What to do about persistent poachers?

[Bill G]

No substitute for knowing your own land, being able to tell where the sot came from and knowing the terrain in that area, makes sense if you're sensible.

In a civilian situation firing a gun without a specific target does not make sense and is not sensible. It is irresponsible, dangerous, possibly criminal, and most importantly can be deadly. You have no clue what you are shooting at when you attempt to "zing" bullets over their head. What if there is a second hunter in tree stand behind the first guy in a ground blind. You go "zinging'' lead over the first guys head and hit the second guy.

What happens if they fire back?

 

[psc1947]

Have a nice day.

 

[Bill G]

I sure hope to

 

[Kdawg]

How about a quick update?

First off, I want to express my appreciation for everyone who has responded. I appreciate the sharing in my pain and I appreciate the suggestions and helpfulness that everyone has provided. Know that I will always execute a careful and measured response even though what happened still gets me unnervingly mad about the whole situation. In the darker hours violent thoughts might have been in the mix around here too, but a plodding measured response is what keeps it all legal and that’s just how it’s gonna have to run.

Having pay hunters has worked out fairly well. When they are there, no one tries to move in on their game and test their patience… and their hunting blinds, etc. are set up such that it looks like there might be someone in there at all times. They have cameras on cameras. If previous poachers have scouted that, they have gotten the message.

There have been a few that have sniffed around from the road; one went right up the property line (on foot) with the problem neighbors last week. Within 5 min the autel 640T picked him up on infrared through the trees. Tracked for a little over an hour and the person took off without trespassing.

Sympathetic neighbor(s) and roadside-ish cameras let me know when someone is circling or parked, so that’s good. Quick flight let’s me know they are not trespassing and let’s them know it’s probably not worth the risk of getting caught.

No taunting cold beer cans left next to deer stands this year. Ha! When the usual suspects are cruising and boozing in the evenings I fly a cheaper drone fully lit up with extra strobes tracking their vehicle while flying over my land to be as obvious as possible while staying out of range. They move on quickly.

Other security aspects could still be improved upon and complacency is not an option. Border marking could still be improved. I have a lead on a couple newer mechanical robo-bucks but the legalities of a road hunter engaging them when I’m not law enforcement is not clear…and I’m really on the deterrent track, not a confrontation path.

I hope that by demonstrating that the free-for-all is truly over on these parcels will have some acceptance that leaves room to approach them on their level when this has cooled off a bit. Having enemies is time consuming, which one does not get back. Spending time on building, family, creative pursuits, and personal moon shots is really where I want to end up.

Thanks again for everyone’s continued input and sharing. There are thought provoking aspects throughout this thread… and my hope is that I don’t catch anyone this hunting season. Fingers crossed.

 

[wardog]

Shooting a drone out of the sky is a Federal offense. A drone is considered an aircraft, and shooting down a drone is no different than shooting down an airplane that buzzing your house.
Title 18 US Code 32 of the 1984 Aircraft Sabotage Act
https://laws101.com/shoot-down-a-drone/https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

If you try to jam the com signal, thats a Federal offense too..
Communications Act of 1934
https://pilotinstitute.com/drone-jammers/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5

I like it when someone cites the laws being violated and then also includes the citation. This old crap of this is, in violation or this isn't in violation, is merely OPINION unless you can provide the plain and simple words of the law. I spent an entire30+ year Federal career enforcing the words of the law and was a subject matter expert witness numerous times for the government. Trust me what one thinks it says and what it actually says are entirely different, at times. The sane thing holds true for game laws, private property etc. The funny thing about the so-called nuance in the words of the laws is that when an issue gets before a court of law, I have never seen a judge NOT render an OPINION that is anything other than in accordance with the plain and simple words as written in the law. ALL the shucking and jiving comes from the litigants trying to persuade an arbiter to see the words as they do when the words plainly "say what they say and don't say what they do NOT say." They do so for a reason.

 

[wardog]

The game wardens in Illinois can and will enter any property at anytime. They can and will enter your home in search of illegally taken game. They do not need a search warrant just a reasonable suspicion of discovery.
In Illinois if you do any of the things you have suggested and the trespasser is injured or their property is damaged you will end up in court on the losing end. You can believe what you want but that is the way it is. That is the way it works. Here is some real life examples not something pulled from the internet.

