# Non-posted private property in Utah



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I’ve read the laws regarding trespassing in every perspective possible and it feels like a lot is left up for interpretation or gray area. So I figured I’d just ask. If private property in Utah isn’t “properly posted” can I legally access it? I understand if I’m contacted by the owner or manager and asked to leave I need to do so immediately. But until then, according to the laws, I’m ok to be there until otherwise notified, correct?

Ps I’m not looking for your opinion on the ethics part of it. I’m asking straight up about the legality of the scenario. Thanks


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

I would say your right based on my understanding of the laws. We have so much BLM and NFS land in Utah that is covered with fences to manage ranchers cattle which was put up for cattle/grazing alottments. It is still public land and we are free to cross these fences and utilize the land. It is easy to see how people in this state can get very used to crossing fences that are not posted while assuming that the land is still public and just used for cattle. That is why the law is written that it must be clearly posted as private property and no trespassing. If it isn't posted I will personally just assume it is a ranchers fence. That being said I can only think of one piece of private property I have ever seen in Ut that wasn't posted lol. On another note I have never been harassed by a rancher in Utah, but I have had multiple run in's with ignorant ranchers (Bundys) who threatened me for being on their property which was clearly marked as BLM on my maps while I was hunting/exploring on the AZ strip. One even pulled a rifle out of his truck and told me he would shoot my ass if I didn't get my truck off his property. I always carry multiple guns with me now when I go out in that country.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I think you’d be surprised to know how much private ground isn’t posted that people access every year that never know they aren’t on public lands. Look at onX. There are so many little sections owned by lots of private different owners that all neighbor each other, most are in the bottoms of canyons that all have access roads we use every fall and it’s not posted. I’ve been parking my trailer on private land for 20 years and never knew it. No one has ever told me any different, which is why I’m asking. Am I legal to be there until otherwise notified? I assume so

Anyone ever pulls a gun on me in a scenario like you described, they better be ready to use it, because mine will be making an appearance and at that point it’s not just for show


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> Anyone ever pulls a gun on me in a scenario like you described, they better be ready to use it, because mine will be making an appearance and at that point it's not just for show


A good old fashion shootout at high noon. That would be so cool. I'm your huckleberry.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Also, as of a few years ago: Cultivated ground no longer has to be posted to be off limits.




-DallanC


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I believe you are correct. There are also regulations as to how it is posted. You cannot have a fence around 10 thousand acres and only have a sign on each corner. Some of the private land I have seen close to where I hunt has a sign every so often and is also marked with orange or yellow paint on the fence posts.

I think the Bundy situation is a one off. The dispute they had/have with the government was over the ownership of that land. The BLM and the Bundy's both claimed ownership. The BLM land I normally hunt on is used for grazing and I have gotten to know a lot of the folks that graze cattle on that BLM/Forrest land. I can tell you they are very aware that they do not own it.

Having said that; If a gun was pulled out on me like that I would say excuse my trespass I did not know this was private land and I would remove myself quickly. I have no desire to lose my life or take a life over the ground I am standing on if I do not hold the title to it.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Kind of a moot question. 90 percent of the recreating public can't read and are color blind.

But technically you are correct. Just maybe you could use your OnX info to contact the owner and see if he minds you camping there.

The other side of the coin is a lot of land owners are reluctant to "harass" trespassers because they don't want an armed confrontation or property destruction when they are not around. County sherrifs can't be everywhere all the time.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Trespassing laws changed in Utah during the stream access battles. It was the large tract land owning contingent’s middle finger to everyone else. Their message became: Not only will you NOT use public water, but we don’t have to post our land anymore either. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, citizens of Utah!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

"Which notice prohibiting entry is given by:

(a)	personal communication to the person by the owner of the land, an employee of the owner, or a person with apparent authority to act for the owner;

(b)	fencing or other form of enclosure a reasonable person would recognize as intended to exclude intruders; or

(c)	posted signs or markers that would reasonably be expected to be seen by persons in the area of the borders of the land."

Post it, tell you, or fence it. As Dallan mentioned, cultivated land is now different:

(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Cultivated land" means land that is readily identifiable as:
(i) land whose soil is loosened or broken up for the raising of crops;
(ii) land used for the raising of crops; or
(iii) pasturage which is artificially irrigated.

Two links:
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title23/Chapter20/C23-20-S14_1800010118000101.pdf

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S206.3.html?v=C76-6-S206.3_1800010118000101

An argument could be made that you knew by using something like this post as evidence though... lol.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

And the open range laws had nothing to do with it. Nice.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

I know of multiple areas where the state and BLM have chained a bunch of pinion and juniper on BLM and Sitla lands then tilled up the land and reseeded it. Does that mean I have to assume it's private property and stay out of the area?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

ns450f said:


> I know of multiple areas where the state and BLM have chained a bunch of pinion and juniper on BLM and Sitla lands then tilled up the land and reseeded it. Does that mean I have to assume it's private property and stay out of the area?


The State assumes you know if the land is private/public or if trails on public lands are open or closed; the burden of knowing falls on the public. Culitvated public lands may or may not be closed. (Usually they are not closed to walk-in access)

Once you know if the land is private, then the burden falls on the landowner to "communicate" to the public if the land is open to public use. That communication can come by properly posting the lands, by building a fence meant to exclude humans (not just a fence to contain livestock), by irrigating the lands, by cultivating the lands, or by verbally communicating, etc...

If range lands are private, but not properly posted you can use them until otherwise notified. I know many ranchers who do not post their land and allow people to use it. Unfortunately, the masses seem to abuse lands which then cause the owners to shut down public use.

..


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Huh, never thought about the grey area between properly posted and private property that isn't. I've stopped fishing large sections of stream because of the new laws but have never spent the time to see if they are actually posted or not. I just assumed if it was private lands you always needed written or verbal permission.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> Culitvated public lands may or may not be closed. (Usually they are not closed to walk-in access)




Hmmm ...





> 23-20-14 Definitions -- Posted property -- Hunting by permission -- Entry on private landwhile hunting or fishing -- Violations -- Penalty -- Prohibitions inapplicable to officers.





> (1) As used in this section:
> (a) "Cultivated land" means land that is readily identifiable as:
> 
> 
> ...


 


> (2)(a) While taking wildlife or engaging in wildlife related activities, a person may not:





> (i) _*without permission, enter upon privately owned land that is cultivated *_or properly posted;





Statute says "cultivated *or* posted.

-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Hmmm ...
> -DallanC


I was talking about ns450's question about cultivated public lands, which is why I used the term "public lands" in the quote you posted.

..


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Personally, unless it's posted in some manner, or looks like someone is actively farming it for one reason or another, I don't worry about it. 


Usually when something is posted, the land owners leave little in the way of ambiguity. As land owners go, I've heard various stories from inlaws, and some of it i've seen myself. Some actively "patrol" their property lines during hunting seasons (I've seen that), and a few "one offs" may actively harass hunters just outside their property line even though it's public land. Most of the stories in this manner I've only heard about, but I have had a few rounds go zipping by my general direction coming from private property once. If their intent was to make it so I don't hunt in that area anymore, then they were successful.

I've heard of some landowners, even fudging their signage into public lands, artificially inflating the size of their property. Especially if something like a watering hole is right on the border of the property. I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't put it past them. Generally speaking the behavior I've seen/heard from people owning land inside public lands, has made me dislike privately owned land within public land immensely. 



In my opinion, have GPS that shows the real property lines, and obey signage/posted laws. No signs/posts? No farming? No worries. If someone owns an area, and they don't want you there, , they'll let you know in no uncertain terms.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Here we go again. I didn't take the time to read all the posts, I sure it is the same thing over and over again.

Yes you are trespassing by going onto private land, posted or not. The information about properly posting is for the DWR to get involved with the prosecution. The landowner can prosecute for trespass on his own. 

To have much of a case the landowner has to ask you to leave, if you refuse then he can proceed how he feels necessary.

The courts can decide. 

