What to do about persistent poachers?

[Bill G]

AGAIN you are interpreting the entrance upon private property by anyone as if some are above the laws AND they are NOT.

You say I am referencing the entry onto private property by anyone. It is obvious you have not read what I wrote. I am talking about sworn officers of the law and not just anyone. If a game warden cannot enter private property then the only tickets they could write would be on public property. Think about that.All folks have to do is stay on private property and they are safe. During shotgun deer season the wardens drive around looking for hunters standing around their trucks. They will then enter the private property and check the hunters license, FOID, and gun. If you do not want to believe me that is fine. That is the way it is in Illinois.

 

[GrizG]

So whats the rest of the story? I'm sure that the Game Warden Service didn't just throw a dart at a map to choose what property to watch. It would seem that something prompted an investigation, what was it? They don't just walk around the property and install surveillance without a reason. Odd that there is no mention or explanation as to why the property was being watched. Seems to me that this a result of a botched investigation where somebody jumped the gun and installed surveillance before any warrants were issued.....My guess would be illegal or off season hunting complaints on large tracts of private land and land owners who don't care about following the law.....

There was more information in the "Related Content" referenced at the bottom...

"Officers from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) routinely enter private land on a whim to search for potential hunting violations. They don’t have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and they don’t ask permission from either property owners or a court. Instead, they trespass, wander around as they please, and take photos and videos. They even install cameras so they can keep watching the properties 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

 

[arathol]

AGAIN you are interpreting the entrance upon private property by anyone as if some are above the laws AND they are NOT. let me just refer you to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and remind you that NO) state law supersedes that of the Constitution. GrezG's post above is exactly applicable to GAME WARDENS entering private property.

Heres the thing with Game Wardens.....they are not the same as regular police.
All regulated game animals are considered property of the state. Game Wardens are charged with overseeing the harvesting of said game animals wherever they may be, on private or public lands, and administering the laws pertaining to harvesting those game animals. They are perfectly within their power to enter any property to ensure that game laws are being followed. Doesn't matter if you are hunting on public or private land, they can enter to see if you belong there, if you have the right licenses or permits, if any game animals in your possession are properly reported and tagged etc. Given the fact that the majority of land is privately owned, if they couldn't enter to check on hunters there would be no reason to have hunting laws and land owners could hunt whenever and where ever they pleased. This would be a disaster for wildlife populations everywhere. As for the kind of surveillance mentioned in the lawsuit above, like anything else, probable cause and / or warrants would be needed.

There was more information in the "Related Content" referenced at the bottom...

"Officers from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) routinely enter private land on a whim to search for potential hunting violations. They don’t have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and they don’t ask permission from either property owners or a court. Instead, they trespass, wander around as they please, and take photos and videos. They even install cameras so they can keep watching the properties 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

That quote doesn't reference anything that pertains directly to the lawsuit though, its just a generalization written by the author of the article (who just happens to work for The Institute for Justice, the organization behind the lawsuit BTW) based on the plaintiffs point of view. I'd like to see an actual statement from the defense side as to the specifics of why somebody thought that it was necessary to install cameras...chances are there is a totally different story that isn't being told here....

 

[wardog]

You say I am referencing the entry onto private property by anyone. It is obvious you have not read what I wrote. I am talking about sworn officers of the law and not just anyone. If a game warden cannot enter private property then only tickets they could write would be on public property. Think about that.All folks have to do is stay on private property and they are safe. During shotgun feet season the wardens drive around looking for hunters standing around there trucks. They will then enter the private property and check the hunters license, FOID, and gun. If you do not go want to believe me that is fine. That is the way it is in Illinois.

I doubt you have ever tested what you say the way it is in Illinois by going to court on an issue? IF what you posted about the game warden coming onto your property without your permission and you did not file a complain then you have NO clue other than what you believe. If your perception was true what would keep game wardens from entering anyone's private property and HUNT, fish, trap or actually do whatever they want to do. Your perception is just nonsensical. If you are saying that a game warden can legally enter private land without probable cause then YES you are saying anyone can do so because merely having a badge does NOT entitle one to enter private property without just cause. I'll also tell you that my replies that you posted as something of an indication of my positions on things is exactly what I have experienced as well as being involved in tests in courts of law. One last experience that prompted me to say some things I have is the result of me dealing with this issue for well over 30 years. My property of 106 acres sets in the middle of the section with and easement being the ONLY means of access unless one walks across the other private farm property to get onto mine. When I first purchased the property, I had people from over 100 miles away coming onto the property to hunt and fish, including a couple from the local towns police and I would be hunting it and I would not be allowing others to do so. All but one seemed to understand that until I ran across him mushroom hunting and told him the next time I would file charges and that was the end of that. BUT that did not stop the ones from cities miles away and I called the game warden about trespassing numerous times and then finally after no one would show up I actually7 spoke to the Officer with jurisdiction and explained to him my property set up. His reply was that it would be illegal for him to write a ticket for trespass unless he actually caught them red handed or with justifiable proof. He said that beings my property was in the middle of other private property he would have to wait on the PUBLIC road to confront them or have permission from the surrounding property owners to enter upon their property to oversee mine OR I could give him written permission to hunt my property and to arrest anyone not having such permission. I told him the next call I made would not be for to law enforcement for trespassing. I just do not see how the very same wording of the laws that govern entering private property in both states are identical but yet the interpretation is much different. Don't the same words say what they say and don't say what they don't say?

