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> Pure entertainment.


**** UWC out there trying to screw the hunters! :mrgreen:


----------



## kailey29us

So does this mean we automatically have to assume that all land with a fence is private? What about the thousands of acres of state and federal land along I-15 that is being fenced in by the state to save the deer? This makes no sense to me at all.


----------



## bwhntr

kailey29us said:


> So does this mean we automatically have to assume that all land with a fence is private? What about the thousands of acres of state and federal land along I-15 that is being fenced in by the state to save the deer? This makes no sense to me at all.


That means you might have to buy a map and learn your area. If there is no private land then no worries, if there is then learn where.

btw...this isn't law, yet.


----------



## JuddCT

This is easy to me. Just know where you are at and respect Private Land. We get so lazy sometimes it kills me.


----------



## Airborne

bwhntr said:


> I don't understand the big deal here. Take responsibility and know where you are hunting. If you want to cross a fence onto private land, get permission. It really isn't that hard.
> 
> Airborne, your really making this into something bigger than it needs to be. Seems to me WY made up their laws using a little something called common sense.


You could also argue that it's common sense for a land owner to follow the current law and mark their property. "Common sense" is an undefinable term as it all depends on perspective. I like our current law and I see this as limiting access to thousands of otherwise open acres. Apparently this is funny and entertaining to a few--not me, I love freedom of movement--it is a big deal.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Airborne said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the big deal here. Take responsibility and know where you are hunting. If you want to cross a fence onto private land, get permission. It really isn't that hard.
> 
> Airborne, your really making this into something bigger than it needs to be. Seems to me WY made up their laws using a little something called common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You could also argue that it's common sense for a land owner to follow the current law and mark their property. "Common sense" is an undefinable term as it all depends on perspective. I like our current law and I see this as limiting access to thousands of otherwise open acres. Apparently this is funny and entertaining to a few--not me, I love freedom of movement--it is a big deal.
Click to expand...

What's entertaining is that you twisted my comments up like you did. My point was in reference to the clarity I have received while hunting in Wyoming and actually finding out that there was MORE property I could hunt than I had thought, because I was required to study a BLM map. That's all.

I love freedom of movement too.

I agree that it's common sense to post land under the current laws, otherwise there is no recourse if someone is caught trespassing.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

How about in instances where landowners have intentionally or unintentionally marked property lines in the wrong spot or pushed their boundaries out? Wouldn't be in the interest of common folk to be apprised when this has happened?


----------



## bwhntr

Airborne said:


> You could also argue that it's common sense for a land owner to follow the current law and mark their property. "Common sense" is an undefinable term as it all depends on perspective. I like our current law and I see this as limiting access to thousands of otherwise open acres. Apparently this is funny and entertaining to a few--not me, I love freedom of movement--it is a big deal.


Do you post your yard at your house with no trespassing signs? Since I assume the answer is no. I guess it is safe to assume I can come into your yard whenever I want.


----------



## Airborne

bwhntr said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could also argue that it's common sense for a land owner to follow the current law and mark their property. "Common sense" is an undefinable term as it all depends on perspective. I like our current law and I see this as limiting access to thousands of otherwise open acres. Apparently this is funny and entertaining to a few--not me, I love freedom of movement--it is a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you post your yard at your house with no trespassing signs? Since I assume the answer is no. I guess it is safe to assume I can come into your yard whenever I want.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the difference between someones .25 acre yard that their house is on and a 20k acre ranch interspersed within thousands of acres of public land then in my opinion you have zero "common sense". Gosh I love that term--let it be known that anyone who disagrees with me completely lacks "common sense"!

Good reply treehugger--this is something I am passionate about and I get riled up about it--I agree that knowing where you are is always a good idea, but in order to do this properly you need a several hundred dollar color screen GPS with a hundred dollar software kit added, or you could buy every single BLM map for the state which would still run you over $100 bucks and you would need to be darn sure of where you were at on the map at all times--OR be thankful that in this state you simply stay off of posted/cultivated ground--it is easy and doesn't cost a thing--to support something otherwise goes against the "hard workin blue collar hunter" that UWC stated they represented in the last wildlife board meeting I heard. If UWC really supported that "common man" they would fight this bill.


----------



## elkfromabove

Airborne said:


> I guess Utah Wildlife Cooperative is for limiting hunter access--I will remember that
> 
> Relax! UWC is not for limiting hunter access! In the first place, neither I, nor any other UWC member, are speaking for UWC when we post our opinions, especially when we post "IMHO". And any UWC spokesman who posts in their behalf will tell us so. As far as I know, UWC hasn't taken a stand on this.
> 
> Second, UWC is made up of a diverse group of hunters, trappers and fishermen and women who don't always agree on issues, that's why they send out surveys. We agree in principle on supporting our resources first and providing opportunity second, but the details sometimes, for some of us, are not viewed the same.
> 
> Third, I personally adamantly oppose this bill, whether or not UWC does. I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion that I (or UWC) support this bill, but it's just the opposite. We're on the same page! I apologize if I didn't make it clear. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of land owners don't mind people moving through their property  Correct, I said that.  and the ones that do have already posted their ground. Also correct This is an attempt to criminalize yet something else so the state can make money and issue citations and further curtail free movement.  Yes! I have always been thankful that Utah has opted to hold the landowners responsible for their own land--this is how it should be. Do you actually think in Wyoming if there were no outfitters lobby that their stiff trespass laws would even exist. They would not, this is another side affect of the monetizing of wild game--all of which the organization you tout claims to be against Wrong!--ya right--you probably support the yahoos that got access to public water ways limited as well Again, wrong!--freakin A


You're apparently mixing up UWC with some other organization. I invite you to visit UWC's website. It's posted at the bottom of some of the members posts.


----------



## GaryFish

Spending a few years hunting in states with very little public land and you learn to read a land ownership map, and you also learn to ask permission to hunt. We are quite lucky to have so much public land in Utah. But knowing where you are, who owns the land, is solely on you. Not the land owner. Especially when so much of our public lands have fencing for grazing management. A compass and a couple of quad maps is a very cheap way to know where you are, and if it is public land. GPS these days are cheap and are excellent. Heck, most folks anymore have cell phones with built in GPS so there really is no excuse. And the plus I see of that, is turn on the save track feature on your GPS or phone/GPS and if accused of trespass, you have a record of where you have been and can show you have maintained the law. 

I've also seen public lands posted as private, that wasn't. A few cheap signs on BLM or Forest grazing fences can scare most folks off and turn a piece of public land into a private hunting area real quick and for next to nothing. A good map or GPS will show you if a public section of BLM or Forest land really is public.


----------



## wyogoob

My brother has a program on his fancy Garmin GPS that tells him the big game hunt unit and who owns the land you are on.


----------



## jahan

Airborne said:


> I guess Utah Wildlife Cooperative is for limiting hunter access--I will remember that.


Edited: I didn't see my question was already answered. :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish

The hunting unit boundaries and public/private ownership overages are free to download from AGRC. And it isn't all that hard to pop them into your GPS unit with even the most basic of software packages that support them.


----------



## Airborne

I thought that treehugnhunter was the head boss of UWC and I figured what he said was UWC's position. Sorry--My bad. He should have corrected me with his first post but he did not so I assumed it to be true. Who is in charge of your org? what are their handles so I know who is posting. Your org is new and it was pretty much started on this board (my perception) if I see the UWC headline under your name I assume you are a big wig with them.


----------



## Airborne

GaryFish said:


> The hunting unit boundaries and public/private ownership overages are free to download from AGRC. And it isn't all that hard to pop them into your GPS unit with even the most basic of software packages that support them.


99% of hunters are not as computer savy as you are--congrats GaryFish--you are the 1%, I should protest your abilities!

It is a burden that we luckily do not have to worry about in this state and I would like to keep it that way. Why is this a bad thing?--unless you own gobs of land you should be against this, and if you do own gobs of land more than likely you are already enrolled as a CWMU and are makin bank!


----------



## bwhntr

Airborne said:


> If you can't see the difference between someones .25 acre yard that their house is on and a 20k acre ranch interspersed within thousands of acres of public land then in my opinion you have zero "common sense". Gosh I love that term--let it be known that anyone who disagrees with me completely lacks "common sense"!


Hmmm...It seems to me SOMEBODY here lacks common sense. _(O)_ As for the rest of us (me) I find it quite easy to find a map or gps with downloaded map quite easy to read and understand where I am. I don't understand this entitlement attitude that anybody and everybody should be able to cross any private fence they want. Like I said before...asking permission to access someones land isn't hard.

BTW, I haven't read the bill, but at this point I am neither for or against it.


----------



## bwhntr

Airborne said:


> I thought that treehugnhunter was the head boss ... if I see the UWC headline under your name I assume you are a big wig with them.


Tree, are you the *head boss*, or are you just a *big wig*? :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr

Airborne said:


> ...and if you do own gobs of land more than likely you are already enrolled as a CWMU and are makin bank!


 -_O- Making bank...LOL!!! You are funny.


----------



## GaryFish

Airborne - I see the reason as knowing where lands are and not relying on how things are posted as two fold. First, I don't want to trespass. I respect private lands, their owners, and don't want to overstep onto what isn't mine. But second, is I've seen hundreds of parcels of public land marked as private so people can create their own "private" hunting area. Relying on those that post the land to determine where I can hunt, allows dishonest people to chase me away from public lands with a few small signs. If I have a quad map of the area I intend to hunt, or my GPS, I can know for sure if the lands marked are truly private, or is someone closing me off from public lands. I can use my GPS for this, or a simple quad map - I usually carry both because of limitations of the technology. I'm not a big tech guy, or gadget guy and most times, the quad map is my go-to item. So it isn't about technology. I've found that knowing for myself the land ownership has opened up far more land to me than if I rely on landowners, or others, to define that for me.


----------



## Airborne

bwhntr said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see the difference between someones .25 acre yard that their house is on and a 20k acre ranch interspersed within thousands of acres of public land then in my opinion you have zero "common sense". Gosh I love that term--let it be known that anyone who disagrees with me completely lacks "common sense"!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...It seems to me SOMEBODY here lacks common sense. _(O)_ As for the rest of us (me) I find it quite easy to find a map or gps with downloaded map quite easy to read and understand where I am. I don't understand this entitlement attitude that anybody and everybody should be able to cross any private fence they want. Like I said before...asking permission to access someones land isn't hard.
> 
> BTW, I haven't read the bill, but at this point I am neither for or against it.
Click to expand...

"Entitlement attitude" Depends on what side of the fence you are on (pun intended). If you are a land owner that expects everyone should know where they are at all times then the land owner would possess this "entitlement attitude", as he is entitled to never have to post his ground. As for me--I just want to keep the law the way it is--guess that makes me a spoiled entitled jerk now doesn't it?



bwhntr said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and if you do own gobs of land more than likely you are already enrolled as a CWMU and are makin bank!
> 
> 
> 
> -_O- Making bank...LOL!!! You are funny.
Click to expand...

and yeah--I am one funny sun of a gun!


----------



## GaryFish

Not to be overly critical here, but a private landowner is ENTITLED to people staying off his/her land. He/she that owns the TITLE to the land, IS ENTITLED.