If you don't want me to have a picnic in your back yard don't come on to my land without permission.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Here are 14 pages previously discussed on the subject if you are interested.
https://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/182033-private-property.html


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bowgy said:


> If you don't want me to have a picnic in your back yard don't come on to my land without permission.


This is a bad analogy that isn't even applicable. I had other things typed up but something went whacky. I guess I'll leave it at that.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> This is a bad analogy that isn't even applicable. I had other things typed up but something went whacky. I guess I'll leave it at that.


Ya... well.... I liked it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bowgy said:


> Ya... well.... I liked it.


For the record, you're welcome to come have a picnic in my backyard any time. Please bring that hat I have heard so much about.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I actually tend to believe it's a fair analogy given camping in these regions. If the argument is if "it's not posted then it's legal" then it applies outside hunting as well. I've known plenty of campers to use this logic when dispersed camping near public lands. It happens all the time near National Parks.

Take the number of gated roads on private property that aren't fenced or posted anywhere else. One could argue that it's "legal" to use that land but they clearly want you off the road. But that doesn't seem to be a good faith approach.

I tend to think, given my interactions with lawyers after being "harmed" by clearly defined illegal behavior, that the law about trespass is designed to clarify when a private property owner has a simple, legal claim against a party NOT to make anything else beyond those definitions completely "legal". This is especially true for parties that have prior knowledge of property boundaries like this thread highlights. There is a ton of grey area outside state, federal and municipal legislation that has simply never been adjudicated and turned into precedent. But as I understand it, simply because a behavior isn't defined as explicitly illegal doesn't mean we have a legal right to do so. It takes a lot of judicial review to get there and Utah's trajectory on this very issue is currently uncertain.

To me, with that regard, is do any of us want to be the person that is sued or tried in a way that finally (through appeals upward) expands the definition of trespass and creates such a landmark decision in Utah Supreme Court? The answer is a clear no for me. Others likely differ given such activity might lead to the opposite outcome, ie expanded hunting privileges.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ns450f said:


> I know of multiple areas where the state and BLM have chained a bunch of pinion and juniper on BLM and Sitla lands then tilled up the land and reseeded it. Does that mean I have to assume it's private property and stay out of the area?


I don't think so. "Cultivated" is for raising crops associated with agriculture. Chaining PJs and re-seeding would not fall under that category.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

MooseMeat said:


> I think you'd be surprised to know how much private ground isn't posted that people access every year that never know they aren't on public lands. Look at onX. There are so many little sections owned by lots of private different owners that all neighbor each other, most are in the bottoms of canyons that all have access roads we use every fall and it's not posted. I've been parking my trailer on private land for 20 years and never knew it. No one has ever told me any different, which is why I'm asking. Am I legal to be there until otherwise notified? I assume so


If it doesn't fall under one of the categories in the regulations (cultivated, fenced, properly posted, etc), I would just keep doing what you're doing and not worry about it. If the landowner wants to let you know he doesn't want you there, he should do so as stipulated under the law.

IMO, no sense educating a landowner if the end result could get him thinking as to how to kick you off or prevent you from using the land. Let him get that education from somewhere else!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> I was talking about ns450's question about cultivated public lands, which is why I used the term "public lands" in the quote you posted.
> 
> ..


Gotcha.

-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> For the record, you're welcome to come have a picnic in my backyard any time. Please bring that hat I have heard so much about.


Back off! That flattie is MINE!


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> For the record, you're welcome to come have a picnic in my backyard any time. Please bring that hat I have heard so much about.


Thanks, that's a mighty fine offer, same on this end.

I have taken a couple of different members of this forum hunting on the family ranch that I used to manage. A lot of changes in the family though, my mother in law died and we did some property exchanges and my wife and her sister sold about 600 acres and I thought that it would be best at this time to step away from managing the rest of it.

I was hunting public more and more anyway and enjoy hunting a much larger area.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> Back off! That flattie is MINE!


Not until you adopt me and make me a resident of Alaska.;-)


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Thought that this would work for this thread.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

backcountry said:


> I actually tend to believe it's a fair analogy given camping in these regions. If the argument is if "it's not posted then it's legal" then it applies outside hunting as well. I've known plenty of campers to use this logic when dispersed camping near public lands. It happens all the time near National Parks.


Not everyone carries a GPS with private property boundaries marked. In some places, the ONLY way you know private property is around at all is if you have something like OnX. I have seen inholdings right smack in the middle of the national forest that are not marked or posted in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely no physical way to know.

If it's in the middle of, or surrounded by public lands, I think it is unreasonable to expect people to know what's what if nothing is marked or posted. Bad analogy I think.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have been wandering around Utah for over 60 years and as far at telling if a piece of property is private or not usually isn't hard. When I started out it had to be posted to keep people out signs or paint. The signs or paint had to be at each corner post and every trail crossing along with every 1/4 mile on straight sections. It really wasn't that hard to know if you were on public or private. 

As for packing a GPS, you can if you want but most BLM and or Forest Service maps will show where the private property is. If you want to get detailed then go ahead and get a GPS with the chip or make use of your smart phone and a private property app installed

It really isn't that difficult. If someone tells you that you are on private property then just leave or ask them if they can tell you the boundaries. There is no reason to get upset or start a fight with the person. If you find that it was indeed public land then go and report the person to the land agency. That also works if you find where a property owner is trying to extend his property onto BLM or Forest Service property.


And with that I'll take a TOP


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

LoneHunter,

We aren't discussing accidental trespass (layman usage). I tend to agree that is would be both unwarranted and likely to fail legal standards to charge a hunter accidentally crossing into private property. 

That said, the explicit questions was:

"If private property in Utah isn’t “properly posted” can I legally access it?"

The above relies on knowledge and intent, hence the validity of the analogy. We are talking specifically about knowingly crossing into private property that isn't "properly posted" while hunting. I agree with the OP's original assessment that this hypothetical is a grey area and therefore comes with considerable legal risk.

And so far we have only discussed criminal trespass law. Civil/tort trespass comes with different standards.

I think this is why DWR consistently emphasizes written permission that is carried into the field.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Not everyone carries a GPS with private property boundaries marked. In some places, the ONLY way you know private property is around at all is if you have something like OnX. I have seen inholdings right smack in the middle of the national forest that are not marked or posted in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely no physical way to know.
> 
> If it's in the middle of, or surrounded by public lands, I think it is unreasonable to expect people to know what's what if nothing is marked or posted. Bad analogy I think.


Look up "constructive notice" sometime. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, and many states take the same approach to property ownership. I seem to recall that Utah ended up during the stream access stuff actually on the side of it doesn't matter if it is properly posted/cultivated etc. you had to just know if it was private, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The MUJI for civil trespass, ie "trespass to real property" is exceedingly broad. Consent is an absolute defense but a lack of proper posting is only 1 of 3 requirements to prove that defense.

https://www.utcourts.gov/utc/muji/2019/05/10/may-13-2019/

The other two elements are not friendly to the hypothetical situation:



> 1. [name of defendant] was a member of a category of persons for whom [use of/entry upon]
> the property would be considered customary or common;
> 2. [name of defendant]'s [use of/entry upon] [name of plaintiff]'s property was within the fair
> and reasonable bounds of the implied consent to [use/enter upon] the property;


Given DWR statements and hunting history and fishing in Utah it would seem unlikely that trespass would be considered "customary or common". Obviously the situation lacks implied consent.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> LoneHunter,
> 
> We aren't discussing accidental trespass (layman usage). .....
> 
> ...


Very clear point here. If you take the question exactly as asked then the answer is a simple NO. You do not have legal access to that land. If you know a property is private it is your civil duty as a citizen and as a hunter to respect the boundary of that property.

Now accidental trespass in a completely different animal but if you accidentally trespass and are asked to leave you should leave and make no argument about the legality of your presence on someone else's property.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

backcountry said:


> "If private property in Utah isn't "properly posted" can I legally access it?"


I remember looking this up for myself once, and I beleive as much was posted on the first page of this thread, but my understanding, they have to post it, or otherwise give some kind of notice or reasonable indication. Exception being cultivated land, that in and of itself is a trespassing criteria.