1. In about 1978 my father and I were running traps on the Mississippi River. We look over to the bank and see a game warden driving his car (yes car) along a private logging road we had to access our boat landing. This was a rough rutted up logging road in the woods Dad says "we had better go see what he wants" He pulled into the clearing and dad steered to boat over to see him. The warden had stopped along the way through the woods to help a 80 year man load a deer he had legally harvested on our land. The warden wanted to know about some illigal trapping that had been occurring in that section of pool 16. He got in the boat with us and Dad took him to where it was going on. The warden looked at the sets and looked at Dad and said "well you want a few more traps" The warden pulled the sets and put them in our boat. The game warden entered our land without permission and had no expectation of a crime being committed on that land


2. In about 1986 I was legally hunting my own land with my brother and cousin. It was near the end of the day and we were walking out along the north slop of a hill as we got closer to the road we saw someone crossing the creek on foot not wearing orange. We went to investigate and it was a game warden carrying a wooden silhouette gun. He was own our farm without permission and not in orange. He said the wooden gun was to make it seemed like he was hunting. He was an idiot but he was the law. The game warden entered our land without permission and had no expectation of a crime being committed.

3. In about 1988 my brother and cousin were on our land. It was at the end of the day again. This time they were riding ATV's out a logging road. As they came down the big bluff hill the encountered a game warden a solid distance onto our farm. Now in this case they were in the wrong as it was after sunset which used to be the end of shooting hours. They had their guns loaded and were on ATV's They were cited for loaded weapons after legal shooting hours and hunting from a motorized vehicle. The game warden entered our land without permission and had no expectation of a crime being committed.

4. In about 2004 a kid and his buddies thought it would be fun to take their fathers 4 wheel drive truck and go "mudding" Well the idiots crossed the creek and went out into plowed field and got stuck in the middle. It was our land. They left the truck and we saw it the next day. We called the law and they came out ran the plates and called the owner. The officer told Dad that he had to allow them reasonable access to retrieve the vehicle. Dad was a growly ole guy and had some words with the officer but that was the law. In was about a week before it froze up enough for them to get the truck out. In that week someone busted all the glass out of the truck. I did not do it but had I then I would have been in court on the losing end.

I have more real life actual examples but somehow I think you will just keep believing what you want. I sure hope you do not do the things you talk about but if you do get a good attorney.

As I am a student of the words of the laws, I actually contacted the Illinois Dept. of natural resources to inquire about this very issue of Conservation officers entering PRIVATE Property. I was quoted exactly what I posted above:
"All Conservation Police Officers are empowered, pursuant to law, to
enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife
Code and Administrative Rules."
I then told the guy I was communicating with that was the very IDENTICAL language as it is in Indiana, but an officer cannot enter upon private property without consent of the landowner UNLESS they have probable cause that a violation of the game laws is being violated. When I put forth your scenarios in Illinoi and stated that "IF" that were to happen here in Indiana an officer would be facing charges in court. He would NOT comment on them specifically but replied that he did not know the game laws in Indiana but again quoted the above. Sounds to me like some opinions that have NOT been tested in a court of law as there is also a legal definition of probable cause.

 

[Bill G]

Are you referring to Illinois or Indiana law?

 

[wardog]

According to the written words of the laws and the guy I communicated with in Illinois they are the exact same words.

 

[Bill G]

According to the written words of the laws and the guy I communicated with in Illinois they are the exact same words.

So are you saying wardens can or cannot enter private property?

 

[wardog]

What I am saying is that the head of the Illinois Dept of Natural resources that I communicated with answered your very question posed from me as "
"All Conservation Police Officers are empowered, pursuant to law, to
enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife
Code and Administrative Rules."
He would NOT elaborate on the scenarios you stated, and I specifically sent them to him. Beings I spent an entire 30+ year career as a federal employee mandated by Congress to assure laws were abided by, I suspect he did NOT want to get into a definite answer because it would depend on what would be an officer's reasonable suspicion of just cause of a violation of the wildlife code. AGAIN there is a legal definition of what is a reasonable cause and that does NOT include entering onto private property because someone is hunting it and therefore one may be violating the game laws. I also understand that NOT all states laws are written in such a manner, but they ALL say what they say and don't say what they don't say. They do so for reasons and in this case the catch phrase in the law is "to enforce the provisions of the wildlife code." That means they must have probable cause of a violation being committed and not merely a hunch.