----------



## Airborne

GaryFish said:


> Airborne - I see the reason as knowing where lands are and not relying on how things are posted as two fold. First, I don't want to trespass. I respect private lands, their owners, and don't want to overstep onto what isn't mine. But second, is I've seen hundreds of parcels of public land marked as private so people can create their own "private" hunting area. Relying on those that post the land to determine where I can hunt, allows dishonest people to chase me away from public lands with a few small signs. If I have a quad map of the area I intend to hunt, or my GPS, I can know for sure if the lands marked are truly private, or is someone closing me off from public lands. I can use my GPS for this, or a simple quad map - I usually carry both because of limitations of the technology. I'm not a big tech guy, or gadget guy and most times, the quad map is my go-to item. So it isn't about technology. I've found that knowing for myself the land ownership has opened up far more land to me than if I rely on landowners, or others, to define that for me.


Great post and I agree with you--if you have the knowledge and money then I think it is great--not arguing with that. But what if you are traveling along and see a great area to hunt/explore and it is private (uncultivated) on your map but the land owner has not posted it at all. In this state you can hunt that and assume the landowner is cool with it because they did not spray paid a few trees. It is an automatic permission to hunt scenario without having to try to find who owns it and asking. I like it and cannot see any reason to change it.


----------



## Airborne

GaryFish said:


> Not to be overly critical here, but a private landowner is ENTITLED to people staying off his/her land. He/she that owns the TITLE to the land, IS ENTITLED.


Right! they are the ones with the entitlement attitude--not me! 

The status quo is never radical

some of you guys must be wealthy land owners who can't operate a spray paint can. The spray nozzle is supposed to point away from you! :lol:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Airborne said:


> I thought that treehugnhunter was the head boss of UWC and I figured what he said was UWC's position. Sorry--My bad. He should have corrected me with his first post but he did not so I assumed it to be true. Who is in charge of your org? what are their handles so I know who is posting. Your org is new and it was pretty much started on this board (my perception) if I see the UWC headline under your name I assume you are a big wig with them.


I never said anything about supporting this bill. All I referenced was Wyoming's law and a personal opinion on how it was useful, which I clarified.


----------



## GaryFish

I love exploring lands as well. And a recreational atlas for Utah, shows the entire state, indicating fairly accurately, public/private land ownership, is less than $20. Here is one on a quick search:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/utah-at ... +gazetteer
(Not that I'm plugging this product, or the store - just turned up in a real quick search. Lots of similar products out there and a variety of outlets.)

Great investment and can live in the truck. Also can help find some out of the way roads to enhance the adventure. It doesn't cost a lot of money at all and can be a great help. Having a map like this with me has opened up all sorts of lands and adventures to me. I've been a scoutmaster for years and am always looking for places to take my scouts and $20 spent on this kind of a book is incredibly worth while to anyone that enjoys any kind of outdoor activity in Utah.


----------



## bwhntr

Airborne said:


> ... The spray nozzle is supposed to point away from you! :lol:


Oh snap! Hate it when that happens. Thanks! :mrgreen:


----------



## Mrad

It should be the hunters responsibility to know if he's on private land or not. If you're hunting on private land (posted or not) without permission you're trespassing. Pretty simple concept. Some guys lack of respect for private property in this state is pretty sickening and wouldn't fly in pretty much any other state. They'd be seeing the judge and losing their hunting privileges. If anything, a lot of tards have the mentality they can hunt where ever they want too, and knowingly trespass.


----------



## elkfromabove

It isn't solely a matter of knowing whether or not the land is private or public.

If your animal is hit on public land, but goes into private, you have to know who owns the land in order to get permission to retrieve the animal. Good luck getting that information on a weekend in time to prevent breaking another law, wasting wildlife. And suppose you don't get permission?

Additionally, the programs you use on the your devices are not updated in a timely manner and the BLM land you think you're on was sold to Farmer Jones last month. 

And there's always the problem of accessing public property that's landlocked in private. There's a whole lot of landlocked BLM acreage up on Cedar Mountain (Hog's Haven) that holds a large herd of elk every winter, but I can't hunt it because I'm not friends of the family. And it's not the only spot up there. Also, I got written permission to hunt family property one year from one cousin, only to be run off by another, and both of them had equal shares.

I also had a run-in with a "landowner" on the site of a 3-way corner between FS, BLM, and private who cleverly (he thought) had posted a no trespassing/posted sign on a fence around the BLM land. He claimed he owned the land in spite of the fact that I showed him the plat map from the Iron County Recorders office. He threatened me with bodily harm if I crossed "his" fence. I didn't argue.

Which brings up another hurdle, plat maps at $3.00 to $5.00 each in order to identify the owner, which, BTW, may not be apparent because most of them are owned by family trusts, LLCs, Corps, Ranches, etc.

Most of the private property east of here is lived on so it's not too hard to contact the landowner. Not so in Utah. In Southern Utah some of the land is owned by California, Nevada, or Arizona corporations. You pretty much have to catch the manager out in the field to get permission which means you have to cross the fence or go through the gate anyway.

Bottom line, if the land is properly posted, there's no question. If not, I'm required to spend more time and money on hunting, trapping, or fishing and, at some point, it'll be too much!


----------



## JuddCT

GaryFish said:


> Not to be overly critical here, but a private landowner is ENTITLED to people staying off his/her land. He/she that owns the TITLE to the land, IS ENTITLED.


You beat me to it GF and you are correct. I think it is too bad that private land owners have to post their property to keep lazy hunters/fisherman out. To the rest of us that don't own land and do the homework to know where we are, thanks for not being lazy!


----------



## JuddCT

Airborne said:


> But what if you are traveling along and see a great area to hunt/explore and it is private (uncultivated) on your map but the land owner has not posted it at all. In this state you can hunt that and assume the landowner is cool with it because they did not spray paid a few trees. It is an automatic permission to hunt scenario without having to try to find who owns it and asking. I like it and cannot see any reason to change it.


I think that is one way we as non-private-landowners could lose out on hunting/fishing priveledges in the future. Taking advantage of someone elses land without permission is not the answer. Getting permission and creating a relationship with the landowner can go a long way.


----------



## Airborne

JuddCT said:


> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you are traveling along and see a great area to hunt/explore and it is private (uncultivated) on your map but the land owner has not posted it at all. In this state you can hunt that and assume the landowner is cool with it because they did not spray paid a few trees. It is an automatic permission to hunt scenario without having to try to find who owns it and asking. I like it and cannot see any reason to change it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is one way we as non-private-landowners could lose out on hunting/fishing priveledges in the future. Taking advantage of someone elses land without permission is not the answer. Getting permission and creating a relationship with the landowner can go a long way.
Click to expand...

um--That is exactly what this law is trying to do! The law wants to limit access and lose out on hunting/fishing privileges that we currently have! You are not taking advantage of anyone if you follow the law--if a landowner is ok with people trespassing they simply do not post their ground--if it is posted then you respect that and go ask for permission. If you are for this law you are for limiting access plain and simple.


----------



## JuddCT

Airborne said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airborne said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you are traveling along and see a great area to hunt/explore and it is private (uncultivated) on your map but the land owner has not posted it at all. In this state you can hunt that and assume the landowner is cool with it because they did not spray paid a few trees. It is an automatic permission to hunt scenario without having to try to find who owns it and asking. I like it and cannot see any reason to change it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is one way we as non-private-landowners could lose out on hunting/fishing priveledges in the future. Taking advantage of someone elses land without permission is not the answer. Getting permission and creating a relationship with the landowner can go a long way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> um--That is exactly what this law is trying to do! The law wants to limit access and lose out on hunting/fishing privileges that we currently have! You are not taking advantage of anyone if you follow the law--if a landowner is ok with people trespassing they simply do not post their ground--if it is posted then you respect that and go ask for permission. If you are for this law you are for limiting access plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I ask for permission even if it isn't posted. Goes a long way in keeping those properties open.


----------



## Airborne

If anyone would like to read the proposed "piece" of legislation here it is:

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0086.htm

The sponsor is representative John G. Mathis out of Vernal. I have emailed him concerning my opposition to this misguided piece of legislation. I am also going to email my rep and senator. If you like the current freedom we have in this state and are tired of continued control that our state puts upon us--do yourself a favor (and all sportsmen) and write to your legislator.

Take care


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> I don't understand the big deal here. Take responsibility and know where you are hunting. If you want to cross a fence onto private land, get permission. It really isn't that hard.


The big deal is that there are literally _millions_ of acres of fenced public land in this state. I cross fences on public land all the time. Who is footing the bill to remove ALL of the fences on public land? The big deal is that with this bill the state would be creating a major pain in the butt for all public land hunters, defecating on the public hunter's experience.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I need to read more, but on the surface it seems like BS.


----------



## elkfromabove

Airborne said:


> If anyone would like to read the proposed "piece" of legislation here it is:
> 
> http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0086.htm
> 
> The sponsor is representative John G. Mathis out of Vernal. I have emailed him concerning my opposition to this misguided piece of legislation. I am also going to email my rep and senator. If you like the current freedom we have in this state and are tired of continued control that our state puts upon us--do yourself a favor (and all sportsmen) and write to your legislator.
> 
> Take care


The bill is currently in committee and was supposed to be dealt with today, but the meeting was canceled so we still have time to email the committee. I did already!

Rep. Roger E. Barrus, Chair - [email protected]
Rep. Stephen E. Sandstrom, Vice Chair - [email protected]
Rep. Joel K Briscoe - [email protected]
Rep. Melvin R. Brown - [email protected]
Rep. Brad L Dee - [email protected]
Rep. Jack R Draxler - [email protected]
Rep. Brad J. Galvez - [email protected]
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson - [email protected]
Rep. John G Mathis - [email protected]
Rep. Michael E Noel - [email protected]
Rep. Patrick Painter - [email protected]
Rep. Douglas Sagers - [email protected]
Rep. Christine F Watkins - [email protected]
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox - [email protected]

Another thing to consider. Would you as a landowner rather spend your time spraying your fence as you check it for breaks and damage or answering the door, the phone, or emails for a month or two or three or six telling people yes or no throughout the hunting seasons? And heaven help the joker that interrupts your dinner or chores. This bill will invite all those inquiries. If you don't want people on your land, you'd be foolish NOT to post it. IMHO, or course!


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> Another thing to consider. Would you as a landowner rather spend your time spraying your fence as you check it for breaks and damage or answering the door, the phone, or emails for a month or two or three or six telling people yes or no throughout the hunting seasons? And heaven help the joker that interrupts your dinner or chores. This bill will invite all those inquiries. If you don't want people on your land, you'd be foolish NOT to post it. IMHO, or course!


As one of those 'rich' landowners.......being as I own several thousand acres.....I am fine with people coming and knocking on my door, calling me on the phone, to ask for permission to hunt my land. I post signs, and people tear them down. I spray paint, and people drive/walk right on by. Last year, I caught some people camping....YES camping.....on my land, and not 20 yards away from the FOUR trailers was a post painted orange and a sign nailed to it saying; "Hunting by permission ONLY", along with my phone number. So, elkfromabove, what is your answer for all the slob hunters? Posting does NOT work very well, that is a fact! I would much rather have people stop by and ask if they can hunt my land, than to have them ignore the signs/paint/fences. Back when we had lots of pheasants, we had to have 2-3 people on the opener patrolling the land, and we would still get DOZENS of trespassers.

I have a solution, but I am sure most like it......let me know if you want to hear it....