As with any case of private property, if the owner asks you to leave and you don't, then your guilty of criminal trespass.



> We are talking specifically about knowingly crossing into private property that isn't "properly posted" while hunting.


As much private property as there is in the middle of public freaking lands (yes it pisses me off), if they don't post it, I don't worry about it, because I figure they don't have much to stand on in court if no notice or indication at all is given.

How is one supposed to know if it's in the middle of public lands?

That and I figure if they didn't want some jackwagon like me straying into the property line, they would have marked their property line in *some* manner - *any *manner (aside from shooting at me). I've seen as little as rocks spray painted with Hunter orange. I get the hint, and I don't go there.

All that said, I can only recall only one, maybe two instances of private property that wasn't posted. This isn't something that is very common, because the vast majority of private property is almost *always *posted.


----------



## muddywallow (May 24, 2019)

Not to derail the conversation, but I ran into first for me the other weekend. 
I studied on OnX (I actually use Basemap) and found an obscure piece of public property with a spring on it that I wanted to scout or elk. I hiked all over the public property and accessed it using a very well used public trail. 
When I got home I was doing more research and discovered that is within the boundaries of a CWMU.

There were no CWMU signs posted anywhere, even where the CWMU boundary crossed the well used public trail. In my experience, CWMU's are usually very heavily posted. The only reason I even looked at the CWMU map was to see the name of what I thought was a bordering CWMU. If I hadn't looked at the dang CWMU map I would have been hunting that spot for sure since its public and not posted as a CWMU.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This isn’t an issue of first impression, nor is the trespassing definition ambiguous. At all. I have no idea where this thought of being the test case and running it up the Courts is coming from? 

The law articulates what each party’s duty is in regards to trespassing. Post it, fence it in a manner that reasonable person would believe is intended to keep them out, or cultivate it. Otherwise, watch your land and then go ask people to leave if they show up when you haven’t done any of the above. If none of the above happens, the “visitor” is not trespassing. If any of the above is present and a person enters or remains, they are trespassing. 

It’s really pretty simple, actually.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

So Vanilla, if it is so simple, how do you explain the civil law standards, ie the information each jury is provided before a case, I linked?

From I can tell is you are deducing from the definitions of criminal trespass that anything that doesn't meet that standard is legal for hunters. But that flies in the face of the civil law and to be honest, common sense understanding about the sanctity of private property (summation of language in Utah water access law).

Why would an absolute defense against "trespass to real property" require a defendant to prove all of the following: "customary or common", implied consent and evidence of a lack of proper posting? 

And to clarify, this is fundamentally different issue than fishing because of the unique Utah laws, Utah constitution and fundamental principles of "navigable waterways". That difference is explicitly highlighted in Utah law, with the exception of hunting waterfowl. 

I would love nothing more than your interpretation to be true but my research and DWR statements support a different interpretation.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Always love trespass threads. Apparently trespassing on foot isn't enough, so someone sawed one of our gates in half.


At this point, on foot doesn't even bother me.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> I have no idea where this thought of being the test case and running it up the Courts is coming from?


It comes from the fact that the most of the US, including Utah, adopted common law standards. That means when legal rights and privileges aren't explicit (via statute) then a judge can ultimately make a ruling that favors one citizen or assumed privilege over another in these grey areas.

This is were the broadness of "trespass to real property" is a double edged sword. A new case exploring the limitations of hunters "legal" "rights" to utilize an unposted private property could swing either way. It ultimately could lead to precedents that expand our legal rights to what you describe or it could explicitly reduce them. Given the role of judicial discretion in these types of cases the outcome is highly volatile. But a reading of the Utah Water Access law clarifies the state's general interpretation of private property protections.

Hence my criticism of this not being simple. The DWR's emphasis on written permission seems to agree with this not being a clear cut situation. By contrast, the DWR explicitly states fisherman have the right to access (edited out trespass given my use of legal language elsewhere) unposted private lands to access navigable waterways. See below for the difference in wording:

"There are still thousands of places you can fish without obtaining landowner permission. You do not need permission to....Fish on private property that is not closed to trespass"

https://wildlife.utah.gov/streamaccess.html

"The DWR strongly encourages hunters to obtain written permission before purchasing one of these permits."

https://wildlife.utah.gov/private-lands-only-permits.html


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> I would love nothing more than your interpretation to be true but my research and DWR statements support a different interpretation.


What does the DWR have to do with civil trespass and why are they giving statements about that?

I'll let you go ask your lawyer buddies about what an absolute defense is and why it likely isn't all that applicable in our discussion here. And just for the record, MUJI is not the law. They aren't even required to be given to juries.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

With private land that isn't posted it's simple, you can walk through all you like. You cannot hunt or fish without permission and it had better be written permission. The exception is the stream access rules stated above. The two cases where non-posted land is considered posted for all intents and purposes is when it is cultivated as defined in the posts before this one AND when it is fenced or otherwise enclosed in such a way that it is meant to keep people out. A 6 foot fence or concertina wire on the fence, wrought iron, whatever. Once you have been told to vacate by the owner or their agent you are required to do so. I wouldn't pull a gun on a landowner while on his land in any situation unless you or another person are clearly in danger of losing your life or limb and you can definitely prove it, Utah doesn't typically side with the trespasser.

About the stream access, the last two developments were that a judge ruled that we should have all the access we want and then Victory Ranch asked for a stay of enforcement which basically means any private landowner can tell you to get off the part of their land that is below the high water mark all the way into the river or stream and you can't say no.

Actually I had to edit for that last part, it looks like the DWR is saying it is actively prohibited to fish or stop or touch on a private stream bed at all.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> What does the DWR have to do with civil trespass and why are they giving statements about that?
> 
> I'll let you go ask your lawyer buddies about what an absolute defense is and why it likely isn't all that applicable in our discussion here. And just for the record, MUJI is not the law. They aren't even required to be given to juries.


Never said DWR was making statements about civil trespass Edit: I actually did use the word "trespass" in its common usage. Its confusing in that way and has since edited it for accuracy.

I know what an absolute defense is (before this conversation I explored my legal options in a unrelated situation in which I had a legitimate claim). I am not going to do your work of countering my own idea. And absolute defense is relevant as it highlights when a jury cannot find a hunter guilty of "trespass on real property" under any situation. It matters. Its a structure to analyze how and when we have legal rights to access private lands. And it stands in stark contrast to your unsupported legal argument.

Never said MUJIs were law. But they offer a standard of practice in which citizens, hunters in this case, can educate themselves about the explicit legal boundaries of access and trespass. It also matters as it exposes how much grey area there is for legal interpretation (See above)

If it's as simple as you say, please show me the Utah code that explicitly states we have a right to enter unposted private property? That would end the conversation dead in its tracks. I would be happy as it would expand my options as I have seen unmarked property while scouting.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Utah code 23-20-14:

(a) While taking wildlife or engaging in wildlife related activities, a person may not:
(i) without permission, enter upon privately owned land that is cultivated or properly posted;
(ii) enter or remain on privately owned land if the person has notice to not enter or remain on
the privately owned land; or
(iii) obstruct any entrance or exit to private property.
(b) A person has notice to not enter or remain on privately owned land if:
(i) the person is directed to not enter or remain on the land by:
(A) the owner of the land;
(B) the owner's employee; or
(C) a person with apparent authority to act for the owner; or
(ii) the land is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would
recognize as intended to exclude intruders.

So it doesn't say you can't walk through land that isn't posted and it has generally been accepted to mean that you can walk through such land. It is reasonable to assume that the fact that it doesn't specifically SAY anywhere that you can't travel through or occupy private land that is not posted, and that you haven't been told to vacate, means that you can travel through or occupy that land unless you are hunting or fishing actively without permission.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

The DWR regulations seem to be related to hunting, I don't think that the DWR proclamation states all of Utah law as pertaining to trespass only as it relates to hunting.

That being said it is interesting to look at your license at least the combination license right in the middle of the license it says; *" This license does not authorize you to trespas on private property".*


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

But the point is, bowgy, that at least in a legal sense, simply going onto private property without written permission is not automatically “trespassing.”