 

[Bill G]

Heres the thing with Game Wardens.....they are not the same as regular police.
All regulated game animals are considered property of the state. Game Wardens are charged with overseeing the harvesting of said game animals wherever they may be, on private or public lands, and administering the laws pertaining to harvesting those game animals. They are perfectly within their power to enter any property to ensure that game laws are being followed. Doesn't matter if you are hunting on public or private land, they can enter to see if you belong there, if you have the right licenses or permits, if any game animals in your possession are properly reported and tagged etc. Given the fact that the majority of land is privately owned, if they couldn't enter to check on hunters there would be no reason to have hunting laws and land owners could hunt whenever and where ever they pleased. This would be a disaster for wildlife populations everywhere. As for the kind of surveillance mentioned in the lawsuit above, like anything else, probable cause and / or warrants would be needed.

Well put. That is an excellent explanation of what I was trying to say. You summed it up well

 

[Bill G]

I doubt you have ever tested what you say the way it is in Illinois by going to court on an issue? IF what you posted about the game warden coming onto your property without your permission and you did not file a complain then you have NO clue other than what you believe. If your perception was true what would keep game wardens from entering anyone's private property and HUNT, fish, trap or actually do whatever they want to do. Your perception is just nonsensical.

I have never went to court. Why the hell would I,? I have never received as much as a warning nor did my father or grandfather.

You talk about nonsense, your comment about to wardens entering private property to hunt, fish, trap, or do whatever they want is complete nonsense. At what point have I ever said anything like that. In that situation they would not be serving as a warden, they would be a private citizen and would be breaking the law. Your example is compete nonsense

 

[GrizG]

Heres the thing with Game Wardens.....they are not the same as regular police.
All regulated game animals are considered property of the state. Game Wardens are charged with overseeing the harvesting of said game animals wherever they may be, on private or public lands, and administering the laws pertaining to harvesting those game animals. They are perfectly within their power to enter any property to ensure that game laws are being followed. Doesn't matter if you are hunting on public or private land, they can enter to see if you belong there, if you have the right licenses or permits, if any game animals in your possession are properly reported and tagged etc. Given the fact that the majority of land is privately owned, if they couldn't enter to check on hunters there would be no reason to have hunting laws and land owners could hunt whenever and where ever they pleased. This would be a disaster for wildlife populations everywhere. As for the kind of surveillance mentioned in the lawsuit above, like anything else, probable cause and / or warrants would be needed.


That quote doesn't reference anything that pertains directly to the lawsuit though, its just a generalization written by the author of the article (who just happens to work for The Institute for Justice, the organization behind the lawsuit BTW) based on the plaintiffs point of view. I'd like to see an actual statement from the defense side as to the specifics of why somebody thought that it was necessary to install cameras...chances are there is a totally different story that isn't being told here....

There would appear to be enough information in those articles to seek out the documents you wish to examine... or maybe contact IJ directly.

 

[arathol]

My property of 106 acres sets in the middle of the section with and easement being the ONLY means of access unless one walks across the other private farm property to get onto mine. I actually7 spoke to the Officer with jurisdiction and explained to him my property set up. His reply was that it would be illegal for him to write a ticket for trespass unless he actually caught them red handed or with justifiable proof. He said that beings my property was in the middle of other private property he would have to wait on the PUBLIC road to confront them or have permission from the surrounding property owners to enter upon their property to oversee mine OR I could give him written permission to hunt my property and to arrest anyone not having such permission.

Nonsense. If you have an easement to access the property, thats all the Warden needs if there is a legitimate complaint. As long as he uses your means of access he should be able to get on the property without permission of the surrounding owners. Sounds to me like he was more interested in securing an exclusive hunting spot than arresting the trespassers.
Yes to write for trespassing either he needs to witness it or have irrefutable evidence such as trail camera pictures.