:O•-:


----------



## Airborne

Pro--if people are ignoring the current rules which include clearly marked signs then what makes you think that changing it to no signage is going to make it better?--it would more than likely be worse. As a member of the land owning bourgeoisie you should be actively fighting against this bill as it will not help your cause.  

I am sure whatever your proposed solution is would work but I have a feeling it would be quite draconian and not pass legal muster


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing to consider. Would you as a landowner rather spend your time spraying your fence as you check it for breaks and damage or answering the door, the phone, or emails for a month or two or three or six telling people yes or no throughout the hunting seasons? And heaven help the joker that interrupts your dinner or chores. This bill will invite all those inquiries. If you don't want people on your land, you'd be foolish NOT to post it. IMHO, or course!
> 
> 
> 
> As one of those 'rich' landowners.......being as I own several thousand acres.....I am fine with people coming and knocking on my door, calling me on the phone, to ask for permission to hunt my land. I post signs, and people tear them down. I spray paint, and people drive/walk right on by. Last year, I caught some people camping....YES camping.....on my land, and not 20 yards away from the FOUR trailers was a post painted orange and a sign nailed to it saying; "Hunting by permission ONLY", along with my phone number. So, elkfromabove, what is your answer for all the slob hunters? Posting does NOT work very well, that is a fact! I would much rather have people stop by and ask if they can hunt my land, than to have them ignore the signs/paint/fences. Back when we had lots of pheasants, we had to have 2-3 people on the opener patrolling the land, and we would still get DOZENS of trespassers.
> 
> I have a solution, but I am sure most like it......let me know if you want to hear it....
> 
> :O•-:
Click to expand...

Bart, Sorry, but I don't have an answer for the slob hunters except throw the bums in jail and/or take away their hunting privileges. They're going to be slobs with or without this law. However, I can say that this bill will not only not stop them from trespassing, but might encourage them further because they think they can claim ignorance as a defense. This law is like the gun control laws in that it won't stop the jerks. It'll only hurt the honest outdoorsmen and, in some cases, the landowner. Not all landowners value their time the same as you. And I don't think many Utah hunters are anxious to take the time or spend the money to dig out all the information needed to comply with this law. Utah hunting keeps getting more complex every year and at some point, many hunters are going to say enough is enough. Some already have!

I would love to hear your solution as long as it doesn't take us down a long road of posts revolving around your views versus ours of private property versus public property. The situation is currently what it is and that's the only one we can deal with on this thread, on this forum, at this time.

We also know how you feel about keeping the animals on quality winter (or summer) range instead of in your fields, but this law has consequences that will crawl out of the woodwork and bite us on the butt. If you think option #2 will concentrate crowds in the "secret" honeyholes, wait 'til this passes (Hopefully not!) And you coyote, dove, rabbit, grouse, chukar, bear and cougar hunters have to comply with this law as well. Good luck on those hound hunts. This is a can of worms even for the fishermen. It's not a very good idea here in Utah and I urge you (meaning all of you) to say so to those who make these rules.

Edited: BTW I didn't say anything about being "rich". I know you're about as poor financially as I am and as rich in areas that count as I am.


----------



## Huge29

This proposed bill goes along with a lot of laws concerning wildlife where it simply makes it easier to prosecute those who trespass, similar to having any lead when waterfowl hunting or in a nontoxic only area. So, in the case of someone ripping down signs the most likely couldn't be prosecuted as there is no evidence of the property being properly posted. I don't think I support this bill, but I do like making it easier to prosecute law breakers, but not at the cost of hurting the good guys. For anyone to hunt without maps seems awfully antiquated to me, but there is no reason for not knowing where one can hunt. You can go the library and look up land ownership, many counties have this online for free and many libraries allow you to print for free.


----------



## bwhntr

BirdDogger said:


> The big deal is that there are literally _millions_ of acres of fenced public land in this state. I cross fences on public land all the time. Who is footing the bill to remove ALL of the fences on public land? The big deal is that with this bill the state would be creating a major pain in the butt for all public land hunters, defecating on the public hunter's experience.


This bill isn't addressing a fence on public land. You can cross a fence on public land all day long. By my understanding the bill addresses crossing a fence onto private land. Get a map, know the area you are hunting. What do you guys do when you hunt next to a LE area? Do you read a map and learn the boundaries?


----------



## elkfromabove

Huge29 said:


> This proposed bill goes along with a lot of laws concerning wildlife where it simply makes it easier to prosecute those who trespass, similar to having any lead when waterfowl hunting or in a nontoxic only area. So, in the case of someone ripping down signs the most likely couldn't be prosecuted as there is no evidence of the property being properly posted. I don't think I support this bill, but I do like making it easier to prosecute law breakers, but not at the cost of hurting the good guys. For anyone to hunt without maps seems awfully antiquated to me, but there is no reason for not knowing where one can hunt. You can go the library and look up land ownership, many counties have this online for free and many libraries allow you to print for free.


It certainly can make it easier to prosecute law breakers, especially when you create more laws that are easy to break. We, on this forum are aware of this bill and have already made it known how we would handle it, but the vast majority of Utah outdoorsmen and women have no idea this bill exists and probably won't know about the law, if it passes, until they are cited.

This also creates a problem for the CO's who now have to know which fences are on private land and which ones are on public, and with 52,587,520 acres of land in Utah (29,790,720 acres of public deer habitat, approx.), that seems a lot of land and fences to know and monitor.

On the positive side, for some, it'll likely weed out some more of those pesky non-die-hard hunters (and fishermen, trappers, wildlife photographers and wildlife viewers) who get cited, while allowing hikers, bikers, mushroom and berry and pinenut gatherers and even campers to go free since they are not involved in wildlife activities. It's true that they can be prosecuted by the landowner, but they can't be cited by the DWR unless they can prove they are "taking wildlife or engaged in wildlife activities". In other words, as long as they don't look at ANY wildlife or take pictures of or feed chipmunks, and don't get caught by the landowner, they're good to go. (Unless, of course, the CO assumes the "authority to act for the owner" and can cite them for civic criminal law.)

Don't worry, folks. I'll come up with some more, but for now, I need to go to Denny's to meet a new UWC member.


----------



## bwhntr

Denny's??? :O>>: Are you trying to bring him into the pack or run him off??? :mrgreen:


----------



## elkfromabove

bwhntr said:


> Denny's??? :O>>: Are you trying to bring him into the pack or run him off??? :mrgreen:


His choice, not mine! And he's bringing his young daughter, so it may be her's.


----------



## bwhntr

Lol...Enjoy!


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> Bart, Sorry, but I don't have an answer for the slob hunters except throw the bums in jail and/or take away their hunting privileges. They're going to be slobs with or without this law. However, I can say that this bill will not only not stop them from trespassing, but might encourage them further because they think they can claim ignorance as a defense. This law is like the gun control laws in that it won't stop the jerks. It'll only hurt the honest outdoorsmen and, in some cases, the landowner. Not all landowners value their time the same as you. And I don't think many Utah hunters are anxious to take the time or spend the money to dig out all the information needed to comply with this law. Utah hunting keeps getting more complex every year and at some point, many hunters are going to say enough is enough. Some already have! I don't recall ever saying I like this law....I simply asked for your solutions....
> 
> I would love to hear your solution as long as it doesn't take us down a long road of posts revolving around your views versus ours of private property versus public property. The situation is currently what it is and that's the only one we can deal with on this thread, on this forum, at this time. Ah, you know me too well....not exactly what airborne was thinking though......but, trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause(s) will be wasted energy/resources.
> 
> Edited: BTW I didn't say anything about being "rich". I know you're about as poor financially as I am and as rich in areas that count as I am. No, I know you didn't, but apparently airborne assumes anyone with large chunks of land are wealthy.....


Carry on.


----------



## jahan

Airborne said:


> If anyone would like to read the proposed "piece" of legislation here it is:
> 
> http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0086.htm
> 
> The sponsor is representative John G. Mathis out of Vernal. I have emailed him concerning my opposition to this misguided piece of legislation. I am also going to email my rep and senator. If you like the current freedom we have in this state and are tired of continued control that our state puts upon us--do yourself a favor (and all sportsmen) and write to your legislator.
> 
> Take care


I am not good at understanding all the gibberish in bills, but I don't see too many changes from the current law. I see they added a section, "the land is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders" That seems extremely vague to me. How can you tell if it is a fence to keep animals out or a fence to keep people out with out signs? I guess my point is I don't see what good this bill will do, it is making some minor changes to the code, but making it a class B misdemeanor is a good step.

Either they need to come out and make it like Wyoming's or leave it how it is and make it a class B misdemeanor, IMO. All they are doing is making it even more confusing from what I can tell, but that is politics.


----------



## flinger

I believe there are two codes that deal with trespassing and one of them already involves the fencing/enclosure issue:

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_06_020600.htm

I think the new legislation being proposed would now allow the DWR to site for trespassing under the wildlife trespass code if there is fencing/enclosure in the absence of signs, etc.

So persons(hunting or not) already have a similar law to deal with, its not new. BTW, I would assume searching for sheds is still considered being in the act of hunting/taking game or parts and would fall under the wildlife trespass code not just the one linked above.


----------



## elkfromabove

flinger said:


> I believe there are two codes that deal with trespassing and one of them already involves the fencing/enclosure issue:
> 
> http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_06_020600.htm
> 
> I think the new legislation being proposed would now allow the DWR to site for trespassing under the wildlife trespass code if there is fencing/enclosure in the absence of signs, etc.
> 
> So persons(hunting or not) already have a similar law to deal with, its not new. BTW, I would assume searching for sheds is still considered being in the act of hunting/taking game or parts and would fall under the wildlife trespass code not just the one linked above.


So, I can shoot coyotes and jackrabbits on private property as long as I shoot from public property?


----------



## Huge29

As has been mentioned, it certainly is good to have a map or gps regardless of the law. We were hunting in 2010 in the northern region and there was a large field with the majority of it being posted. However, the fence disappeared from site where it turned into public ground, so the public ground still had fence around it. We would not have known it was public ground without the GPS showing ownership. 
Again, my biggest concern is that this is simply a totally unnecessary law/bill. As if the thousands of laws out there now are not yet enough. Had the DWR requested such a bill in stating cases of having difficulty in enforcing trespassing issues I may be able to support such a law, but that is not the case. It almost seems like it would only hurt the law abiders and solve a problem that didn't exist to further restrict access like Airborne mentioned.


----------



## flinger

elkfromabove said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there are two codes that deal with trespassing and one of them already involves the fencing/enclosure issue:
> 
> http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_06_020600.htm
> 
> I think the new legislation being proposed would now allow the DWR to site for trespassing under the wildlife trespass code if there is fencing/enclosure in the absence of signs, etc.
> 
> So persons(hunting or not) already have a similar law to deal with, its not new. BTW, I would assume searching for sheds is still considered being in the act of hunting/taking game or parts and would fall under the wildlife trespass code not just the one linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I can shoot coyotes and jackrabbits on private property as long as I shoot from public property?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you pulled that from, but I don't think so, even though coyotes are not game animals. But if you think that's a fuzzy area then maybe the trespass code needs revamping too. I've heard you can't even shoot from public property to an animal that is also on public property if the bullet goes across private property(I assume property posted or enclosed) in-between you and the animal. Just what I've heard, but it would make sense since land owners usually own the air space above the surface too.