That is a term being thrown out as a general term, but it actually has a legal definition.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I was using this definition. As pertaining to the OP where he knows the land is private.

tres·pass
/ˈtrespəs,ˈtresˌpas/
Learn to pronounce
verb
1.
enter the owner's land or property without permission.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Jedidiah said:


> With private land that isn't posted it's simple, you can walk through all you like. You cannot hunt or fish without permission and it had better be written permission.


Where in any posted Utah hunting regulations does it say you can't hunt on private lands that are unposted without permission? I've read the regs many many times and I've never seen anywhere in there that says you can walk across the private lands, but can't hunt on it. Please state your sources for your statement


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Copied and pasted from the DWR website.

1. Written permission is required to enter or cross properly posted private property.

2. Written permission is also required to access unposted private property if:
The soil has been loosened or broken up for the raising of crops
There are crops on the land
The land is a pasture irrigated by a sprinkling system or ditches

3. In addition, those taking wildlife while trespassing may be charged with an additional Class B Misdemeanor for illegally taking wildlife. The harvested wildlife is also subject to seizure.

The way it reads says, if hunting properly posted land you need to have written permission. If it isn’t posted but it falls under the other described definitions it’s still off limits without permission. If you enter properly posted property without permission, you are trespassing at that point and can be charged as such in addition to illegal take of wildlife. Until that all takes place, you are ok to access and hunt the unposted property.

Right?


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> But the point is, bowgy, that at least in a legal sense, simply going onto private property without written permission is not automatically "trespassing."
> 
> That is a term being thrown out as a general term, but it actually has a legal definition.


Just using the word for description of entering private property without permission.

I guess I could use a different word such as, encroach, infringe, invade, visit, investigate, etc.:mrgreen:

Woo Hoo TOP another angel got his wings.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

sheepassassin said:


> Copied and pasted from the DWR website.
> 
> 1. Written permission is required to enter or cross properly posted private property.
> 
> ...


I would say wrong. Again as I see it this pertains to DWR regulations and I don't think that DWR regulations state all trespass law. But then again I am too lazy to look up the laws for trespass. For example we have been trespassed for other things such as, people cutting Christmas trees, 4 wheeling for fun, sight seeing, (getting to a high point to see the view), hiking, getting gravel from our gravel pit, some illegal marijuana grows were found pretty close to our property but still on BLM but I am sure some of them entered the property.

My wife one time had to kick a private investigator off of our property that was taking pictures of one of our neighbors that was suspected of insurance fraud.

I even had a talk with a government trapper on horse back letting him know that he did not have permission to be cougar hunting on our property.


----------



## RoosterKiller (May 27, 2011)

just for the record I am a public lands hunter only. So don't you guys be invitin me to hunt your land.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bowgy said:


> I would say wrong. Again as I see it this pertains to DWR regulations and I don't think that DWR regulations state all trespass law. But then again I am too lazy to look up the laws for trespass.


https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S206.html?v=C76-6-S206_2017050920170509

Got your back. It still isn't just simply that someone owns property, and another person is there without permission. Multiple other things in play here.

Outside of the two definitions in criminal code of trespass that have been cited in this thread, if you're going to be successful in any civil action, whether trespass or not, you must show some damages. If I step one foot onto bowgy's land and simply sit down, he is going to have a really tough time successfully suing me for civil trespass charges as there are no damages. Even if his land is properly posted and I could be prosecuted with the crime of trespass, that does not ensure he's going to be able to be successful in a civil action, even when the burden of proof is less in a civil case.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bowgy said:


> My wife one time had to kick a private investigator off of our property that was taking pictures of one of our neighbors that was suspected of insurance fraud.
> 
> I even had a talk with a government trapper on horse back letting him know that he did not have permission to be cougar hunting on our property.


And now that both have been given notice, if either returned, they would no longer simply be "infringing, encroaching, invading, etc.," they would be trespassing.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S206.html?v=C76-6-S206_2017050920170509
> 
> Got your back. It still isn't just simply that someone owns property, and another person is there without permission. Multiple other things in play here.
> 
> Outside of the two definitions in criminal code of trespass that have been cited in this thread, if you're going to be successful in any civil action, whether trespass or not, you must show some damages. If I step one foot onto bowgy's land and simply sit down, he is going to have a really tough time successfully suing me for civil trespass charges as there are no damages. Even if his land is properly posted and I could be prosecuted with the crime of trespass, that does not ensure he's going to be able to be successful in a civil action, even when the burden of proof is less in a civil case.


Unless you sat on my favorite flower and killed it

But more seriously, that is what I have been trying to say, when it is posted properly the DWR will help prosecute, when it is not posted properly it is up to the landowner to prosecute, if he has a case or not it will be up to the courts to decide. As has been stated the law for trespass prosecution as in most cases, there has to be some damage or refusal to leave or reentry after being asked to leave.

Also I feel that in most cases it probably is not worth the time, money and effort to prosecute for trespass unless some real damage is done.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

sheepassassin said:


> Until that all takes place, you are ok to access and hunt the unposted property.
> 
> Right?


You know, you're right. I have been wrong all along, it does NOT say you can't hunt without permission and it does specifically say "while hunting, fishing or engaging in wildlife-related activities." It seems like common sense to get permission though, especially if you are near the landowner's residence.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

While it does not surprise me I am suprised by the total lack of RESPECT for the property owned by others on this forum. It is not yours don't use it without permission. What is so hard to understand?

Is it really that hard with all the technology available to find the land owner and ask?

I get really tired of people using my property (properly posted) as a rest stop, view area, lunch area, and out house.

It happens weekly and most the time it is when nobody is around. I've had people defecate on locks on gates, drive all over hillsides with atv's and motorcycles and disrupt my peace and quiet while I'm actually there.

Is it always hunters? No. But a lot are wearing camouflage :smile: so hunters are going to get the bad rap.

There is a 4' x 8' sign on the road saying No Tresspassing either side of the road the next 7 miles within 300 yards of our camp. I don't own it but most people are pissed about how can someone own that much property. Guess what it does'nt matter they do.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

From what I have seen:

You are not likely to be prosecuted under criminal trespass laws nor wildlife laws/regulations if you hunt on private property that isn't properly posted.

To the original question, does that make it legal? Those who answer "yes" have not provided clear evidence to support that explicit right. There is a fundamental difference between delineating illegal activity and interpreting that to possibly mean everything not described is legal. That is especially true when such behaviors cause a noticeable conflict between stakeholders,
ie private property rights vs hunter access. Utah's emphasis of private property rights isn't subtle.

In all reality, using land without expressed or implicit consent qualifies as trespassing under civil tort law. Are you likely to be sued by a private property owner? Uncertain. Many will never take the time because of expense, uncertainty and time. But if someone does, and wins, a hunter/defendant could set precedent in which case every hunter is affected. Possibly in ways we haven't considered or intended.

As has been discussed, knowingly using unposted land with intent is fundamentally different than accidentally stumbling onto private lands surrounded by public ones. That doesn't diminish the responsibility to know your hunt unit and property ownership. At some point, the readily available land ownership information available to all of us will impact legal cases.

I also think it's clear that likely getting away with trespass (ie no consent) is fundamentally different than having an explicit legal right to do so. Nothing in the criminal code or wildlife law states we have a right to hunt unposted land without consent. Nothing. People are interpreting the legal grey areas to imply otherwise.

DWR makes it clear, with consistency and intention, that we should get permission. They do so because of the inherent complexities of the law and the implications to our community. 

Choose your own adventure, with the caveat that your actions effect others


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

To me, this statement clears up where they stand with private land access questions

“please review Utah's trespassing laws and determine if you need to obtain written permission from the landowner.”

Determine if you need written permission, basically says if the lands are posted or meet the criteria of needing permission, defined by the state code, you will need written permission by the land owner of the property for access or use. However, if it doesn’t meet the posted requirements, you won’t need this written permission. That clears up the divisions stance on the issue to me. If it’s not posted and you haven’t been notified you can’t be there, then they aren’t going to peruse legal action against you from an Wildlife related activity.

