Trophy bull and a trespass charge

[mike.adams.467]

If that was 'your' ranch, 99% of you would be up in arms and keeping the herd to yourself and you know it......jealousy/envy has many faces and they are all ugly. This is nothing more than covetousness being displayed publicly.

Exactly.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

It seems to me that the state could easily put these private-locked public lands up for auction. Anyone buying the land would get an easement. Or the surrounding property owners could purchase it. I expect that would be a pretty ferocious auction…

 

[AHayes111]

What's really crazy here it to think that ANY landowner thinks that they have the right to keep the public off of public land at all....

Your are right in that landowners can not keep people off public, but they can keep people off their private.
A few years back Newberg ask me if I hated people flying in to BLM. Nope, all for it, takes the pressure off of me to allow people to cross my private.

 

[Dos Perros]

Some weird takes in here. Absent a helicopter ride, the dude clearly broke the law and should be held accountable.

 

[MallardSX2]

Your are right in that landowners can not keep people off public, but they can keep people off their private.
A few years back Newberg ask me if I hated people flying in to BLM. Nope, all for it, takes the pressure off of me to allow people to cross my private.

I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that you should be forced to allow people across your land.
I am saying that there are some people who don't want people hunting those landlocked tracts even if they are doing it legally.

You are clearly not one of those people and I also assume you don't mind hearting Robinsons fly over your property for 2 months straight either.

 

[Slickhill]

The market is ripe for affordable jetpacks…

 

[Superx3]

I'm going by dirt law that applies to accessing any other landlocked parcels. Implied retained easement by necessity. The common law should also apply to reaching BLM

If there was never an easement set out in the abstract, it’s not the private land owners fault. If some how a land locked lot behind your house was turned into a city park and there is not an easement across your lot, I guarantee you wouldn’t let everyone walk through your yard to access it. Fly in and nothing can be said. But don’t trespass to get there.

 

[KenLee]

If there was never an easement set out in the abstract, it’s not the private land owners fault. If some how a land locked lot behind your house was turned into a city park and there is not an easement across your lot, I guarantee you wouldn’t let everyone walk through your yard to access it. Fly in and nothing can be said. But don’t trespass to get there.

If the parcels were divided from a common source, the Court system can establish an easement, regardless of whether one was detailed in the deed.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Some weird takes in here. Absent a helicopter ride, the dude clearly broke the law and should be held accountable.

Land access issues always bring out strong opinions. That’s why “good fences make good neighbors.” There’s been a lot of blood and turmoil over enclosing common property, fencing the range, and other land access issues. You can love property rights and still think it stinks to have private-locked public land.

It’s also not enough to say “the dude clearly broke the law.” Can the state prove it? Legally, it might not be enough to say, “there’s six miles of private property around this parcel, you can infer that he trespassed to get to the public land.” I think it would be pretty simple to prove there were no helicopter flights that day. And, a cut or shot lock is a great start to the prosecution’s case.

Assuming the state can prove it, Which law did he break? Did he break the ordinary trespass law? Or the hunting trespass law?

The penalties associated with the latter are more severe. And I am not sure they were intended to cover trespassing to get to public land to hunt. If the bull was truly killed in public land, the easier case to prove is just the ordinary trespass.

 

[KenLee]

This is exactly why landowners block this land and the issue continues to fester. There is always some tough guy saying "screw the landowner, I'll hunt where I want". In all likelihood, that is what this guy did.

I don't like it any more than the next guy, but breaking the law because "no one is gonna stop me" is wrong.

Just like Sunday hunting in the Upstate of SC was illegal. Someone has to fight the BS charge and make change. It was legal in the lower state.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If the parcels were divided from a common source, the Court system can establish an easement, regardless of whether one was detailed in the deed.

Which court can do that? What authority does the court have to establish that easement? Unless you can point to a clear authorization, legislative or constitutional, you can’t say that.

As far as I can tell, this is an issue that can only be solved through legislation. And then that legislation would have to pass muster in the courts.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

BLM seeking comments on proposed Quarter Circle 7 land exchange | Bureau of Land Management

BLM is seeking public comment on a preliminary environmental assessment for the proposed Quarter Circle 7 land exchange in northern Campbell County. The public comment period ends June 23.

www.blm.gov

Just gonna leave this here for all the folks that want to jump to conclusions. This has been in process for at least 3 years probably longer.

Seems like getting this completed would solve a lot of problems.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Back when the homestead act was passed, most thought that all of the land would be claimed and the Gov would own no land other than a few National Parks and military bases. Mike Lee was the majority in the 1860's.