You can blame all this on that small minority that just doesn't respect private landowner rights. It sounds like the DWR is behind this proposed bill too as the director expressed in one of the board meetings. I'd love to hear Pro's proposal, because I think there are many that don't think this proposed bill goes far enough.

Of course this is all IMO!!!!!!!!!


----------



## proutdoors

flinger said:


> You can blame all this on that small minority that just doesn't respect private landowner rights.


I assert that it isn't all that small of a minority, and that it is becoming more and more common place.



flinger said:


> I'd love to hear Pro's proposal, because I think there are many that don't think this proposed bill goes far enough.


I think as long as there is millions of acres of public land, most of it with immense restrictions on it, the private land will be viewed as 'fair game' by the public. We now live in an "entitlement" society, and people have the mindset that the 'greedy' landowners have no 'right' to limit access to their land, and it doesn't matter what color is used to post land, nor what size/wording is used for signs, people will ignore them. Having 70% of the land under the control of the government is a sure way of people feeling entitled to the remaining 30%. All of this is merely my opinion, of course, but a return to the federal/state government to the way it was for the first 100 years of this nation would be a move toward real solutions. That means the government no longer being the largest landowner, and that the PEOPLE actually own...and more importantly.....control the bulk of the land.


----------



## Airborne

> I think as long as there is millions of acres of public land, most of it with immense restrictions on it,.


Um--what are you talking about?--I can drive/camp/hunt/shoot/explore all over the millions of acres of public ground throughout the west--aside from opening up a mine or something or maybe outright living on public ground I don't see too darn many restrictions on public ground



> the private land will be viewed as 'fair game' by the public.


I don't think this is true--the law already protects the landowner--call the cops if they are trespassing



> We now live in an "entitlement" society, and people have the mindset that the 'greedy' landowners have no 'right' to limit access to their land, and it doesn't matter what color is used to post land, nor what size/wording is used for signs, people will ignore them.


If that was the case and the majority of people felt that way the laws would reflect it and there would be no such thing as private land--not the case--trespassing laws protect land owners--I agree with this, heck everyone agrees with this!--we are not communist China ya know--reality contradicts your statement



> Having 70% of the land under the control of the government is a sure way of people feeling entitled to the remaining 30%.


You have a few bad apples break existing law by camping/trespassing on your land and all of the sudden everyone is out to get ya. Do you have hundreds of people trespass on you ground every year?, NO! again reality contradicts your statement--these are bad apples Pro--call the cops on them, that is why you pay taxes--unless you don't pay taxes--crazy right winger  



> All of this is merely my opinion, of course,


 Yep



> but a return to the federal/state government to the way it was for the first 100 years of this nation would be a move toward real solutions. That means the government no longer being the largest landowner, and that the PEOPLE actually own...and more importantly.....control the bulk of the land.


I lived back east for 5 years, if you want to shoot your gun, camp, travel around, hunt, or anything else you have to PAY!! You have to lease hunting ground, cannot camp anywhere but private camp grounds, you have to go to a members only range to shoot. Everything that people take for granted in this state-called freedom of movement is prohibited back east where all of the last is private-just like you suggest. In order to keep the north American model of wildlife conservation alive and keep it in the hands of the general public you need two things-state ownership of the animals and a place to hunt them that is open to the public-meaning public lands. In your world there would be no place to hunt-the whole state would be a giant CWMU with restrictions and large land leases and basically hunting for the wealthy-look at Texas, the little guy cannot hunt because he doesn't have enough money to lease ground. I love our public lands, I hope they stay public. Only a narrow minded wealthy land owner would want to privatize and restrict Utah's most cherished resource.


----------



## longbow

I don't know if I like the proposal. If landowners don't care if you hunt on then they won't post it. If you walk up to a border and it's posted or it has crops on it, it's prima facia evident that he/she doesn't want you to hunt there. It does away with the mistake of accidently being "out of bounds". Or it proves which side of the fence is legal. While hunting in Colorado, my son and I were kicked off land we thought was forest service. A fishcop came by and checked our licenses and we ask him about it. We were perfectly legal. Come to find out he was on his way to the camp of the guys who kicked us out to write them a ticket for it. Someone else had reported them.
On the other hand why should a landowner have to spend time and money for signs and paint? I don't know which side I take.


----------



## proutdoors

Airborne said:


> I think as long as there is millions of acres of public land, most of it with immense restrictions on it,.
> 
> 
> 
> Um--what are you talking about?--I can drive/camp/hunt/shoot/explore all over the millions of acres of public ground throughout the west--aside from opening up a mine or something or maybe outright living on public ground I don't see too darn many restrictions on public ground Not too many restrictions? I guess your definition of freedom and restrictions is a little different than mine. You are restricted in many areas on when you can travel, where you can travel, where/when you can camp/hunt/shoot and even explore. There are restrictions on how long you can camp as well. The bulk of the natural resources in Utah are located on public land, so obtaining those natural resources, which we all benefit from, has mountains of restrictions.
> 
> [quote:3e53ceip]the private land will be viewed as 'fair game' by the public.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true--the law already protects the landowner--call the cops if they are trespassing What good does it do to call the cops when they are, at best, 1/2 hour away? I have people poaching turkeys on land I own that is 1/2 an hour away from my house, and an hour away from any CO's or sheriff deputies. Laws don't mean diddly if they can't be enforced..



> We now live in an "entitlement" society, and people have the mindset that the 'greedy' landowners have no 'right' to limit access to their land, and it doesn't matter what color is used to post land, nor what size/wording is used for signs, people will ignore them.


If that was the case and the majority of people felt that way the laws would reflect it and there would be no such thing as private land--not the case--trespassing laws protect land owners--I agree with this, heck everyone agrees with this!--we are not communist China ya know--reality contradicts your statement I contend we are closer to "communist China" than we are too what the Founders set up.....just saying.....



> Having 70% of the land under the control of the government is a sure way of people feeling entitled to the remaining 30%.


You have a few bad apples break existing law by camping/trespassing on your land and all of the sudden everyone is out to get ya. Do you have hundreds of people trespass on you ground every year?, NO! again reality contradicts your statement--these are bad apples Pro--call the cops on them, that is why you pay taxes--unless you don't pay taxes--crazy right winger   A few I could live with. Dozens every year is another story, and that is counting just the ones I see or see their tracks/trash. I pay taxes, but calling the cops is a waste of my time, and a waste of the time of the deputies, as by the time they get there the offender(s) is long gone, and the County isn't going to spend precious resources running a full blown investigation into such 'minor' offenses. And no, I am not a crazy right winger, just crazy!



> All of this is merely my opinion, of course,


 Yep



> but a return to the federal/state government to the way it was for the first 100 years of this nation would be a move toward real solutions. That means the government no longer being the largest landowner, and that the PEOPLE actually own...and more importantly.....control the bulk of the land.


I lived back east for 5 years, if you want to shoot your gun, camp, travel around, hunt, or anything else you have to PAY!! You have to lease hunting ground, cannot camp anywhere but private camp grounds, you have to go to a members only range to shoot. Everything that people take for granted in this state-called freedom of movement is prohibited back east where all of the last is private-just like you suggest. In order to keep the north American model of wildlife conservation alive and keep it in the hands of the general public you need two things-state ownership of the animals and a place to hunt them that is open to the public-meaning public lands. In your world there would be no place to hunt-the whole state would be a giant CWMU with restrictions and large land leases and basically hunting for the wealthy-look at Texas, the little guy cannot hunt because he doesn't have enough money to lease ground. I love our public lands, I hope they stay public. Only a narrow minded wealthy land owner would want to privatize and restrict Utah's most cherished resource.[/quote:3e53ceip] We pay for access to public land, and so do those who never visit said lands. It is subsidized by the many for the 'enjoyment' of the few. I am guessing you like the US Postal Service, as it is fairly inexpensive, right? Problem is, it isn't inexpensive in reality, it is merely subsidized by every citizen, even those that never use the Postal Service. Is that what 'freedom' looks like....taking from the many to benefit the few? Last I checked, taking from one by FORCE is called socialism...not exactly a climate for Liberty... Question, why are individuals not to be trusted, but the government....ran by a select FEW individuals.... are? If individuals are greedy, selfish, and a bunch of animal killing, environmental destroying dirt bags, what makes a band of them any better?


----------



## Airborne

Pro--you seriously sound like my father--If I had several hours of time to talk you back from the right wing abyss I would. I don't have the time and this is not the best place for a comprehensive free range exchange of thought. I will try to be brief with my responses

Rules/restrictions on public lands: These are in place to protect the land from the practices of the few which would ruin it for the many. Some lands have more restrictions than others because the public wants it that way--I like wilderness, I like places that are wild and free of roads, these should exist. I like roaded areas to ride around on--these should exist. There is a balance to be made. Wealth from natural resource development goes directly to the bottom line of the corporation running the extraction--some taxes and jobs sure but the majority of funds go elsewhere--not the general public.

Call the cops every time someone trespasses--no excuses, you pay taxes and they are obliged to uphold the law. If they will not uphold the law then petition their municipality. Take photos to help in their prosecution. Be annoying and demand prosecution--it's your duty as an American! If that fails then heck--go batman on their butts and start slashing tires!

Public lands are open to everyone, as long as that is the case it does not matter the amount of people who pay for them in regards to who use them. Obviously the general public is willing to foot whatever bill that is because we continue to support public land. Many studies have proven the worth of public land to local and state economies—google it. You would have a different view if you could live back east for a few years. Funny that a person who went nuts over the cut of 13k deer tags would want to basically destroy Utah’s hunting tradition by selling off our public land. 

We are a constitutional republic and our representatives are responsible to the people—you talk as if we are living in a Stalinist regime. This is America man!—get involved in politics if you want change. Our system is not perfect but it is the best one I have seen. Don’t get caught up in the talkin head Rush Limbaugh type stuff. Have you had any postsecondary civics education? Seriously not trying to be patronizing but I think you could benefit from some civics classes. Remember that things are pretty darn good—be optimistic, you have unlimited resources of information on the net, you don’t go to bed hungry and I don’t see marauding bands of Mongols looting your crops and killing your people—life is good!


----------



## elkfromabove

longbow said:


> I don't know if I like the proposal. If landowners don't care if you hunt on then they won't post it. If you walk up to a border and it's posted or it has crops on it, it's prima facia evident that he/she doesn't want you to hunt there. It does away with the mistake of accidently being "out of bounds".
> 
> On the other hand why should a landowner have to spend time and money for signs and paint? I don't know which side I take.


For that matter, why should a landowner have to spend time and money to build a fence just to keep people out? Especially with the high tech devices so many of you have touted. We are the ones at task to know where we are at all times, not the landowner, right? Building a fence to keep domestic animals in is one thing, but building one to keep intruders out is another. The argument for not posting could be be used for not fencing.


----------



## bwhntr

elkfromabove said:


> For that matter, why should a landowner have to spend time and money to build a fence just to keep people out? Especially with the high tech devices so many of you have touted. We are the ones at task to know where we are at all times, not the landowner, right? Building a fence to keep domestic animals in is one thing, but building one to keep intruders out is another. The argument for not posting could be be used for not fencing.


These are my thoughts exactly. There shouldn't have to be a fence, or a sign. We have a responsibility to know where we are at all times. It really isn't that hard to do. That being said, I guess we could require all landowners that don't care if you are on their land and don't care if you contact them to post signs that say "Trespassers Welcome".