It’s going to be a uphill battle for a land owner to get a conviction in court against someone for being on lands that aren’t posted or marked while hunting. If you don’t want someone on your property, make it clear from the start. If it’s clear that someone is trespassing, it’s a different story.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

middlefork said:


> While it does not surprise me I am suprised by the total lack of RESPECT for the property owned by others on this forum. It is not yours don't use it without permission. What is so hard to understand?


The OP didn't ask for your opinion on it, they asked for the legality on it. What is so hard to understand?

And you aren't surprised, but you are surprised at the same time? How does that work?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

sheepassassin said:


> To me, this statement clears up where they stand with private land access questions
> 
> "please review Utah's trespassing laws and determine if you need to obtain written permission from the landowner."
> 
> ...


Your summary only applies to criminal trespass. The only major uphill battle with a lawsuit is whether or not they can prove damages or harm. Even a nominal finding in such a case has serious implications for how civil trespass would interpreted against hunters in the future. As it stands, current standards of practice require consent for an absolute defense against claims of trespassing.

And that is not a clear presentation of DWR stance in my opinion. They have been very conservative in their claims about needing permission and never narrowed it down as you have described. They constantly hedge their statements in favor of always seeking permission from private land owners while hunting. It's not subtle. They aren't touching the nuanced legal issue of unposted private property even if people have interpreted it as you have. They clearly recognize the limitations of their charter, ie statutes, versus the broader question of civil trespass.

When you read up on the legal summaries (not just from hunting advocacy groups) of the issue you see that the legal conflict between land owners and hunters is highly tentative right now. There isn't a clear legal understanding given a lack of explicit rights. I could not find a Utah case dealing with exactly this issue and the ones I found from other states dealt with different explicit questions. The summaries did explore the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. But everyone would benefit from reading the introduction/preamble of the controversial water access law that currently stands. The state legislature didn't mess around with their thoughts on private property rights.

It's likely going to take a wealthy, motivated landowner or hunter to finally sort the issue out. Or a group willing to stand up for one or the other. Or the legislature doing its job better and spelling it out explicitly.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

When you add water or oil to anything it becomes much more complicated, which is why there is such a controversy over water access laws. This has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The amendment in the trespassing law back in 2011-ish about no longer needing to post according to specific standards and adding in cultivation actually was a direct response to the stream access battles. 

However, you’re not wrong in your interpretation of the law itself. I’m glad I was able to help you out with that a while back! ;-)


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

sheepassassin said:


> When you add water or oil to anything it becomes much more complicated, which is why there is such a controversy over water access laws. This has nothing to do with that.


Would it provide a clearcut argument in a non-water case? Maybe not but....

The legislature's language in the water access law definitely is relevant as it expresses legal theory and principle. It's why preambles exist. If not, the statutes would easily stand on their own merit.

And the irony is, the language comes up in a case in which recreational users have an explicit right to access public waters. We don't have such an explicit right for hunting on private lands. You do understand the implications of that, correct?

They didn't accidentally open a major lands access bill (which is what it is, it's not a water bill) with such sweeping declarations as "the Utah Constitution's specific private property protections, including recognition of the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property and the prohibition on taking
or damaging private property for public use without just compensation, protect against government's broad recognition or grant of a public recreation easement to access or use public water on private property". Legislatures don't make such broad proclamations without serious philosophical concerns. And in this case the water access is just one "OR" while "grant of a public recreation easement to access" stands on its own. They came out swinging about broad constitutional protections for private property (which is the case at both state and federal levels) with purpose. They are setting up the framework for a situation in which the legal argument of probited "taking" can be used against claims of public access on private land. That legal principle currently stands as Utah law.

It doesn't matter where you stand. The legal implications are serious for either camp. At some point we are likely to litigate that very principle.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> And the irony is, the language comes up in a case in which recreational users have an explicit right to access public waters. We don't have such an explicit right for hunting on private lands. *You do understand the implications of that, correct?*


This seems like an awfully condescending comment, particularly from someone that hasn't demonstrated that he actually understands the implications himself. Irony, for sure.

I'll follow backcountry's sound advice and follow some basic restraint in the other comments I would have posted when I was younger and more interested in the fight.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> > And the irony is, the language comes up in a case in which recreational users have an explicit right to access public waters. We don't have such an explicit right for hunting on private lands. *You do understand the implications of that, correct?*
> ...


No more condescending than your previous comments directed at me in this thread, ie not condescending at all.

This is the second time you have only made it personal without any evidence to backup your claim or to counter my point.
I truly understand the issue. If its less than your understanding than do your due diligence in dialogue and honestly engage the idea. That would be a good faith contribution.

You once again took my definition and comment about restraint out of context. At some point you become malicious. If you want to relitigate my comments in a closed thread then I suggest you do in a different way. Nor did you show restraint in your closing sentence; you have no clue of my age nor is your assumption of my intent accurate. You don't get to claim restraint in a comment about me being condescending all the while ending with an extremely passive aggressive sentence.

If you have an assertive request of me unrelated to hunter access, than state it.

The irony to your claims about me lacking understanding is the lessons of the access and trespass issue are pretty blatant to my sports. I potentially lose access under the current direction of recreational access via Utah legislation. That preamble is not friendly to my general desire to fly fish or hunt in a relatively unencumbered manner. I've lost access to miles and miles of land I was once told I had access to. But what I want doesn't always align with facts or law. As someone who values fact it's incumbent upon me to accept when there is difference between the my preferences and reality. Others in this thread have expressed that theme in different ways. All of this doesn't mean I 100% fall into one camp, especially as a land owner, but given we are talking about hunting I am fully aware of the implications.

If you want to dispell me of ideas I have presented then step up and show me were the arguments and facts I have laid bare are wrong and do so with supporting evidence. As it stands right now, it's clear that the issue of legal access for hunters on unposted private lands is neither simple or explicit.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Will all you guys send me pictures of your backyard? I’m planning a BBQ this weekend and would love to use someone else’s backyard. If it’s not posted, it’s free game, right?!?

This is my favorite thread.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Good faith, bad faith, malicious, blah blah blah. Your buzzwords to try and put yourself on a pedestal and to make yourself appear superior to others when you don’t agree with them have grown old for me. I’ve clearly stated not only my position, but the law. You can read it yourself, no reason to restate over and over again, even if you think you deserve it. You don’t get to dictate to everyone else what they post or don’t post. Just stop. 

CPAJeff, send me a PM. I’ll shoot you my address. You’re free to use it, and if it’s Friday, you’ll even have it to yourself! If the veggies look dry, give them a squirt with the hose, por favor!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Good faith, bad faith, malicious, blah blah blah. Your buzzwords to try and put yourself on a pedestal and to make yourself appear superior to others when you don't agree with them have grown old for me. I've clearly stated not only my position, but the law. You can read it yourself, no reason to restate over and over again, even if you think you deserve it. You don't get to dictate to everyone else what they post or don't post. Just stop.
> 
> CPAJeff, send me a PM. I'll shoot you my address. You're free to use it, and if it's Friday, you'll even have it to yourself! If the veggies look dry, give them a squirt with the hose, por favor!


You seem deadset on relitigating something completely unrelated to this thread.

I never dictated what you get to post, another bad faith claim. I've criticized your statements and technique but I have zero influence over your choices. That is self-evident.

I've taken your comments in good faith and shown the exact ways in which your interpretation of the law is flawed by legal standards. It doesn't meet the model standards outlined in civil cases. It doesn't remotely align with broader Utah legislation, ie the preamble to the water access law. Etc, etc. Every time you have taken a lazy swipe at me I've pushed it back to real topic.

If you want to engage the issue than I recommend you actually show me evidence to support your refuted claim that the answer is simple. That is how dialogue across different viewpoint progresses especially with something like the legal parameters of hunting access. The fact that this is perenial issue in just about every state with these types of posting statutes is just another example of how it's not.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> You seem deadset on relitigating something completely unrelated to this thread.