 

[Bill G]

Nonsense. If you have an easement to access the property, thats all the Warden needs if there is a legitimate complaint. As long as he uses your means of access he should be able to get on the property without permission of the surrounding owners. Sounds to me like he was more interested in securing an exclusive hunting spot than arresting the trespassers.
Yes to write for trespassing either he needs to witness it or have irrefutable evidence such as trail camera pictures.

Of course it is nonsense. I have land that I cannot access without crossing a neighbors farm. I have an easement to access it.

On another farm we bought the house but there is land behind it that must be accessed by using the driveway thought the yard. We are required to maintain a 30ft wide easement to the back farm we must maintain it with gravel and plow the snow even. That is not a problem because the owner is a CBF farmer so snow removal is not an issue.

There are easements in a huge amount of the farms around here.

 

[Tedster2]

G&F officers sometimes forget that the law does indeed, apply to them. My favorite was the guy checking ponds, in the national forest, on a 4 wheeler. Got a federal ticket for being off road.

 

[Bill G]

G&F officers sometimes forget that the law does indeed, apply to them. My favorite was the guy checking ponds, in the national forest, on a 4 wheeler. Got a federal ticket for being off road.

It seems a lot of folks have had trouble with game wardens. I have never had an issue with them and I have dealt with a lot of them over the years.

 

[wardog]

Nonsense. If you have an easement to access the property, thats all the Warden needs if there is a legitimate complaint. As long as he uses your means of access he should be able to get on the property without permission of the surrounding owners. Sounds to me like he was more interested in securing an exclusive hunting spot than arresting the trespassers.
Yes to write for trespassing either he needs to witness it or have irrefutable evidence such as trail camera pictures.

AND you just made the very case that I have stated from the get-go. "IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT." That therefore invokes a probable cause and makes the entrance upon private property by a Game Warden within the confines of the law. I have no idea of what other states laws read but this discussion is bout two adjoining states that have the very same written language in their game laws. This is exactly why I said one must know exactly what the laws of the state you are hunting in actually say. Many hunters here in this state still believe they have the right to enter private property to retrieve hunting dogs and or wounded game and they do NOT even accompanied by a game warden, or any other law enforcement officer. I have never had a problem with a game officer other than NOT being able to get one to handle trespassing on my property when I first bought it as the original poster inquired about but have actually been to court as a witness in other cases of hunting dogs entering upon private property and the land owner shooting them. I also had a hunter that used to hunt my property all the time and thought he could after I bought it. When I told him no he got permission from an adjoining land owner and sit up on the property line, shot deer on my property and then thought he had the right to go retrieve it. When confronted and ran off my property he called the Game Warden who came out to accompany him to see if he could retrieve his deer. I told the game warden that this isn't the first run in with this very guy trespassing and the answer was NO admittance onto my property. He found out when the Game Warden told him they could not enter my private property. Appears to me that "IF" what some are alleging, that the Game Warden should have been able to assist this guy to retrieve his wounded deer as they can enter upon private property willy-nilly.

 

[Bill G]

AND you just made the very case that I have stated from the get-go. "IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT." That therefore invokes a probable cause and makes the entrance upon private property by a Game Warden within the confines of the law. I have no idea of what other states laws read but this discussion is bout two adjoining states that have the very same written language in their game laws. This is exactly why I said one must know exactly what the laws of the state you are hunting in actually say. Many hunters here in this state still believe they have the right to enter private property to retrieve hunting dogs and or wounded game and they do NOT even accompanied by a game warden, or any other law enforcement officer. I have never had a problem with a game officer other than NOT being able to get one to handle trespassing on my property when I first bought it as the original poster inquired about but have actually been to court as a witness in other cases of hunting dogs entering upon private property and the land owner shooting them. I also had a hunter that used to hunt my property all the time and thought he could after I bought it. When I told him no he got permission from an adjoining land owner and sit up on the property line, shot deer on my property and then thought he had the right to go retrieve it. When confronted and ran off my property he called the Game Warden who came out to accompany him to see if he could retrieve his deer. I told the game warden that this isn't the first run in with this very guy trespassing and the answer was NO admittance onto my property. He found out when the Game Warden told him they could not enter my private property. Appears to me that "IF" what some are alleging, that the Game Warden should have been able to assist this guy to retrieve his wounded deer as they can enter upon private property willy-nilly.

Your above post is regarding a hunter trespassing not a game warden that you called regarding a legitimate compliant.

 

[wardog]

Your above post is regarding a hunter trespassing not a game warden that you called regarding a legitimate compliant.

It does't matter as entering upon private property minus a probable cause is illegal in this state and as stated the language of the law in many other states is the very same. ONE LAST time I will refer you to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in which NO state can supersede. An officer of the law entering upon private property minus a search warrant or probably cause of a crime being committed is in violation of the Constitution as well as the law of this state.