----------



## bowgy

> For that matter, why should a landowner have to spend time and money to build a fence just to keep people out? Especially with the high tech devices so many of you have touted. We are the ones at task to know where we are at all times, not the landowner, right? Building a fence to keep domestic animals in is one thing, but building one to keep intruders out is another. The argument for not posting could be be used for not fencing.


This is a very good point, there is no fence between Nevada and Utah when you are hunting out west and the same goes for the other states we border. Now granted most gps units will list state boundries but if you do not have them you would not want to get caught shooting a deer in another state with a Utah tag. Just another thought on knowing where you are hunting.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

bwhntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> , I guess we could require all landowners that don't care if you are on their land and don't care if you contact them to post signs that say "Trespassers Welcome".
Click to expand...

You've got a point.


----------



## proutdoors

Airborne said:


> Pro--you seriously sound like my father--If I had several hours of time to talk you back from the right wing abyss I would. I don't have the time and this is not the best place for a comprehensive free range exchange of thought. I will try to be brief with my responses
> 
> Rules/restrictions on public lands: These are in place to protect the land from the practices of the few which would ruin it for the many. Some lands have more restrictions than others because the public wants it that way--I like wilderness, I like places that are wild and free of roads, these should exist. I like roaded areas to ride around on--these should exist. There is a balance to be made. Wealth from natural resource development goes directly to the bottom line of the corporation running the extraction--some taxes and jobs sure but the majority of funds go elsewhere--not the general public.
> 
> Call the cops every time someone trespasses--no excuses, you pay taxes and they are obliged to uphold the law. If they will not uphold the law then petition their municipality. Take photos to help in their prosecution. Be annoying and demand prosecution--it's your duty as an American! If that fails then heck--go batman on their butts and start slashing tires!
> 
> Public lands are open to everyone, as long as that is the case it does not matter the amount of people who pay for them in regards to who use them. Obviously the general public is willing to foot whatever bill that is because we continue to support public land. Many studies have proven the worth of public land to local and state economies-google it. You would have a different view if you could live back east for a few years. Funny that a person who went nuts over the cut of 13k deer tags would want to basically destroy Utah's hunting tradition by selling off our public land.
> 
> We are a constitutional republic and our representatives are responsible to the people-you talk as if we are living in a Stalinist regime. This is America man!-get involved in politics if you want change. Our system is not perfect but it is the best one I have seen. Don't get caught up in the talkin head Rush Limbaugh type stuff. Have you had any postsecondary civics education? Seriously not trying to be patronizing but I think you could benefit from some civics classes. Remember that things are pretty darn good-be optimistic, you have unlimited resources of information on the net, you don't go to bed hungry and I don't see marauding bands of Mongols looting your crops and killing your people-life is good!


 -_O- -_O- -_O-

That is all your post warrants......


----------



## proutdoors

bwhntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, why should a landowner have to spend time and money to build a fence just to keep people out? Especially with the high tech devices so many of you have touted. We are the ones at task to know where we are at all times, not the landowner, right? Building a fence to keep domestic animals in is one thing, but building one to keep intruders out is another. The argument for not posting could be be used for not fencing.
> 
> 
> 
> These are my thoughts exactly. There shouldn't have to be a fence, or a sign. We have a responsibility to know where we are at all times. It really isn't that hard to do. That being said, I guess we could require all landowners that don't care if you are on their land and don't care if you contact them to post signs that say "Trespassers Welcome".
Click to expand...

Touche!


----------



## Moostickles

Airborne said:


> 99% of hunters are not as computer savy as you are--congrats GaryFish--you are the 1%, I should protest your abilities!
> 
> ...unless you own gobs of land you should be against this, and if you do own gobs of land more than likely you are already enrolled as a CWMU and are makin bank!


This sounds strangely familiar...






o-||


----------



## elkfromabove

Well, it unanimously passed the House and is now in the Senate Committee. I'm sending a long email to the committee members, but it looks like I'll be outvoted there too! FWIW, the DWR DID NOT propose this bill! In fact, Teresa, the Southern Region Wildlife Supervisor wasn't even aware of it when I told her last night at the open house and she asked me for more info which I gave her today. She was astonished!

You have no idea the burden this puts on the CO's to know who owns property on both sides of every fence in Utah. And they will now be required to do the local sheriff's job because they will be expected to represent the owner in this matter whether or not there is actual wildlife activity going on. (see my edit below)

And, I say again, good luck to you houndsmen who chase cougars and bears for miles, let alone those of you who hunt near the fences. We not only have to know where we are when we fire the shot, but where the animal is when it's hit and/or where it may go before it drops.

Most of us are going to have to change our hunting habits/techniques, but these changes will take their toll on our numbers. It's just another 'insignificant' change that will be the infamous last straw for some.

Edited. BTW, it was amended by the House to include wildlife "related" activities "and other outdoor recreational activities", so that includes pretty much ANYONE on the property for ANY reason since they are 'outdoors' when they are on the property.


----------



## bwhntr

Sounds reasonable.


----------



## flinger

elkfromabove said:


> FWIW, the DWR DID NOT propose this bill! In fact, Teresa, the Southern Region Wildlife Supervisor wasn't even aware of it when I told her last night at the open house and she asked me for more info which I gave her today. She was astonished!


Can you explain this?

"Spoke for the bill: Mr. Mike Fowlks, Utah Department of Wildlife Resources" (who is the CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER!)
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/minutes/HNAE0130.pdf

Mr. Kaparowits, DIRECTOR of the DWR spoke about what was going on at the legislature last December:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... _part1.mp3
Look time around 1 hour 30 min. (little past halfway)

Maybe Teresa didn't get the memo???



elkfromabove said:


> And, I say again, good luck to you houndsmen who chase cougars and bears for miles, let alone those of you who hunt near the fences. We not only have to know where we are when we fire the shot, but where the animal is when it's hit and/or where it may go before it drops.
> 
> Most of us are going to have to change our hunting habits/techniques...


Really? Only now you are concerned about where you are, where the animal is and where it goes? Wow. Even if you hit the boundary line .5 to 1 mile away from the signs doesn't mean the property was/is open to public hunting/trespassing! Remember those out of the way property corners and access roads may have already been posted deeming the parcel properly posted, but you didn't bother to check them or ask the landowner first? Like many have expressed, KNOW WHERE YOU ARE before you go out. I don't know how one could control hounds on the trail, but it's always been a valid concern, nothing new.



elkfromabove said:


> Edited. BTW, it was amended by the House to include wildlife "related" activities "and other outdoor recreational activities", so that includes pretty much ANYONE on the property for ANY reason since they are 'outdoors' when they are on the property.


Now it's got some teeth. Glad to see they are closing some loop holes.


----------



## Gainsayer

I am new to the site and have enjoyed the information. This topic caused me to sign up. Very interesting. 

I respect private property when I am aware that a landowner does not want me on it or my presence would damage his property. However, the amendments to the bill which I have read are not reasonable and entirely vague. 

The bill makes it a crime to enter property that "(ii) the land is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders." 

What does that mean? "intended to exclude intruders?" Three strand barb wire or a 10 foot electrical fence? 

Most of the National Forest and BLM land have fences all over them. A prime example is the Strawberry Valley. The vast majority of it is public land with fences everywhere. Private land adjoins public land along the edges including in very remote areas. Under the amendment, every time you come to a fence-good luck no matter how deep in the wilderness you are. Landowners have every right to close off their land and unfortunately too many do so. But in excercising that right, they need to advise potential users of their ownership and the desire to keep the public out. I wish it was easy to tell where private land was and wasn't, but it is not. I gave up hunting in the Northern area due to the inability to tell.

Please let your Senator know your feelings.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> I wish it was easy to tell where private land was and wasn't, but it is not. I gave up hunting in the Northern area due to the inability to tell.


I hunt the Northern end of the state and I honestly have no frickin' idea if land is private or public unless the fence posts are painted or signs are marking the private land. There are simply fences everywhere due to all the ranching. Public land is ranched and fenced all over this state.


----------



## Mrad

Good. Hopefully it helps out with trespassing. It should be the hunters responsibility to know where they're at. 

Try half the tresspasing crap that goes on in Utah in any other western state and you'd find yourself meeting with the local judge pronto.

Glad Utah is protecting the rights of its citizens.


----------



## elkfromabove

(Let's try it again, shall we? Someone removed my first 2 tries.)



flinger said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, the DWR DID NOT propose this bill! In fact, Teresa, the Southern Region Wildlife Supervisor wasn't even aware of it when I told her last night at the open house and she asked me for more info which I gave her today. She was astonished!
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this?
> 
> "Spoke for the bill: Mr. Mike Fowlks, Utah Department of Wildlife Resources" (who is the CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER!)
> http://le.utah.gov/~2012/minutes/HNAE0130.pdf
> 
> Mr. Kaparowits, DIRECTOR of the DWR spoke about what was going on at the legislature last December:
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... _part1.mp3
> Look time around 1 hour 30 min. (little past halfway)
> 
> Maybe Teresa didn't get the memo???
> 
> I guess not, but she wasn't the only one. None of the other DWR folks I talked to at the St George Open House knew about it. Nor did the 3 DWR employees at the Moab meeting I attended Monday night.
> 
> 
> 
> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I say again, good luck to you houndsmen who chase cougars and bears for miles, let alone those of you who hunt near the fences. We not only have to know where we are when we fire the shot, but where the animal is when it's hit and/or where it may go before it drops.
> 
> Most of us are going to have to change our hunting habits/techniques...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Only now you are concerned about where you are, where the animal is and where it goes? Wow. No! I'm always concerned where I am, where the animal is, and where it may go, but unposted fences allowed much more flexibility. Even if you hit the boundary line .5 to 1 mile away from the signs doesn't mean the property was/is open to public hunting/trespassing! Remember those out of the way property corners and access roads may have already been posted deeming the parcel properly posted, but you didn't bother to check them or ask the landowner first? I always check the fence if there is private land behind it. I go to the corner or gate to see if it is posted. Like many have expressed, KNOW WHERE YOU ARE before you go out.Believe me or not, but I do my homework before I go out! More so than 95% of the rest of Utah hunters. I have more ownership and topo maps than you can imagine. That's one of the reasons this bill is so troublesome to me and should be to you. For instance, my 1995 DeLorme Atlas shows about three times as much public land in Box Elder County as does my 2005. And my 2009 Interagency Ownership map shows even less. BLM, National Forest and State Trust lands are being sold like hotcakes. And since cattlemen and sheepmen are allowed to fence their public land grazing allotments, the ownership may change, but the fences don't. Add to that, the CWMU boundaries are constantly changing as well even if they contain accessible public land. I don't know how one could control hounds on the trail, but it's always been a valid concern, nothing new. What's new is that now you have to have prior written permission from every landowner who's land your dogs cross and since you never know where you'll encounter a cat track on that remote mountain road, that could amount to dozens of landowners. Prior to this bill, you needed written permission for only the cultivated land and posted land. Now you need it from everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edited. BTW, it was amended by the House to include wildlife "related" activities "and other outdoor recreational activities", so that includes pretty much ANYONE on the property for ANY reason since they are 'outdoors' when they are on the property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it's got some teeth. Glad to see they are closing some loop holes.
Click to expand...

FWIW, The second offense could get you a 5 year hunting ban in Utah and about 32 other states. Is that toothy enough for you?