Nope. I'm talking just about this thread. There are certainly others that have shown your MO, though. But I'm only focused on this one.



backcountry said:


> I never dictated what you get to post, another bad faith claim.


Followed by this: 


backcountry said:


> If you want to engage the issue than I recommend you actually show me evidence to support your refuted claim that the answer is simple.


You can recommend all you want. That is a little lighter than the demands that usually come from you, including in this very thread, when you feel like someone else owes you an answer to something.



backcountry said:


> The fact that this is perenial issue in just about every state with these types of posting statutes is just another example of how it's not.


It's not a perennial issues in the courts. We may talk about it on hunting forums, but I assure you that trespass while hunting in Utah for both criminal and civil court proceedings are not difficult issues on their face.

And I've already refuted your claims, with actual law, not just a misrepresented regurgitation of something I read while utilizing Google. Again, go back and read them yourself. Wasn't it you that said that you didn't need to do the work for me? Well, again, that's great advice you gave. You should take it to heart.

Peace out, backcountry. I think you need to go spend some time at the lake fishing and lighten up a bit. Go fish, relax, come back and chill. I mean that in all the good faith I can muster. It's not malicious. Fishing is fun, even when the fish act in bad faith.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

So you choose to continue to just make ad hominem attacks. 

Some definitions:

Dictate:an order or principle that must be obeyed.

Recommend: to suggest an act or course of action

Light-years different. 

Your idea has been refuted with basic, I mean basic, concepts of law, ones you even admitted are legit. You recognize your assessment is based only on criminal trespass and wildlife code yet admit one could be sued under common law concepts of trespass. But you keep acting like criminal trespass is the only legal definition that matters, it's not. Your legal claims here are radically incomplete in the face of history, other Utah laws dealing with recreational access, constitutional protections for private property, etc. A personal "assurance" holds zero effect without evidence, like case law, to back it up. 

You chose to seemingly mock the very practice you employ, ie providing evidence. Any hyperlink can be written off as searching Google. But the evidence that contradicts your limited view of the laws and standards of practice that affect hunter access stand against such intellectually dishonest attacks. Acting like I haven't done my due diligence doesn't actually refute my due diligence. 

There is zero good will in your recent contributions. I know nothing about you nor judge you based upon previous interactions. It's unfortunate that you choose not to do the same. 

Since you seem deadset on personal attacks, I'll clarify something. The only time I've been agitated this year, on this forum is in response to the closed thread. I hope that helps. 

If you choose not to engage the actual topic in basic and we'll established standards of dialogue then so be it. I'll continue to highlight when you ideas are inconsistent with the complexities of various ways of judging legality. And at the end of the day I won't hold that against you or make broad sweeping assumptions about your motive, age, etc. We don't know much if anything here about each other than the ideas we share.

Best of luck, Vanilla.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

To quote you:



Vanilla said:


> It's not a perennial issues in the courts. We may talk about it on hunting forums, but I assure you that trespass while hunting in Utah for both criminal and civil court proceedings are not difficult issues on their face.


Summarizes our exchange well.

You used a strawman as I never said perenial issue in the courts. I've actually admitted there is a dearth of actual case law. It's a critical part of my argument.

And I find your misuse of "on their face" ironic. As a phrase it means "used for saying that something appears to be true but might not be true when you have examined it in more detail". I don't think that is what you meant but it accurately reflects the situation of using criminal trespass as the only standard.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

On its face is a legal term of art. Google it. You’ll get it eventually.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> On its face is a legal term of art. Google it. You'll get it eventually.


Thanks for clarifying and correcting my misunderstanding, that is exactly the type of response I've been looking for, beyond the passive aggressive ending. If you want to use a new (ie one not previously used in the thread) legal term it might help most of hunters to demark it as such, ie italics, quotations, etc. That tends to clarify the intended usage when it overlaps with common parlance.

Want to finally provide evidence that common law and jurisprudence is clearly in favor of hunters using unposted private land without consent? That would be the next good faith way to dispell my claims. As I displayed above, I actually take such contributions as a chance to unlearn a invalid interpretation.


----------



## shiras (Aug 21, 2019)

I don't think anyone's shared this yet. It's worth skimming if you're interested in the legal aspects of private land hunting access, especially if you want to advocate for more access privileges. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=dlj


----------



## Wasatch_Outdoors (Aug 19, 2019)

If it looks like it's probably (or even possibly) private land, find out (use an app like on x), then ask permission. If you shoot a nice buck or bull out there and then have to argue your case, you'll for sure lose the buck or bull, possibly lose equipment, or at the very least have to full out the proper paperwork to recover any confiscated "evidence". Especially when you consider how much of this private property is part of a CWMU that may or may not be properly posted on every access point.


----------



## laurameida (Aug 10, 2021)

It would be nice to have a property where you can hunt. My grandfather was from Utah, and he was always telling me about his young days when he was going hunting in the forest with his father. We were regularly going there in the woods with my father, and I am thinking about buying a house in the woods there. I am searching for offers on lumina.com.ph, but unfortunately, I didn't find anything I would like. I want to buy a house in the forest where I can go for the weekend and holidays with my family and spend some days in nature.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

YouOTE="laurameida, post: 2227745, member: 67675"]
It would be nice have a property where you can hunt...
[/QUOTE]
You do. Actually, you have millions and millions of acres you can hunt!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> YouOTE="laurameida, post: 2227745, member: 67675"]
> It would be nice have a property where you can hunt...


You do. Actually, you have millions and millions of acres you can hunt!
[/QUOTE]
Which makes me wonder why we argue and complain about the few (also millions and millions) that are in private hands.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that a lot argue and complain about the private is that there is quite a bit of it that blocks access to the public.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Don't forget the private land owners always want to complain about wildlife hurting their crops but it's only because they want more and more tags to sell and give to their families.

If land owners were really concerned about wildlife hurting their livelihood than land owners could easily find plenty of respectful hunters that would love to come hunt their properties and help keep the animals from eating all their alfalfa.

But we all know that land owners are full of sh** when they complain about wildlife and all they really want is more tags for themselves and they could care less about wildlife damaging their crops.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

ns450f said:


> Don't forget the private land owners always want to complain about wildlife hurting their crops but it's only because they want more and more tags to sell and give to their families.


They actually have a right to complain as it impacts them economically. Whether they want to give more tags to their family or not is a different topic and one most of us have no right to make such an accusation on such a broad spectrum. We don't them all so you can opine on them all.



ns450f said:


> If land owners were really concerned about wildlife hurting their livelihood than land owners could easily find plenty of respectful hunters that would love to come hunt their properties and help keep the animals from eating all their alfalfa.


How genuine their concerns are is not for us to judge. As land owners they can choose who comes on their land and who doesn't. Could they find respectable hunters for culling? Yes. But they don't have to.



ns450f said:


> But we all know that land owners are full of sh** when they complain about wildlife and all they really want is more tags for themselves and they could care less about wildlife damaging their crops.


This is probalby the worst statement as it is completely engulfs a class of people and assigns them the *Full of Sh*** designation. Just as divisive and irresponsible would be to state that all non land owners that hunt public lands are *envious douche bags* that wish they had land so they didn't have to deal with other public land hunters. Narrow POVs like this are a huge reason people rarely agree on a solution to anything. I would wager that if you owned land and were impacted you would make such statements.

I'm with CPAJeff..... This is my favorite thread.


----------



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

So, I am lucky enough to hunt some private land here where I live. The farmer only lets me and a very select few. He knows that we respect his land and crops. He has let others before. He was telling me that those hunters cost him more in lost crop than what the deer do. He said that people come drive through the fields, left trash all over the place, and have actually vandalized several pieces of equipment (holes from guns). He has a bad taste in his mouth for letting new hunters on his property. Said thing, because he has tons of animals running around.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

laurameida said:


> It would be nice have a property where you can hunt...


Private is all great and whatnot, until 2 range fires in 10 years burn it to a cinder. Just say'n.