 

[Bill G]

What I am saying is that the head of the Illinois Dept of Natural resources that I communicated with answered your very question posed from me as "
"All Conservation Police Officers are empowered, pursuant to law, to
enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife
Code and Administrative Rules."

That sums it up right there. It says all lands and waters. I am not sure how much clearer it can be. Game officers can and will enter any land they chose. I have many other examples including one in which a game officer came to my workplace to talk to me about a situation. I enjoy talking with them and I have zero issues with them coming on my land nor did my father or grandfather. The DOC added law enforcement in 1925 and none of the three of us have ever had a problem with the nor received any type of ticket.

Looking at some of the things you have talked about in the this thread it is obvious laws on Indiana are extremely different or at least interpreted differently.....things such as these...

.................. All I can say is that after several of the past 30 years of SHOTS being fired and some people's trucks with stray bullet holes through the beds or windows, the word gets out that crazy stuff goes on out at that property!

I live in Indiana just across the river from Illinois and have never hunted in Illinois but know many that do. To address many people's concerns about blowing holes in vehicles and or nails, Those are not things I would do as a first choice but I will tell you that the property is mine to do with as I like so "IF" I choose to shoot through my property and or put boards with nails in them randomly throughout, that is my prerogative and evidently those who trespass can't be controlled to stay out of harm's way to their property as they illegally enter upon mine! I can shoot holes through my own home or truck "IF" I want to do so.

I guess in Indiana the above actions are legal but in Illinois those actions will land you on the wrong side of the courtroom. On the end you may prevail but your lawyer bill will be huge

 

[slowp]

Welcome to the "peaceful" country where real estate agents probably didn't tell you about this.

There's a reason taxes are lower and people have more freedumb.

I prefer to live in town. It is quieter.

 

[psc1947]

My property is clearly marked "Firing Range Do Not Enter" with additional signs "If I Were You I'd Turn Back" and "Are you Stupid or Just Bulletproof?"

*Plausible Deniability* Plus They're welcome to shoot back.

 

[fastduc]

The only thing people, like the ones you are dealing with is, being hit hard! You are in a fight for your land and family (pets are family). Hit them back as hard as you can and feel no remorse, talk softly but carry a big stick!!

 

[grizz55chev]

Welcome to the "peaceful" country where real estate agents probably didn't tell you about this.

There's a reason taxes are lower and people have more freedumb.

I prefer to live in town. It is quieter.

I bet you lock your car and your front door, we don't, and have never had a theft nor a break in.

 

[wardog]

That sums it up right there. It says all lands and waters. I am not sure how much clearer it can be. Game officers can and will enter any land they chose. I have many other examples including one in which a game officer came to my workplace to talk to me about a situation. I enjoy talking with them and I have zero issues with them coming on my land nor did my father or grandfather. The DOC added law enforcement in 1925 and none of the three of us have ever had a problem with the nor received any type of ticket.

Looking at some of the things you have talked about in the this thread it is obvious laws on Indiana are extremely different or at least interpreted differently.....things such as these...



I guess in Indiana the above actions are legal but in Illinois those actions will land you on the wrong side of the courtroom. On the end you may prevail but your lawyer bill will be huge