----------



## flinger

The teeth I was referring to are the ones that will make it harder for trespassers to get off on technicalities. One thing that should be considered by the state is to get some of the counties funds in order to provide online land records and parcel maps. Right now many do not.


----------



## proutdoors

When in doubt, stay out!


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> When in doubt, stay out!


Therein lies the heart of the issue! With orange paint and signs, there is no doubt!


----------



## proutdoors

If only that worked, but alas it doesn't.


----------



## elkfromabove

proutdoors said:


> If only that worked, but alas it doesn't.


Unfortunately, that's the case with SOME people. But this law wouldn't change that and would likely only make it worse (or better, depending on which end of the fine you are on.  ).

Edited: On my way home from running some errands a while ago I passed the church recreation area where some kids were playing baseball/softball. Private property with a fence around it and intruders engaged in outdoor recreation activity, right? Wahoo! Call the local CO!!!


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> Good. Hopefully it helps out with trespassing. It should be the hunters responsibility to know where they're at.
> 
> Try half the tresspasing crap that goes on in Utah in any other western state and you'd find yourself meeting with the local judge pronto.
> 
> Glad Utah is protecting the rights of its citizens.


So your logic is that by making it more difficult to know whether or not one is trespassing, the crime of trespassing will decrease? Seriously, does anyone find this logical?

I would never in a million years trespass on properly posted ground. Public land is fenced all over this state. A fence cannot therefore be considered the marker of propertly that is off limits the public. Unless the fence is marked, we don't know.


----------



## elkfromabove

So, you cross a fence that you know is on public property, but the CO doesn't know that since he/she can't possibly know the status of all of the fences that exist in Utah's massively ownership scrambled 82,168 square miles (52,587,520 acres) of land mass. Now what happens? Are you required or expected to have the plat map showing it's public, or are you automatically assumed to be trespassing (quilty) and will have to go to court to prove otherwise (innocent), or are you allowed to stay, or are you asked to leave until you can prove otherwise, or do you negotiate?

Or will the DWR now have to provide to all CO's a means of determining the status of every fence per a GPS system hooked up to the county recorder's office? In any case, enforcing this law will be a nightmare!


----------



## Critter

Most CO's will know the land owners and know fairly close their property boundaries. But it will usually come down to a landowner filing a complaint on a hunter. 

I know that here in Colorado I had a situation where a outfitter demanded for me to leave a piece of property, and since I was on a BLM road that went through the property I told him that I was staying on the road and walking out. Come to find out later talking to the local CO that piece of property had been sold back to the BLM a few months before. So I got to file a complaint against the outfitter for hunter harassment.


----------



## elkfromabove

Critter said:


> Most CO's will know the land owners and know fairly close their property boundaries. But it will usually come down to a landowner filing a complaint on a hunter.
> 
> I know that here in Colorado I had a situation where a outfitter demanded for me to leave a piece of property, and since I was on a BLM road that went through the property I told him that I was staying on the road and walking out. Come to find out later talking to the local CO that piece of property had been sold back to the BLM a few months before. So I got to file a complaint against the outfitter for hunter harassment.


So, otherwise, how did the actual hunt go? :O•-:


----------



## Critter

elkfromabove said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most CO's will know the land owners and know fairly close their property boundaries. But it will usually come down to a landowner filing a complaint on a hunter.
> 
> I know that here in Colorado I had a situation where a outfitter demanded for me to leave a piece of property, and since I was on a BLM road that went through the property I told him that I was staying on the road and walking out. Come to find out later talking to the local CO that piece of property had been sold back to the BLM a few months before. So I got to file a complaint against the outfitter for hunter harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> So, otherwise, how did the actual hunt go? :O•-:
Click to expand...

I shot a elk a couple of days later and the outfitters licenses was suppended for 2 years. I wasn't the only one that he had caused problems with.


----------



## elkfromabove

Critter said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most CO's will know the land owners and know fairly close their property boundaries. But it will usually come down to a landowner filing a complaint on a hunter.
> 
> I know that here in Colorado I had a situation where a outfitter demanded for me to leave a piece of property, and since I was on a BLM road that went through the property I told him that I was staying on the road and walking out. Come to find out later talking to the local CO that piece of property had been sold back to the BLM a few months before. So I got to file a complaint against the outfitter for hunter harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> So, otherwise, how did the actual hunt go? :O•-:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a elk a couple of days later and the outfitters licenses was suppended for 2 years. I wasn't the only one that he had caused problems with.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it worked out for you and that the outfitter got what he deserved, but I suspect that your case would prove to be unusual. Most hunters wouldn't have followed up, but would have just gone elsewhere and the issue would have been dropped.

Did the CO already know the land had reverted back to the BLM or did he have to look it up? I admire the knowledge they have, but to keep track, on even a monthly basis, of all the real estate transactions in such a large area as they are expected to patrol is asking a lot.

As far as it coming down to a landowner filing a complaint on a hunter, they can do that now and get restitution per the current criminal trespass code. This bill bypasses any involvement with the landowner other than the fencing and the landowner doesn't even have to know it's happening.

Which brings me to the following questions. Who initiated this bill, for what purpose and how is the revenue from the fines dispersed? Was it DWR? Some landowner/s? Some hunting organization? Some politician? Lawyers?

And is it to absolve the landowner from having to post his land? To try to reduce trespassing? Reduce poaching? Generate an untapped source of income/revenue? Reduce the number of unethical outdoorsmen? Reduce the number of outdoorsmen in general?

Who gets the money? DWR? Landowner? State of Utah? Lawyers? Whistleblower?

Perhaps a GRAMA request is in order. I'll let you know how that turns out!

All this bill would do is muddy the waters that are now quite clear.


----------



## bwhntr

Lol...SOMEBODY is complicating a very simple issue.


----------



## elkfromabove

bwhntr said:


> Lol...SOMEBODY is complicating a very simple issue.


Which is simpler, having one landowner, who may or may not want hunters, indicate his intent by posting (or not) his land, which he knows, with a couple of spray cans or requiring dozens of others, including the CO's, to know who he is, his land and his intent?


----------



## bwhntr

Reading a simple map or gps and KNOWING where you are at all times of your hunt. If you desire to trespass get permission BEFORE the hunt. That seems pretty dang simple.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> That seems pretty dang simple.


It's not.

Land changes hands too often and there are too many fences on public land to be able to accurately keep track of it all. Frankly, I cross at least two private fences (unposted) to get to BLM land where I regularly hunt.


----------



## elkfromabove

bwhntr said:


> Reading a simple map or gps and KNOWING where you are at all times of your hunt. If you desire to trespass get permission BEFORE the hunt. That seems pretty dang simple.


I agree that it_ seems_ pretty dang simple, but it's been my experience and my observation of others' experiences that dealing with legal matters is never simple no matter which side you are on, especially with government agencies or entities (IRS, California Franchise Tax Board, Utah Unclaimed Property Division, Utah State Tax Commission, Judge Quinn of the 3rd District Court, DMV, etc.)

This bill/law would be hunky-dorey until you are cited, falsely or otherwise. Then let's see how simple it is!

First off, there is no such thing as a 'simple' map. Most of them are outdated even before they are printed. And they aren't accurate enough to be considered legal documents, so you can't use them in court, not even the county plat maps! And maps don't show fences or private owners.

Second, there may be some simple GPS's, but they are no more accurate or legal than maps.

Third, knowing where you are at all times during your hunt doesn't necessarily mean you aren't trespassing (see above). And it implies you know exactly where you are going to hunt at any specific time. It's risky to do much exploring during the hunt.

Fourth, getting permission before you hunt requires you to do more paperwork and legwork than you would otherwise. And it, again, implies you know exactly where you are going to hunt and leaves you fewer options.

With all of this said, I believe most of us could adjust to the change. But I see no logical benefits to either the landowners nor the hunters. And it will just be another nail in the coffin of the laying to rest of the outdoor lifestyle. Another hoop to jump through.


----------



## bwhntr

It is obvious some if you have your mind made up that this is the beginning of the end. I guess you hunt in some very technical, hard to understand public/private lands border situations. Good luck as it seems you have the law working against you. Luckily i'm on the other side of the fence. Again, good luck.


----------



## elkfromabove

bwhntr said:


> It is obvious some if you have your mind made up that this is the beginning of the end. I guess you hunt in some very technical, hard to understand public/private lands border situations. Good luck as it seems you have the law working against you. Luckily i'm on the other side of the fence. Again, good luck.


  Perhaps I, for one, have taken it too far to the negative for some of you and I apologize for that, but as I look around in my own neighborhood and family, I see individuals and families dropping out of the outdoor lifestyle on a regular basis, and some of their reasons seem somewhat trivial (road closures, can't draw a tag often enough, slot limits on fish, don't want to buy a license if I don't get a tag, too many ATV'ers just riding around, can't get a tag to hunt my own property, can't hunt on both sides of the road anymore, too many elk). And most of the neighbors were long-time outdoorsmen so I'm not just talking about kids who play video games instead. For the first time in 12 years, our ward isn't sponsoring an adult male neighborhood fishing trip to the Colorado River (Lee's Ferry) because there isn't enough interest to make it practical.

Of course the biggest reason for the drop off is there aren't any deer on the mountain anymore. That's something we can do something about.

This bill isn't such a big thing by itself, but it does add to the complexity and will be the reason I hear a year or so from now after I talk to someone who was cited because they didn't know about it. It doesn't enhance the hunting experience and it certainly won't do anything to grow the herds or increase the number of hunters. And it won't stop illegal trespassing or poaching. In other words, it serves no purpose, unless the purpose is to generate revenue.

I know many of you have indicated that when you see no trespassing signs or the land is posted that just means you need permission to hunt, but when I see them it just tells me I don't need to bother asking 'cause the posting and signs give me the answer. I know if I were to post private property I would be upset if I were questioned on my decision. On the other hand, I would feel comfortable asking Pro because he says his signs are "Hunting by permission only" signs, but if they were "No Trespassing" signs, I'd take him at his word and he wouldn't hear from me or see me on his land. This bill/law would cloud that issue. It's a useless law.

Edited; In any case, I've spoken my piece on this forum and will direct my future remarks to the Utah Senators, but I'll continue reading. Thanks to all of you for participating and giving us your viewpoint. And please continue if you've got something more to say. I'm sure we haven't yet heard all the ideas!


----------



## proutdoors

As a landowner, and as a hunter, I do NOT like this bill. The more I learn about it, the less I like it. bwhntr, your comments got me thinking, there is some land to the southeast of mine that is 20,000 acres, with 10,000 of it being private, and 10,000 being BLM/State. Problem is, there is only a fence around the perimeter, and the private/public land is divided into a checkerboard. I highly doubt even the land owner would know if he was standing on his land or government land. I know there are many areas like that throughout the state. 

Another reason I don't like it.......the conservation officers and the local law enforcement officers can't keep track of trespassing issues now, so why add more to their plate? I am all for simplicity, I know....an oxymoron when government is involved.....but this bill looks like adding to the mess instead of fixing or alleviating any of the real/perceived problems with trespassers.