-DallanC


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

ns450f said:


> But we all know that land owners are full of sh** when they complain about wildlife and all they really want is more tags for themselves and they could care less about wildlife damaging their crops.


Let me guess comrade; you've never ranched or farmed, Bernie sticker on the Subaru and Che shirt in closet. Private property rights are basis for many of the freedoms and opportunities are great country was founded on.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

OriginalOscar said:


> Let me guess comrade; you've never ranched or farmed, Bernie sticker on the Subaru and Che shirt in closet. Private property rights are basis for many of the freedoms and opportunities are great country was founded on.


You guessed wrong on all accounts bud. 

It's easy to defend private property rights in a state that is 75% or more public land. 

Spend a few years in Georgia or another state that is almost entirely private property and try to hunt on a budget where you can't afford to pay the membership fees to hunt.

Here in Utah you have land owners that poach a bunch of elk on their land. They claim damage from the elk, but they won't let anyone hunt their property unless they can make money on the tags.

I am sure plenty of farmers have had bad experiences with a hunter at one point or another but they just use that as an excuse to demand more tags for themselves so they can sell them and make a profit. The problem is our hunting fees pay for the elk and deer that the land owners want to make money on.

They won't let the public hunt their land unless they can get paid for it. They use disrespectful hunters as an excuse to not let hunters help them with their problems. Really all they want is more tags and money for themselves.

I have experienced this numerous times.

Anyone remember the land owner up by antimony and otter creek that poaches and kills all the elk. I specifically tracked that guy down and asked him for permission to hunt and help him with his problem. I promised I would he respectful and offered to help him work on his property. He had the nerves to literally admit to me that the elk are not really a problem on his property. That land owner told me he just wanted more tags and informed me that the only way I can hunt his property was to pay him.

Here is an interesting thread

Monster poached off the dutton

Anyone who knows what is going on in parts of southern Utah will understand my point of view. The land owners down here think they own it all.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I am all for private property rights being upheld. It becomes tricky when private property rights intersect with publicly owned resources. There is a balance needed there, and neither side shaking their fists with righteous indignation and quoting the founding fathers (both can do so accurately) will be entirely correct.


----------



## TmTmTl (Apr 27, 2019)

DallanC said:


> Private is all great and whatnot, until 2 range fires in 10 years burn it to a cinder. Just say'n.
> 
> -DallanC


And yet you still had all the elk and deer you could handle.... Just saying


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Trust me if you get caught on private you get charged. Posted or not.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

hazmat said:


> Trust me if you get caught on private you get charged. Posted or not.


That would I believe depend on the land owner. And most only if you refused to leave.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

hazmat said:


> Trust me if you get caught on private you get charged. Posted or not.


Charged and convicted are 2 very different things…

Trust me, if it’s not posted properly as defined by the state of utah or fall within the other specifications needed to be considered for “no trespassing” laws to apply, you are ok and won’t be charged unless you refuse to leave said property once notified. Until then, you are legal in the eyes of the state.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

TmTmTl said:


> And yet you still had all the elk and deer you could handle.... Just saying


Elk yes. Deer, nope. The neighbors always hogged the deer.  

And Moosemeat's last post is correct.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

If it’s not posted, I do what I want until told otherwise


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Ray said:


> If it’s not posted, I do what I want until told otherwise


Bingo


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Ray said:


> If it’s not posted *or cultivated*, I do what I want until told otherwise


Fixed it for you.

-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't do what I want. I try to keep it cleaner than I found it. I don't drive off any roads. I try not to be a problem. I do that in hopes that the property remains open.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Thanks DallanC!

I don’t trash the place, I treat it the way I would any piece of the outdoors, with respect and try to leave as little sign of me being there as possible. All I was saying is, I don’t even think twice about it when it’s not posted or cultivated


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> I don't do what I want. I try to keep it cleaner than I found it. I don't drive off any roads. I try not to be a problem. I do that in hopes that the property remains open.


This should go for private, public and everything in between. We should all strive to leave things better than we found them.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Ray said:


> Thanks DallanC!
> 
> I don’t trash the place, I treat it the way I would any piece of the outdoors, with respect and try to leave as little sign of me being there as possible. All I was saying is, I don’t even think twice about it when it’s not posted or cultivated


The law also includes private land with a fence (or wall) built to keep intruders out!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

elkfromabove said:


> The law also includes private land with a fence (or wall) built to keep intruders out!


That does not mean your average barbed wire fence.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> Charged and convicted are 2 very different things…
> 
> Trust me, if it’s not posted properly as defined by the state of utah or fall within the other specifications needed to be considered for “no trespassing” laws to apply, you are ok and won’t be charged unless you refuse to leave said property once notified. Until then, you are legal in the eyes of the state.


Or we could be ethical, respectful, professional sportsman; confirm ownership and if needed ask for permission. 

Or we could be the problem and then plead stupid if caught. Actually that is stupid so pleading just shows pathetic.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> Or we could be ethical, respectful, professional sportsman; confirm ownership and if needed ask for permission.
> 
> Or we could be the problem and then plead stupid if caught. Actually that is stupid so pleading just shows pathetic.


Mark your property and there won’t be any question. I know you’ve broken your own code of ethics before and crossed unmarked private lands. But I guess that probably doesn’t count in your book


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

OriginalOscar said:


> Or we could be ethical, respectful, professional sportsman; confirm ownership and if needed ask for permission.


The law is clear. Follow the law. I’m completely disinterested in anyone trying to force their biased and arbitrary “ethics” on anyone else. If you’re following the trespass laws, you have nothing to worry about. Legally or ethically.


----------



## bwood (Jan 5, 2011)

I know of areas where the local sheriff and the local judge decided they would enforce trespassing laws no matter what the 'sportsmans' laws said. You can be fined for being on private property period. You won't lose you hunting privileges but be convicted just the same.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

bwood said:


> I know of areas where the local sheriff and the local judge decided they would enforce trespassing laws no matter what the 'sportsmans' laws said. You can be fined for being on private property period. You won't lose you hunting privileges but be convicted just the same.


And that is when you push it and appeal the ruling. 

Most wont push it since it is cheaper to just pay the fine.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bwood said:


> I know of areas where the local sheriff and the local judge decided they would enforce trespassing laws no matter what the 'sportsmans' laws said. You can be fined for being on private property period. You won't lose you hunting privileges but be convicted just the same.


The law is funny that way. There is a lot of discretion when it comes to enforcement. If the cops, prosecutor and judge decide they are going to be tough on something you are screwed. They can charge you according to their interpretation of the law. Hope you have a good defense attorney. You can always go and spend more cash on appeals and possibly get your conviction overturned by a higher court but then you have to ask yourself Was all that really worth it? C'mon... more than likely you knew it was private land. Just beause it wasn't posted properly doesn't make it any less private. IF the prosecution wants to make an example of you they will. Remembewr you will probably get charged, tried and convicted in their home turf. Their cousin the judge, their childhood friend the DA and their 2nd cousin once removed sherrif. Just don't do it.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Hey, I'll throw another opinion out there............that I'll get fried for. 

Why does anyone think they have the right to be on someone else's property to begin with ?? 
Did you buy and pay for it ?? 
Do you pay taxes on it ??
Did you pay for and do the work of fencing it ??

I have had people try to kick me off my own place. (Didn't work)
Mine has a locked gate, and is posted as per the rules.

I worked hard and saved my pennies to buy my little place. 
It isn't inherited property. Wasn't handed to me. 

It never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

When it comes down to it there are so many range fences out there quite often you have no idea if you are on private or not. I usually look at a map and if there is any private in the area I'll avoid it. Also in this day and age of GPS you should have no problem knowing if you are on private or not. 

But if you are asked to leave a piece of property that you are hunting on and the person that is asking claims to be the owner, just leave. If you know that you were on public then report them to the BLM or Forest Service along with the county sheriff, but you better have the GPS coordinates to give them as to where you were located at. 

I once was questioned by a supposed land owner when I was muzzle loader hunting. The problem was that I was walking down a BLM road that ran through the private property, and when they were done berating me for hunting on private I went on my way. That night I reported them to the local DWR officer. Come to find out that property had reverted back to the BLM the previous year and the person that questioned me was a outlaw outfitter who the DWR was after. 