 

[Bill G]

It does't matter as entering upon private property minus a probable cause is illegal in this state and as stated the language of the law in many other states is the very same. ONE LAST time I will refer you to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in which NO state can supersede. An officer of the law entering upon private property minus a search warrant or probably cause of a crime being committed is in violation of the Constitution as well as the law of this state.

You want to quote the 4th amendment then go back and read it. There is a key word "unreasonable". If the law is the way you think it is then every ticket a warden has written on private property was written Illegally. Go tell a game warden that.

 

[Bill G]

It does't matter as entering upon private property minus a probable cause is illegal in this state and as stated the language of the law in many other states is the very same.

Heck of you believe game wardens cannot enter private property in the line of duty you could get to rich. All you need is to gather a large group of folks that were cited (Illegally according to you). Get your group together and file a class action lawsuit against the state for violating your civil rights. See how far that gets you

 

[arathol]

AND you just made the very case that I have stated from the get-go. "IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT." That therefore invokes a probable cause and makes the entrance upon private property by a Game Warden within the confines of the law.

That not what I said.....
You made a claim that a Game Warden refused to enter your property because he needed permission from the property owners. If you made a complaint about trespassers hunting illegally on your land he doesn't need permission from any land owners. All the warden needs to accesses your land is the same easement you use. He can enter properties to pursue and apprehend the trespassers but can't conduct any active surveillance to catch them without due cause, permission from the land owner or a warrant. You do realize that enforcing Fish and Game laws is different than regular law enforcement? As game animals are property of the state where ever they are, and animals don't recognize property boundaries, Wardens must be able to enter private land to check on illegal hunting and fishing activities that are harvesting these animals in violation of the law.

Are you familiar with HESTER v. U S? This is the US Supreme Court decision that says "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,' is not extended to the open fields." This has not been overturned as of yet. A Game Warden can use this so-called "open field doctrine" to enter property to enforce game laws. I would expect that the above mentioned Tennessee court decision would be overturned if it went to appeal based on this.

 

[singinwoodwackr]

Many years back when the family had a 2000ac ranch in NorCal one of our regular guys…hunter…happened to spot some movement down in one of the many canyons. He just happened to be hunting that day so scoped the spot. Guy in camo with a rifle. Now, Donny knew he was the only one on the ranch that day, so…
he chambered a round and put it between the guy’s feet at about 300 yds.
poacher got the message.
true story…

 

[wardog]

The Hester v. U.S. case is a totally different issue than what is being discussed here. There are many differences as the officers had probable cause and even witnessed it from numerous yards away from the private property. The defendant's ran from said property onto other property, NOT their private property, dropped and abandoned the evidence which was collected and proved to be in violation of the law. AGAIN, there was probable cause to enter upon the defendants own private property and then when one ran onto other property the officers were in pursuit of what they determined to be criminal and therefore with just cause. NONE of what happened in the Hester case was them entering private property WILLY-NILLY, even though they had no search warrant they did have probable cause and that cause was verified by the finding of illegal liquor in the abandoned broken jugs.

 

[wardog]

You want to quote the 4th amendment then go back and read it. There is a key word "unreasonable". If the law is the way you think it is then every ticket a warden has written on private property was written Illegally. Go tell a game warden that.

TRUST ME, I have read the 4th Amendment, numerous times. YOU seem to be one of those that want to pick and choose specific words and then apply your opinion of what it means in the definition of something. Having actually enforced the words of laws as a federal employee working in an Executive Branch Agency with the authority to enforce said written laws it becomes pretty clear that one must apply the exact definitions of the words and NOT what they think they mean. Trying to enforce a law with one’s OPINION of what the words mean is NOT enforcing the words of the law as written and very well may put the enforcements officer in jeopardy of legal violations themselves. In this instant case, at hand, as with ALL issues of law there is past practice, case law or settled LIKE cases in volumes on shelves of every lawyer's office. There are also legal dictionary’s, the most prominent one used is “Black’s Law Dictionary” and many law school sites on the internet, one can utilize to find LEGAL definitions of words or phrases used in the legal system. Your claims of an ‘OFFICER” of any kind entering upon private property be it your land, home, vehicle, WILLY-NILLY as you claim is in violation of the law. IF you or anyone else allow that to happen, that is you allowing a violation of the law upon you and yours. NOW, the sticky point here is the probable cause and there is also a LEGAL definition of that as well. I will NOT cite it for you but suffice it to say it does NOT say WILLY-NILLLY or any time they so desire.



UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE

THELAW.COM LAW DICTIONARY & BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED.



A violation of constitutional rights as per the Fourth Amendment. Where law enforcement conduct a search and seizure of a person or property without having (i) a search warrant and (ii) probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime may be present.