----------



## proutdoors

elkfromabove said:


> This bill isn't such a big thing by itself, but it does add to the complexity and will be the reason I hear a year or so from now after I talk to someone who was cited because they didn't know about it. It doesn't enhance the hunting experience and it certainly won't do anything to grow the herds or increase the number of hunters. And it won't stop illegal trespassing or poaching. *In other words, it serves no purpose, unless the purpose is to generate revenue.*


I concur.



elkfromabove said:


> I know many of you have indicated that when you see no trespassing signs or the land is posted that just means you need permission to hunt, but when I see them it just tells me I don't need to bother asking 'cause the posting and signs give me the answer. I know if I were to post private property I would be upset if I were questioned on my decision. On the other hand, I would feel comfortable asking Pro because he says his signs are "Hunting by permission only" signs, but if they were "No Trespassing" signs, I'd take him at his word and he wouldn't hear from me or see me on his land. This bill/law would cloud that issue. It's a useless law.


To be clear, most of my signs say; "Hunting By Permission Only", but I do have several that say; "No Trespassing". I don't see much difference, or at least I didn't until reading this. Now I have to go replace all the "No Trespassing" signs.......as I do NOT mind people hunting on my land, as long as they ask and receive permission FIRST.


----------



## bwhntr

Elkfromabove, We might not see eye to eye, but nonetheless I do appreciate your comments.

Pro, the truth of the matter is I really don't care one way or the other. I do believe people have a responsibility to know where they are at all times. No different than hunting next to a LE area. Know where it starts and ends. If this passes it will not affect me anymore than if it doesn't pass. I just thought the arguments against it seemed a little irresponsible.


----------



## bullsnot

proutdoors said:


> If only that worked, but alas it doesn't.


Like gun laws, trespassing laws are only effective with law biding citizens. Laws aren't important to criminals. Any change in trespassing laws will only impact those that try to stay on the right side of it.

It's like making it illegal to bring guns into a school and posting a big sign in blinking lights and painted tye dye that says guns are prohibited in schools....if someone is determined to shoot the place up they generally ignore the sign no matter how big it is and how many laws there are on the books.


----------



## Huge29

The more I hear of what these legislators are pushing for reminds me of the road to hell... They seem to get a good intention and pervert it into some totally misguided concept that tries to fix a problem that didn't ever exist. From the start I stated that this is completely useless. Simply based on the fact that all a landowner has to do now is just post each corner, waterway and roadway, pretty simple. The more I thought about this I thought of an area that I have hunted before that is owned by deceased grandfather's deceased best friend's widow who has no interest in doing anything with it. The area around it is all posted well and the other side is DWR. In other words, it is one of those little spots that most people would pass up w/o a second blink assuming it is all private and the landowner wants them out when realistically she really doesn't care one way or the other as the land is very steep and completely useless for anything other than hunting and moderate grazing. So, now to hunt this area the landowner is now inconvenienced by someone wanting permission, not that I am opposed, but again this is trying to fix a problem that didn't exist. Just an absolute waste of resources in even debating it, yet alone enforcing it.


----------



## bullsnot

Huge29 said:


> The more I hear of what these legislators are pushing for reminds me of the road to hell... They seem to get a good intention and pervert it into some totally misguided concept that tries to fix a problem that didn't ever exist.


It does seem like a solution in search of a problem. The way I'm reading this bill though it doesn't appear as if they are taking it as far as some have stated.

For updates and more information on this bill go here:

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillamd/hb0086.pdf
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0086.htm


----------



## flinger

Purpose? Who's behind it? maybe....

"Unfortunately, just posting your land may not be enough to prevent trespass. Repeat trespassers have become very sophisticated at this activity. The trespass (getting away with it) for some may become as exciting as the hunt itself. Trespass signs have a way of disappearing and repeat trespassers seem to have a knack for finding those odd corners to access properties."

Found at:
http://www.cwmuutahwildlife.org/trespass.htm

It's a lot harder for someone to tear down a fence than a small corner sign. Again, to me this fence law doesn't seem to be anything new, it's always been there, but the penalty and enforcement is changing.

Also, I would think that if the DWR thought they couldn't handle it they wouldn't have spoke FOR the bill. Maybe the rotten landowners were twisting their arms...who knows.


----------



## GaryFish

A land owner can post their land open for public hunting as well, and then not be bothered with lots of requests. Just saying that is an option if a land owner so chooses.


----------



## elkfromabove

Well, we lost round three! First the House Committee, then the House Floor, now the Senate Committee. Two more to go! Senate and Governor. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. Yeh, I know I'm crazy, but I, for one, will see this to the bitter end so that I can have my "I told you so" moment, if nothing else! There's a lot of Big Knife whittling going on with the majority of Utah outdoorsmen as the shavings.

Edited: Meanwhile, I better enter the draw, finish getting the house ready for appraisal, replace my good ol' camo Chevy Blazer, do my taxes, attend to my church duties, tend to some pressing family issues, tend to some UWC business, watch Criminal Minds on TV, and keep up with you guys on this forum, not necessarily in that order.


----------



## Huge29

Thanks for posting the links BS! I see that Senator Hinkins from Emery County sponsored the bill, so I just friended him on FB and sent him a message as to where I find the info on why he is pushing for this. Being from Price, where Hinkins represents, I also made a post on the Rep's wall from Price, Watkins. We will see what they say.


----------



## elkfromabove

We lost round 4! Not one single NEA vote! It seems only a few of us see this bill/law as a potential revenue generating form of entrapment.

Think about your past hunts and how many of those would have been in violation of this law if it had been in place. EVERY fence around private property is now considered 'posted' regardless of (or in spite of) it's purpose and the landowner's intentions. And even if there is no fence at the point of entry, you may be trespassing if the property has some fence somewhere on it's border. And a homeowner can still post the property without any fence at all by painting a post or rock on the corners, roads, stream accesses, etc. Yes, I guess landowners can "unpost" their property by printing signs that say "hunting by permission only" or "hunters welcome", but how many, besides Pro, are going to do that? 

I know most of my antelope hunts would have been in violation because those darn things are everywhere and nowhere. They can show up in the most unexpected places and can cross two or three miles of dirt in just minutes. And most of the waterholes are on or near enough to private property to make it troublesome if they don't go down right away. And you houndsmen are really in for a merry-go-round ride. It'll get some of the rest of you as well.

Well, I can live with it even though I think it's foolish, but I'll also guarantee that this law will be violated by myriads of unsuspecting hunters, many of whom will quit if they get cited, and that's too bad. It doesn't/didn't have to happen.


----------



## Huge29

I messaged HInkins on FB as to what his stance was and reasoning and his only reply was because he respected land ownership. Pretty deep thought, what an idiot! Not that I expected a personal response, but I was just asking for what it was and if there was a blog or site summarizing, no response since. 
That the knuckleheads even waste time on such a totally useless and unnecessary piece of legislation. Hopefully they realize that we really don't need more laws especially those that address problems that don't exist.


----------



## bwhntr

I STILL can't wrap my head around why this is such a bad thing? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the problem.


----------



## elkfromabove

bwhntr said:


> I STILL can't wrap my head around why this is such a bad thing? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the problem.


Maybe this condensed version will help!

#1- This bill WILL NOT stop or even slow down intentional trespassing which is what it is supposed to do. Jerks are going to be jerks no matter what the law says. That's why they are jerks!

#2- It assumes that the purpose of ALL fences is to keep out human intruders instead of or IN SPITE of the landowner's real reason for erecting a fence.

#3- Since we are now required to have a written permission slip from EVERY landowner on whose property we hunt or walk, we are required to do much more research at the county recorder's office (during the week) and are required to visit with all of the landowners to get the proper permission slips. And this assumes we know exactly where and when we are going to hunt at any one time.

#4- It requires us and the CO's to know where ALL the private property is in our hunting areas and who owns it at the time we are hunting.

#5- Since cattlemen and sheepmen are allowed to fence their grazing allotment on public property, it requires us to carry (and know how to use) a GPS and an up to date ownership map to determine whether or not the fences we encounter are on private or public property.

#6- It allows (and requires) CO's to give trespassing citations for none wildlife related activities ANYWHERE the violation takes place.

#7- It requires the DWR to notify ALL of the public about this law, not just outdoorsmen and women.

#8- It requires legal changes in the current wildlife code and in the DWR's publications.

#9- It supersedes long established practices with no substantial positive benefits to anyone involved.

Now, I realize it doesn't seem like a big deal to many of us and some of my responses aren't an issue and we'll just go with the flow, but it will be an issue to some, especially those who are actually cited because they didn't know about it or understand it. And it will be an issue to those of you who hunt on the spur of the moment per the weather, availability of hunting companions, newly discovered trophy animals, etc. And it will impact houndsmen who have to follow dogs who are following game who don't know the law. And, unfortunately, it may be the infamous final straw for some. All for nothing! It serves no purpose!


----------



## bwhntr

Hmmm...ok, since you already know my thoughts let me leave you with this...This will probably end up like the "river access" laws and keep going back and forth. If you don't like the new law, wait a year or two and it will be changed back. :lol:


----------



## flinger

elkfromabove said:


> Well, I can live with it...


Amazing! The new "to be" law already seems to be producing *"respect"* for private property rights! It's too bad it has to be forced so harshly.

Look, stand in a landowners shoes for a moment, for instance *how would you feel* if some trespasser knowingly comes onto your land without permission, shoots a 30" buck on your mountain land that was fenced and properly posted(so you thought), not to mention the buck had been eating your alfalfa down in your fields all summer/fall, and then proceeds to get off with just a slap on the wrist because someone/or the trespasser did something that let him/her get off by a technicality? As you know land isn't cheap, they have usually bought it at a major cost of forgoing some other investment or ability to consume something else. What if a landowner has the land primarily just to hunt on and this kind crap happens? Yes, some landowners don't care if their land is hunted by the public, but why allow other landowners who do care to be violated just so a hunter doesn't have to spend some of his/her time getting proper permission? Private property and its associated rights are some of main differences between capitalism and communism. If there is no incentive to have or obtain private property then that can cause big problems for an economy, let alone the incentive to make your property attractive or beneficial for wildlife.

I can understand the hunter unknowingly trespassing being a concern, but I can "guarantee" it was happening with the current law as well. It's a lot easier now days to *know where you at* so the ignorance excuse is not going to work as well anymore.

Hey, here's an idea for a business, set up an intermediary business where you help hunters get the necessary permission from landowners. Oh, maybe your anti-business too....

Also, just a point of clarification, even if a trespassers or hunters welcome sign is posted on a fence/corner/gate, etc., proper permission still needs to be obtained.


----------



## Huge29

Flinger-$3 solution to your $1,000,000 dilemma = can of orange paint.


----------



## elkfromabove

Huge29 said:


> Flinger-$3 solution to your $1,000,000 dilemma can of orange paint.


Thanks! I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## flinger

elkfromabove said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flinger-$3 solution to your $1,000,000 dilemma can of orange paint.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I couldn't have said it better.
Click to expand...

3-3=0

Sorry try again.


----------



## bwhntr

flinger said:


> 3-3=0
> 
> Sorry try again.


I couldn't have said THAT better!


----------



## Critter

It is interesting with all the complaining that is going on if this law passes. I will agree that I like the law the way that it is. If a property owner doesn't want you on their land then they post it and that is it. But this new law really isn't going to change things that much from what I see. Also knowing just where you are at weather it is private or public property has been the law for years here in Colorado and I haven't noticed it causing any real problems in the years that I have been here. Here in Colorado the property owner doesn't have to post it and he doesn't have to fence it, it is just up to the hunter of fisherman to know where he is walking. 