But in the end there is a lot of public land to hunt and fish on and there is no reason to even be near the private unless you are one of those who like pushing things


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

2full said:


> Why does anyone think they have the right to be on someone else's property to begin with ??


Its not that they think they have the "right" to be on it, its the mindset of being "allowed" to be on it.

There's a lot of very big chunks of land out there owned by corporations that use it as depreciation tax write offs. They couldn't give a crap about the Hun's or Chuckar that live on it. As long as they don't become liable for some knucklehead falling and wanting to sue them... they don't give a crap what happens to it.

I recently lost access to 8,000 acres of private land not long ago right in the heart of the 'front. Hunted it for +30 years and we killed a TON of deer on it. Corporation just developed it... home building lots are in the $5,000,000 range. I used to sneak into it to hunt via a back trail in. Guy who managed it talked to me one day and said "whatcha doing that for, here's a key to the front gate". ROFL. It was one of the most beautiful spots in Utah County. Deer, Elk, occasional Moose, lots of Turkeys etc. Ah well.

It was annoying a couple years hunting there when they were filming those Saints and Soldiers movies... hard to sneak up on a deer with a smokepole when a Hellcat tank is driving around blasting that cannon.

-DallanC


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

2full said:


> Did you pay for and do the work of fencing it ??


What about the prices of private that aren't fenced?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

bwood said:


> I know of areas where the local sheriff and the local judge decided they would enforce trespassing laws no matter what the 'sportsmans' laws said. You can be fined for being on private property period. You won't lose you hunting privileges but be convicted just the same.


That largely depends on if the land owner wants to press charges.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The trespass laws are the trespass laws. Doing it while hunting can bring extra consequences, but it doesn’t change the trespass standard. I follow trespass laws and would welcome any officer or judge to try and enforce them other than how they are written.


----------



## bwood (Jan 5, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> The trespass laws are the trespass laws. Doing it while hunting can bring extra consequences, but it doesn’t change the trespass standard. I follow trespass laws and would welcome any officer or judge to try and enforce them other than how they are written.


The problem is that the only trespass laws most of us read are in the hunting and fishing proclamations. Those aren't the only trespass laws that exist. I'm pretty sure every city and county can have their own ordinances. They can fine you for what you do on your own property let alone going onto someone else's property. I was out walking my dogs one day on property I had permission to be on. I cut across the corner of another neighbor's property. There was snow on the ground and he followed my tracks. The next morning a deputy knocked on my door and told me to stay off. We have never met. Now anytime I see him out on his property I go walk down the access road that goes right through the middle of it just to bug him.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

bwood said:


> The problem is that the only trespass laws most of us read are in the hunting and fishing proclamations. Those aren't the only trespass laws that exist. I'm pretty sure every city and county can have their own ordinances. They can fine you for what you do on your own property let alone going onto someone else's property. I was out walking my dogs one day on property I had permission to be on. I cut across the corner of another neighbor's property. There was snow on the ground and he followed my tracks. The next morning a deputy knocked on my door and told me to stay off. We have never met. Now anytime I see him out on his property I go walk down the access road that goes right through the middle of it just to bug him.


No, the scenario you just described falls within the states trespassing laws perfectly. You were discovered to be on private land and the land owner made contact with you and you were told to stay off. You weren’t charged. You were told to stay off. That’s exactly how the laws read.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bwood- here you go. Not from the Wildlife Code in title 23, but from the criminal
Code in Title 76.



https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S206.html?v=C76-6-S206_2017050920170509


----------



## 67015 (Jan 29, 2021)

This is a prime example. 

I went out yesterday to explore some new country on my side by side on a established trail, 23 miles in while watching onx i went through and across alot of private areas, None were posted so I didn't even blink a eye,The trail eventually hit a fence I opened it went through, still not posted but I can see it was private on onx, mile later another fence, Posted private keep out. Looked at onx to verify, different owner,, apparently dosent want anyone on his land.. No way around so I turned and went back the way I came while the other 2 side by sides I was with threw a huge fit and wanted to just go through, the main road was about 400 yards on the other side of his property. They're also just recreational people they don't hunt. As a responsible hunter I talked them out of it. Be respectful.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Yotedog27 said:


> This is a prime example.
> 
> I went out yesterday to explore some new country on my side by side on a established trail, 23 miles in while watching onx i went through and across alot of private areas, None were posted so I didn't even blink a eye,The trail eventually hit a fence I opened it went through, still not posted but I can see it was private on onx, mile later another fence, Posted private keep out. Looked at onx to verify, different owner,, apparently dosent want anyone on his land.. No way around so I turned and went back the way I came while the other 2 side by sides I was with threw a huge fit and wanted to just go through, the main road was about 400 yards on the other side of his property. They're also just recreational people they don't hunt. As a responsible hunter I talked them out of it. Be respectful.


You do understand that the gate might be posted, but if it’s a public access road, you can still drive down that road, right? They are posting their property, not the road. If it’s a road listed on a map or connects from a main access point to another, odds are you can still drive down the road. You just can’t be on their property that’s posted on one or both sides of the road


----------



## 67015 (Jan 29, 2021)

MooseMeat said:


> You do understand that the gate might be posted, but if it’s a public access road, you can still drive down that road, right? They are posting their property, not the road. If it’s a road listed on a map or connects from a main access point to another, odds are you can still drive down the road. You just can’t be on their property that’s posted on one or both sides of the road


Yes I know, it was posted and the gate was shut but on his private property sign it did say no access as well so I figure play it safe. Better safe then sorry, didn't need to go through that fence to get to the main road with a possible locked gate on it..


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Yotedog27 said:


> Yes I know, it was posted and the gate was shut but on his private property sign it did say no access as well so I figure play it safe. Better safe then sorry, didn't need to go through that fence to get to the main road with a possible locked gate on it..


Mature decision.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Access through private property is determined by easements. And most easements are not noted except on the actual title to the property.

If it is a properly documented road or trail (some examples, Highways, county roads, Forest Service or other land agency designated roads or trails) there should not be any gates indicating you can't use the trail or road.

And while there may be a few corporate owners out there that don't care one way or the other I believe most private land owners do care who access's their land.


----------



## 67015 (Jan 29, 2021)

OriginalOscar said:


> Mature decision.


First one since my wife told me marrying her was my best decision so im on the uphill on decision making!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

middlefork said:


> Access through private property is determined by easements. And most easements are not noted except on the actual title to the property.
> 
> If it is a properly documented road or trail (some examples, Highways, county roads, Forest Service or other land agency designated roads or trails) there should not be any gates indicating you can't use the trail or road.
> 
> And while there may be a few corporate owners out there that don't care one way or the other I believe most private land owners do care who access's their land.


I have always found it interesting in just how landowners post these county, forest service, BLM, and other public roads. 

I have seen some posted so that you believe that you can not travel any further on that road. The best ones are where you see a sign that tells you that you are now traveling through private and to leave the gate as you found it or open, or closed. I have also seen public roads posted on both sides of the gate to make you scratch your head. But if I see a sign on the gate itself I usually figure that it all is private.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

In the northern part of Utah it is common to see signs on roads and at boundaries saying No Trespassing either side of the road the next x amount of miles. Unfortunately there are many who can't comprehend the legality of that statement and conveniently forget.

Adjacent to those are federal land that have barbed wire fence delineating different grazing allotments. It has not been my experience that people with grazing rights post those lands as private.
But as a visitor to those lands I think it is important that you make every effort to figure out where you are and if it is private or not. With modern technology it is not difficult.


----------



## DIRTYS6X6 (May 19, 2021)

while on a fairly recent trip to the cache unit my wife and I were traveling some of the county roads that run through private, which this particular piece of property we will be hunting moose on. We took the better part of one afternoon and picked up the garbage from all of the jerks that have no respect for land owners. Because of idiots like this it leaves the land owners no choice but to shut the honest folks out also.


----------

