The laws on hunting animals and trespassing vary depending on the state in question. Local law enforcement and wildlife agencies enforce hunter trespass laws. In many states, the consent of a property owner is necessary for anyone who wants to trespass with the intent of hunting. However, in some states, hunter trespass regulations are stricter. The following web page seeks to describe what trespassing is, and the relationship between hunting animals trespassing and hunting animals.

What is Trespassing?

Trespassing refers to various offenses against an individual or property. In relation to real estate laws, trespassing is entering land without the permission of the estate owner. Trespass laws can either be criminal or civil. Criminal laws are enforced by rangers, sheriffs, and police whereas civil laws require landowners to file a claim for damages against the trespasser.

Intent vs. Knowledge Requirements

For a person to be convicted for trespass, the property owner must show intent. This means that, trespassing is not unwittingly entering another’s estate but is knowingly moving into the property without the owner’s consent.

Knowledge is inferred when a property owner:

  • Puts a fence around their land,
  • posts a "no trespassing" sign,
  • Or expressly tells a person not to go to their estate.

A trespasser may not face prosecution if, the estate was open, their conduct did not interfere with the use of the land, or if they left immediately upon the owner’s request.

Express Consent vs. Implied Consent

Express consent is where the owner of land indicates, either in writing or by word of mouth, permission to enter their property. Implied consent arises from custom, circumstances, or the owner’s conduct. Implied consent may arise if the owner of property was not available to give permission, and urgent action was required to prevent injury or save a person’s life.

Hunting and Trespassing Laws

A hunting license does not allow a person to trespass into another’s property to hunt. In some states, there are certain laws dealing with hunting animals and trespassing, while in others, the general trespassing laws of the state also apply to hunters.

Posting Requirements

In most of the states, owners are not required to post their land to prevent trespassing. In these states, hunters who trespass on property without the owner’s consent are committing an offense even if the estate is not posted. In states where posting of land is required, there are general guidelines of how it should be done. For example, in Alabama, there are no posting requirements; hunting requires the consent of the estate owner. In Louisiana, posting of land is required. In Arizona, hunters are only forbidden from entering posted land.

Firearms, Wounded Animals, and Dogs

In some states, armed trespass is regarded a felony that is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. For example, in Florida, a trespasser who bears a firearm is subject to a $5,000 fine or five years in prison. Furthermore, anyone who knowingly propels a lethal projectile across private property without the owner’s authorization is also guilty of felony trespass. A lethal projectile is any projectile launched from a crossbow, bow, or firearm.

In few states, unarmed hunting trespass is allowed. For example, in Iowa and Louisiana, unarmed trespass, for the purpose of retrieving an injured animal on private property is allowed. In Kansas, hunters are allowed to pursue wounded animals on private property except when the owner asks the hunters to leave their property.

In some states, hunters can retrieve wounded animals or dogs if they are legally allowed to hunt on that particular land. For example, in North Dakota, a hunter can enter posted land to retrieve a wounded animal if they are legally permitted to hunt.

Permission to Hunt

In some states, the owner’s permission is required for a person to hunt in private property. In Utah and Maryland, written permission is needed for a person to enter private property to hunt. The owner of the property is not responsible for any injuries incurred by the hunter while on their estate. In South Dakota and Texas, the owner’s consent is mandatory for anyone intending to hunt on private property.

Knowledge of the law on trespass and hunting is required if you are a recreational hunter. A breach of these laws could mean huge fines, imprisonment, or even losing your hunting license. It is advisable to consult a lawyer about the laws on hunting animals and trespassing in your jurisdiction.

End Of Article

XXX

Order Title: adverse possession continuous trespassers rights
Order-ID: 16338743
Article Title: adverse possession continuous trespassers rights
Article Text:

The Rights of Property Owners, Adverse Possessors, and Continuous Trespassers

A cornerstone of the American concept of ownership of real property is that the owner of a property has exclusive right to use that property as he or she desires, at least so far as use does not result in harm to another or run afoul of statutory law or administrative regulations. It is therefore a shock for many property owners to learn that there are provisions of law in every state that allow someone else to effectively take control of at least a part of their property for their own use. This is known variously as “squatter’s rights” or, more formally, as “adverse possession.”

Adverse possession is the legal doctrine that was developed during the American colonial and post-revolutionary periods regarding ownership of land in an era when there was much more land available to be developed than there were people available to do that developing. If there was no clear ownership of a parcel of land, the person who converted land from its “wild” state to something “productive” was considered to be its rightful owner after a set period of time.

In our current era, the right to land by adverse possession is governed by the statutory (“on the books”) law of the state in which the land is located. Since anyone making a future claim by right of adverse possession must have been a trespasser at one time, there must be some set of principles that separate a potential adverse possessor from a from a “habitual” or “continuous” trespasser. These principles are:

  • Principle of Hostile Claim

The trespasser must occupy the land in question by either 1) a willful, deliberate act of trespass; 2) making an “honest mistake” in believing that he or she is not trespassing, or 3) by simple occupation without knowledge of its ownership.

  • Principle of Actual Possession

The trespasser must be physically present on the land and treat that land as if he or she had an actual title to that land, such as clearing the land or building a structure. Occasional recreational use of land is not considered actual possession.

  • Principle of Continuing Possession

The trespasser must have had a continuous, unbroken presence on the land for a certain number of years and not have shared possession with anyone other than a spouse.

  • Principle of Notorious Possession

The trespasser has made no attempt to hide the fact that he or she was present on the land that could not have been detected by a casual inspection by the property’s rightful owner.

The above-mentioned principles are, of course, generalizations that may vary considerably between states. We can now turn to the some of rights and responsibilities of rightful owners and continuous trespassers.

1) Neither the owner nor the potential adverse possessor of a property may “set a trap” or some other device that is intended to cause bodily injury to another person or unreasonable damage to another’s personal property.

2) Neither party may resort to an illegal act (e.g. arson or reckless gunfire) to force the other party from the property.

3) An owner cannot use unreasonable or illegal force to remove the trespasser but must instead rely on law enforcement agencies to physically eject a trespasser but, once the trespasser is removed, the owner may take any reasonable steps to prevent the trespasser’s physical return.

4)Once a party has petitioned for and been granted ownership of a property by means of adverse possession, access to the new owner’s land cannot be restricted in any way by the former owner except through legally permissible means such as refusing to grant an easement.

***

As always, these generalizations cannot take the place of legal counsel. Those with questions regarding the above are encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney with experience in land possession and land title law.