If it was claimed then they would have to allow access across their land to it when they chose to buy the land enclosing it… not sure why it becoming BLM would change that previously inherent aspect. Again it’s probably because folks in that era would have thought it obvious that a landowner needs an access to their land and not made it a contentious matter.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I will add my $0.02 here.

According to the article a lock on a gate was either cut or shot off. If that lock was on a gate that separated public land from private and the hunter was the one who removed the lock, then he was absolutely trespassing. Also, if you look at the map provided, the landlocked portions of public are very small in comparison and are not even close to the boundaries. This leads me to two conclusions. First, these are not elk that are hanging out exclusively on public land (like the ones in the corner crossing case). They spend the majority of their time on the private land that is owned and managed by the landowner. This most likely isn't a case of "the landowner is treating this public land herd as their own" like some have postulated here. Second, the landlocked parcels of public are pretty deep into the property. According to the article, the hunter had to travel "a mile" into the property to get to the public. Again this isn't just a "I accidentally crossed a boarder" or a corner-crossing thing. This is willful trespassing (provided it happened as described in the article).

As for the landowners treating the animals as "theirs". Myself and a couple of my best friends own several contiguous tracts of land in WV. All told it is a pretty large parcel for an Eastern state (837 acres). Two years ago, a large tract of paper company land that is along our SE border was leased to the state for use as state game lands. Since that time we have had a serious influx of people traveling down the private road that leads to our camp, and in more than one instance we have had people cross onto our property either hunting or trailing deer/bears. While I don't believe that we "own" the animals, I do believe that due to the price that we paid for the land, the money that we spend every year on taxes for that land, seed, fuel, maintenance of equipment, feed, general upkeep of the property, etc. entitles us to have exclusive rights to hunt those animals while they are on our property as well as entitling us to access that same public land in an area that would require others to have to travel a significant distance in order to get to from the main access points of the public land. I also don't agree that we should be forced to allow access to that public land through our land (there are a couple of places where it is only a couple hundred yards from the road to the public boundary). There are other access points and honestly, ours was private long before that piece was public (we were their first).

 

[WCB]

If he trespassed....throw the book at him.

Amazing how many people here hate private property rights. I disagree with any claim the Ranch Manager has on loss of the animal itself...but trespass and illegal harvest/transportation of game would be fine with me.

I hunted deer around that place...this isn't a case of "I thought I was on public" in most of those parcels. There is just absolutely no gray area on if they are accessible or not. Even more so if you live in the area.

 

[KenLee]

T

Which court can do that? What authority does the court have to establish that easement? Unless you can point to a clear authorization, legislative or constitutional, you can’t say that.

As far as I can tell, this is an issue that can only be solved through legislation. And then that legislation would have to pass muster in the courts.

Happens every week for private land.
In South Carolina, Master in Equity Court or Court of Common Pleas can insert an implied easement by necessity.
Basically common law saying "no one sold off all their access without intending to keep an easement."

Google Search

 

[Q_Sertorius]

T
Happens every week for private land.
In South Carolina, Master in Equity Court or Court of Common Pleas can insert an implied easement by necessity.
Basically common law saying "no one sold off all their acess without intending to keep an easement."

Google Search

That’s all well and good in South Carolina. Many jurisdictions don’t work the same way as it does in the South. And the public land aspect is another matter.

Not every court has equity powers.

 

[alexnelon]

Assuming the state can prove it, Which law did he break? Did he break the ordinary trespass law? Or the hunting trespass law?

If he shot the bull with all 6 feet standing on public, it's not hunting trespass.

The same way it's not "hunting moving violation" if you roll a stop sign on the way to your spot in the morning or "hunting expired registration" if the tags are out on your sxs.

"Yeah it was on public and he had a valid tag but he wouldn't have killed the animal if he didn't break a law within several days before or after" is not a valid argument in favor of wildlife violation charges.

Again, if he trespassed, give him his 6 months and $750, but if he didn't shoot it on private, it's not poaching.

 

[KenLee]

That’s all well and good in South Carolina. Many jurisdictions don’t work the same way as it does in the South. And the public land aspect is another matter.

Not every court has equity powers.

What state doesn't have a court with equity powers?

 

[Valumpessa]

I also don't agree that we should be forced to allow access to that public land through our land (there are a couple of places where it is only a couple hundred yards from the road to the public boundary). There are other access points

I understand and agree with your first paragraph. Regarding this comment, hypothetically if there were not other access points to the public land what would be your opinion on allowing access?