Times change and the hunter is going to have to change with them. I remember walking up 900 East in Provo with a .22 rifle over my shoulder headed to Rock Canyon to do some shooting, try that now and see what happens. I also did a lot of hunting where there are homes sitting right now and that includes hunting coyotes and jack rabbits over where Eagle Mountain now sits. It was never fenced but I knew a lot of the property owners by seeing them out on their tractors and talking to them to see if it was OK for me to hunt there.


----------



## elkfromabove

flinger said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flinger-$3 solution to your $1,000,000 dilemma can of orange paint.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I couldn't have said it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3-3=0
> 
> Sorry try again.
Click to expand...

Nah, 'Tain't worth the effort! I've given it my best shot and, apparently, it's not enough for many of you. Besides, it's pretty much cut and dried already and if I can live with it by making a few minor adjustments, so can most everyone else. We'll just let the few stragglers who don't keep up drop off to the side.


----------



## Huge29

This certainly isn't a major piece of legislation; even in the case of the one piece of land that I have hunted it is not fenced. So, it is not going to make any difference to me. I was involved in a situation where we had exclusive permission to hunt an area and had a whale of a time keeping the trespassers out. In this case they were outright criminals having been cited for three consecutive years for violations such as no orange on at all between 6 of them, party hunting (even after filling tags), trespassing, possessing a weapon by a restricted person, possession of a tag by a restricted person... Would one more law stop these guys? Clearly not! 
Personal rights, especially that of land, is extremely important, but this one really does nothing to protect it, but simply prosecute those on land of some landowners who simply don't care about people on there or not.


----------



## flinger

Looks like the governor signed it. http://le.utah.gov/~2012/status/hbillsta/hb0086.htm

Did you guys catch the nice discussion in this last Wildlife Board meeting about it? Pretty informative statements by Director Kaparowitz and Marty. Next step to be just like Wyoming and Colorado if sportsmen don't shape up.


----------



## elkfromabove

flinger said:


> Looks like the governor signed it. http://le.utah.gov/~2012/status/hbillsta/hb0086.htm
> 
> Did you guys catch the nice discussion in this last Wildlife Board meeting about it? Pretty informative statements by Director Kaparowitz and Marty. Next step to be just like Wyoming and Colorado if sportsmen don't shape up.


Yep! I caught it! The few jerks who this bill is aimed at will continue to be jerks and will continue to punish the majority who are the law-abiding sportsmen!


----------



## Huge29

elkfromabove said:


> Yep! I caught it! The few jerks who this bill is aimed at will continue to be jerks and will continue to punish the majority who are the law-abiding sportsmen!


ONe of my biggest pet peeves is punishing the whole state due to the behavior of a hand full letting the few bad apples spoil the whole bushel. Of course, with so few CO's out there to be able to enforce trespassing laws they need such details to make it enforceable, but it is a problem that I didn't know existed. I messaged Hinkins as to why, he is a rancher in Emery County and his answer was about 5 words long. I was truly interested in understanding his position as property rights are #1 for me, but I don't see where I can get his thoughts on the matter and I don't believe he owes me a personal explanation, I thought Facebook would be a good forum to do so, but he doesn't list much there.


----------



## massmanute

It looks to me like Senator Hinkins has a vendetta against hunters and/or hunting. The justification for the bill being discussed in this thread is supposedly to protect the interests of land owners, yet in the very same legislative session Senator Hinkins was the Senate sponsor of HB 505. That bill ('505) makes it against the law to run a hog hunting operation on private land.

So in one case he favors a bill that is ostensibly in favor of the rights of property owners, and in the other case he favors a bill that is detrimental to the rights of property owners. The one feature common to both bills is that both bills are detrimental to the interests of hunters.


----------



## Moostickles

massmanute said:


> It looks to me like Senator Hinkins has a vendetta against hunters and/or hunting. The justification for the bill being discussed in this thread is supposedly to protect the interests of land owners, yet in the very same legislative session Senator Hinkins was the Senate sponsor of HB 505. That bill ('505) makes it against the law to run a hog hunting operation on private land.
> 
> So in one case he favors a bill that is ostensibly in favor of the rights of property owners, and in the other case he favors a bill that is detrimental to the rights of property owners. The one feature common to both bills is that both bills are detrimental to the interests of hunters.


I see your point but your logic is flawed. Feral hogs cause millions of dollars of damage to private property every year in other states. In my opinion, it's not that they just want to restrict landowner rights by doing away with hog hunting operations, its that feral hogs cause an enormous threat to both public and private properties. That being said, the bill (505) is in the favor of landowners as a whole, just not for those few that manage hog hunting.

I'm not saying I am for or against the bill for the private hog hunting thing because there are many other ways to go about it (again, in my opinion). But I believe to say they are linked to an anti-hunting agenda is incorrect.


----------



## massmanute

UtahHuntingDirect said:


> massmanute said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to me like Senator Hinkins has a vendetta against hunters and/or hunting. The justification for the bill being discussed in this thread is supposedly to protect the interests of land owners, yet in the very same legislative session Senator Hinkins was the Senate sponsor of HB 505. That bill ('505) makes it against the law to run a hog hunting operation on private land.
> 
> So in one case he favors a bill that is ostensibly in favor of the rights of property owners, and in the other case he favors a bill that is detrimental to the rights of property owners. The one feature common to both bills is that both bills are detrimental to the interests of hunters.
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point but your logic is flawed. Feral hogs cause millions of dollars of damage to private property every year in other states. In my opinion, it's not that they just want to restrict landowner rights by doing away with hog hunting operations, its that feral hogs cause an enormous threat to both public and private properties. That being said, the bill (505) is in the favor of landowners as a whole, just not for those few that manage hog hunting.
> 
> I'm not saying I am for or against the bill for the private hog hunting thing because there are many other ways to go about it (again, in my opinion). But I believe to say they are linked to an anti-hunting agenda is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to say that we disagree on the question of the anti-hunting agenda, especially given the fact that there are ways to manage hog hunting operations in ways that would mitigate the risk of establishment of feral hog populations, starting with a requirement that the hogs on hunting operations be castrated.

In addition, if you talk to operators of Utah hog hunting operations I think you will find that the bill has blindsided them. They had no idea that such a bill was even being considered until after it was passed and they received their notices. That certainly has the appearance to me of an agenda-based legislative action.


----------



## GaryFish

It is my opinion that domesticated pig shooting operations should not be connected to hunting in any form. They are no more hunting than confined deer and elk shooting operations. Or the "pay by the pound" private ponds are fishing.


----------



## massmanute

GaryFish said:


> It is my opinion that domesticated pig shooting operations should not be connected to hunting in any form. They are no more hunting than confined deer and elk shooting operations. Or the "pay by the pound" private ponds are fishing.


OK, so call these operations by some other name if you want, but the point is there are ways to run these operations with low risk to the environment or public property or private property, and banning hog hunting operations is to take an extreme measure to solve a problem for which (in Utah at least) there is no demonstrated evidence that a significant risk even exists.

Granted, there is a huge problem with feral hogs in some states. However, none of the states with feral hog problems have habitat and other conditions that greatly resembles those of Utah. The closest areas that have any feral hogs and that somewhat resemble Utah conditions that I am aware of are Idaho and Northwest Arizona, and as far as I am aware, neither place is overrun with feral hogs.

This is not to say that there is no risk of the establishment of feral hog populations in Utah, but by appropriate management and regulations it should be possible to mitigate any such risk.


----------



## GaryFish

There is already an established feral hog population in the Virgin River corridor near St. George.

And my point in calling them confined shooting operations, is that I think one could be opposed to a hog shooting operation, but not be anti-hunting.


----------



## massmanute

GaryFish said:


> There is already an established feral hog population in the Virgin River corridor near St. George.
> 
> And my point in calling them confined shooting operations, is that I think one could be opposed to a hog shooting operation, but not be anti-hunting.


There have been relatively few credible sightings of feral hogs above the Utah-Arizona border. I actually have a recent copy of "The Arizona Strip Pocket Pig Pamphlet" mailed to me by the BLM office in St. George. That document discusses feral hogs in that region. Included is a map of the range of feral pigs. The range indicated on the map does not extend as far north as the Utah border.

There is no doubt that feral swine are established in that region, and they seem to be doing at least some damage to the habitat in that region. On the other hand, there seems to be little evidence that the number of these animals is very great. If it were then you would likely find all kinds of stories about the great hog hunting to be found in the Arizona strip. However, I have done extensive web searches on this topic, and I think if you will do the same you will find that you, like me, will be hard pressed to find many hunters who have actually successfully hunted wild hogs in the region. More typically, hog hunting in that region is discussed, but very seldom discussed in terms of a successful hunt. It is seldom even discussed in terms of successful sightings!


----------



## GaryFish

Fair enough.


----------



## Huge29

massmanute said:


> It looks to me like Senator Hinkins has a vendetta against hunters and/or hunting. The justification for the bill being discussed in this thread is supposedly to protect the interests of land owners, yet in the very same legislative session Senator Hinkins was the Senate sponsor of HB 505. That bill ('505) makes it against the law to run a hog hunting operation on private land.


First of all, we both agree in opposing this legislation. From the little that I know of Hinkins I don't see anything that would insinuate as to him being anti-hunting. He is from Emery County, you would be run out on a rail just to insinuate that one is anti hunting, not to mention being a politician who is anti hunting, half kidding. 
I can see his logic, but I believe that the logic is very shortsighted. I can see where the DWR would also support it in making it easier to enforce trespassing laws particularly when they have difficulty proving more grave crimes. However, my main point remains in that this is a solution looking for a problem that did not exist. This Hinkins guy seems to almost be wanting to build his political resume or something and get some bills passed regardless of the logic. From looking at his FB page I can see that he is a big horse breeder and has horses that race...
I propose that we all flood him with emails to figure out what he is thinking. I send him a message on FB, as mentioned earlier in this thread, to which he gave about a 5 word answer. Not that I expect a personal answer, but where can we find his answer on this?? Here is his email, I will send him one now [email protected]


----------



## massmanute

It turns out that Castle Dale, where one of the hog hunting operations resides, is in the district of Senator Hinkins. Maybe the fact Senator Hinkins is putting one of his constituents out of business might help change his mind.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Maybe that's what caused him to make up his mind in the first place?


----------



## massmanute

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Maybe that's what caused him to make up his mind in the first place?


I don't think so. I have talked to the person who runs the Castle Dale operation, and according to him his legislators did not know that they would be putting one of their own constituents out of business. I don't recall specifically if he was referring to both his senator and representative or just his representative, but I believe he was referring to both individuals.

Additional note added by way of editing: By the way, if it is right that the Senator was not aware of the operation prior to sponsoring and passing the law then at least this fact argues against the vendetta theory.


----------



## Huge29

Well, I sent my email to Sen. Hinkins on Tuesday night, he replied Wednesday morning that I should call him with his cell number listed. So, I finally had a chance to call him today and had a good 20 minute chat. He was the cosponsor and the bill was recommended by the DWR and SFW and Rep Mathis requested Hinkins' cosponsorship. He was a little murky on the fine details on line 61, which is the single line that I dont like. What he was most charged about was line line 53/54 citing multiple instances in which trespassers refused to leave private property when asked by the landowner.
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0086.htm
There were also instances in which DWR couldn't prosecute these people as it was not technically illegal apparently. Anywho, he was a nice guy and took the time to discuss this in a very friendly manner. I would like to follow up with him on the line 61 issue, which I will do here shortly.


----------