Like a lot of other things people want to pick and choose what they want to utilize in the words written in law, religion et. al. issues. The law is ACTUALLY written as a whole and not something one can pick out what they like and disregard what they do not like or that does NOT fit into their agenda. Your interpretation leaves out much language before and after what you claim says it all. Prior to those words are "pursuant to law" and after "to enforce the provisions of the wildlife code." In doing any of those things an officer of the law must also abide by the law and this is where probable cause and or a reasonable suspicion that laws are being violated comes into play. None of those things include one entering private property Willy-Nilly without probable cause to do so, they can however enter with a search warrant as that would have been approved via a court of law where they established a probable cause with a judge. Just as you sight some of your experiences, I have hunted my entire life and with dogs that have no idea of private property lines and have experienced much of what I have stated personally and in front of a judge in court. That includes a landowner shooting and killing my hunting buddies NEWLY purchased $1800.00 dog that had a coon treed in his barn, after tracking it from property we had permission to be on. By the way even in this case the sheriff had to go talk to the landowner to get permission before we could even go into the barn to get the dog. MY point is that folks need to know the legal interpretation of the laws of the state they are in and NOT what they believe them to be or what they have practiced over the years. A lot of hunters, in this state even today believe that they have the right to enter upon private property to fetch their hunting dogs and or game when they do NOT and neither does a landowner have to allow them to do so when being accompanied by a game warden or other law enforcement officer. The only OPINION in such matters is one tested and rendered in a court of law and not one via public opinion.
"All Conservation Police Officers are empowered, pursuant to law, to
enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife
Code and Administrative Rules."

 

[GrizG]

What I am saying is that the head of the Illinois Dept of Natural resources that I communicated with answered your very question posed from me as "
"All Conservation Police Officers are empowered, pursuant to law, to
enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife
Code and Administrative Rules."
He would NOT elaborate on the scenarios you stated, and I specifically sent them to him. Beings I spent an entire 30+ year career as a federal employee mandated by Congress to assure laws were abided by, I suspect he did NOT want to get into a definite answer because it would depend on what would be an officer's reasonable suspicion of just cause of a violation of the wildlife code. AGAIN there is a legal definition of what is a reasonable cause and that does NOT include entering onto private property because someone is hunting it and therefore one may be violating the game laws. I also understand that NOT all states laws are written in such a manner, but they ALL say what they say and don't say what they don't say. They do so for reasons and in this case the catch phrase in the law is "to enforce the provisions of the wildlife code." That means they must have probable cause of a violation being committed and not merely a hunch.

The Institute for Justice is weighing in on these issues... In a TN case the wildlife folks lost on Constitutional grounds.

https://ij.org/press-release/in-vic...-warden-surveillance-law-as-unconstitutional/

 

[Bill G]

Like a lot of other things people want to pick and choose what they want to utilize in the words written in law, religion et. al. issues. The law is ACTUALLY written as a whole and not something one can pick out what they like and disregard what they do not like or that does NOT fit into their agenda. Your interpretation leaves out much language before and after what you claim says it all. Prior to those words are "pursuant to law" and after "to enforce the provisions of the wildlife code." In doing any of those things an officer of the law must also abide by the law and this is where probable cause and or a reasonable suspicion that laws are being violated comes into play. None of those things include one entering private property Willy-Nilly without probable cause to do so, they can however enter with a search warrant as that would have been approved via a court of law where they established a probable cause with a judge. Just as you sight some of your experiences, I have hunted my entire life and with dogs that have no idea of private property lines and have experienced much of what I have stated personally and in front of a judge in court. That includes a landowner shooting and killing my hunting buddies NEWLY purchased $1800.00 dog that had a coon treed in his barn, after tracking it from property we had permission to be on. By the way even in this case the sheriff had to go talk to the landowner to get permission before we could even go into the barn to get the dog. MY point is that folks need to know the legal interpretation of the laws of the state they are in and NOT what they believe them to be or what they have practiced over the years. A lot of hunters, in this state even today believe that they have the right to enter upon private property to fetch their hunting dogs and or game when they do NOT and neither does a landowner have to allow them to do so when being accompanied by a game warden or other law enforcement officer. The only OPINION in such matters is one tested and rendered in a court of law and not one via public opinion.
"All Conservation Police Officers are empowered, pursuant to law, to
enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife
Code and Administrative Rules."

You have went off on private landowner rights. That has nothing to do with what a game warden can do. They have zero relation to each other

 

[arathol]

The Institute for Justice is weighing in on these issues... In a TN case the wildlife folks lost on Constitutional grounds.

https://ij.org/press-release/in-vic...-warden-surveillance-law-as-unconstitutional/

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.....

 

[wardog]

You have went off on private landowner rights. That has nothing to do with what a game warden can do. They have zero relation to each other

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.