Allow hunting. . . very inclined to say no.

[ljjhouser]

Thanks again for the additional input. All has been resolved amicably. I realized I only had his email. He emailed me this morning and I responded - attached. Happy that it went well.

Good, Well written response and seemed to resolve that request. I would keep those considerations in mind when others request hunting privileges on you land. I like your decision.

 

[ljjhouser]

In the beginning, after buying my property, I needed to drill and blast a trench for the water line. Signed with the Co-op to get power. They sent a jerk out who was mad he had to walk 800 ' with me into the woods after he ask where the house was going to be. Told me NO power until I get an investment like a water line installed. HOW? This is all rock. He said just lay the line on the ground and cover it will 6" dirt. Then I will do it. Went to talk with his boss. Found they had to put in power, I was a Co-OP member.

THEN - the same jerk was sent back to have me sign the easement permission form. I told him I would get that back next week. THAT made him mad - again.

I took the form to my attorney - had him write all over it - They could ONLY be on my property to maintain my power line, nothing else. Turned it in.

Two years later, the same jerk contacted me. They wanted to develop power somewhere behind my property. Asked me for permission to cross my land with power line. He said it would cost an extra 25K to go around. I told him, well, I guess that is the price of hiring people like you to do business. Remember all the door slamming and crap you dished out when I asked for power? Go around. I hope they fire you.

One time his boss can out to check the power drop. I was visiting with him. He was nice. He told me "I don't know, sometimes he is just that way. I told his boss, one is good about him - What is that? I said, He works for you and not for me. Thank God. He is your problem, not mine.

Four years after that, the neighbor built a new house. He was told they couldn't put in power unless I agreed. It was coming off my line. I did sign that release. I don't sign blanket releases anymore.

I think it is important to know who is on your land and what they are doing.

 

[jmc]

50 plus years ago I asked a classmate if I could squirrel hunt in their woods. He talked to his dad and came back with permission to hunt there ONE time. His dad had also explained to him that people come to hunt, then bring there friends the next time, then those friends come to hunt without the original hunter, and so on. Made sense, and I was glad for that one time opportunity. Now, after 30 years of owning acreage, it makes even more sense. It's not just sportsmen- it's anyone who finds your property attractive/convenient and just show up when you are expecting privacy.

 

[beowulf]

And I should have known better - initially - to say no. And this is why: 35 years ago just after we moved here, and before we had a gate, a guy knocked on the door, introduced himself, and said the former owner used to let him hunt pigs here and wondered if it be okay. After discussing it a while, (and him showing me his 270) I said yes, if he would let us know when he came onto the property and when he left and we would see how it goes. He came on three times - always alone, always after or during a rain and always at night. And he got three pigs - really large ones - and then he would come back with his cousins to drag them out. What I remember vididly is how bad he looked after hunting back there in the hills and brush over night.

Anyway, that worked out - for a while. Then one Saturday morning a pickup pulled into the yard. Five guys with guns - shotguns and rifles. Actually, looked like a possee. I went out to ask them what was going on. They said "we're here for the pigs." What? Yeah, (name of the guy I gave permission to) told us you had a lot of pigs and so we could hunt pigs here. I told them no way was that going to happen, and within minutes I called the guy and told him the pig hunting on our property was over.

 

[ultrarunner]

We are not hunters but my brother has that unicorn property location where hunting is legal and I have counted as many as 30 Deer in two herds. Hunting not legal anywhere else as parkland or in city limits

People are always asking and the Deere play havoc on his seedlings but no hunting...

Last year he said deer so thick the future in law said he would think the herd and it was a go...

Now when people ask he simply says limited to family...

My friend had strict no hunting and when I was out I saw two men with shotguns...

Mentioned to my friend and he said oh ya... that is the county Fire Chief and the other the Undersheriff for the county...

He saw it as paying it forward plus has the private cell numbers for both...

Sometimes never had exceptions...

 

[John_Mc]

I only gave permission once, and the guy interpreted it as permission to poach on my property. Now it's posted No Hunting, which means not even I can hunt here.

I thought Vermont had unusual laws about hunting, access, and liability. In Oregon, if you post "No Hunting" you can't even hunt on it yourself?! That's crazy. If I post my land no hunting, I can still hunt there if I wish, as can anyone to whom I give permission. Technically, if it's posted, they need written permission from me (and carried with them when hunting).

Vermont is different than most other states in which I've lived. Here, unless your property is posted "No Hunting" it's assumed that people have permission to hunt on it. (Though even if not posted, they do have to leave and not return if the landowner asks them to.)

The upside of Vermont's laws on access and hunting: the landowner is not liable if someone is injured on your property while hiking or hunting as long as you are not charging for access.

I'm OK with the need to post if I don't want to allow hunting. I'm not a hunter myself, but I do see it as respecting Vermont's tradition of access and hunting. We did not post for probably the first 10 years or so that we lived here and most of our interactions with those who hunted it were pleasant and polite. We started having a couple of problems with some of the people who hunted here, and our kids were of the age where they were going out on the trails on their own, so we started posting.

I still do let two friends hunt here, but I trust them not to be idiots and to let us know when they are headed out to hunt. Much of Vermont has a problem with overpopulation of deer. The browsing gets so bad that they interfere with forest regeneration. I'm happy to have a couple of people whose judgement I trust do some occasional hunting here.

 

[ljjhouser]

Anyway, that worked out - for a while. Then one Saturday morning a pickup pulled into the yard. Five guys with guns - shotguns and rifles. Actually, looked like a possee. I went out to ask them what was going on. They said "we're here for the pigs." What? Yeah, (name of the guy I gave permission to) told us you had a lot of pigs and so we could hunt pigs here. I told them no way was that going to happen, and within minutes I called the guy and told him the pig hunting on our property was over.

Ferrel pigs are getting to be a very big deal here in MO. Torn up pasture and livestock with broken legs. Mo Conservation now DISCOURAGES (don't think illegal yet) hunting them. On a pig hunt, what usually happens - They kill one or two, the rest scatter and start their own pack. It multiplies. MO Conservation now comes to where a pack is reported and spends a lot of time with a large pen, feeders and cameras, until the are sure they have the entire pack including the leader. Then they euthanize all of them. Hunting seems to just spread them and make them difficult to find all of them.

 

[Jstpssng]

I've hunted on other people's land all of my life, so I have a different attitude. Although it's slowly changing, we have millions of acres of industrial timberland and have always been allowed access. As for liability; This is a summary of our law (bold is mine)

aine has a very landowner-friendly liability law, also known as the recreational use statute. The policy behind it is to encourage landowners to open their lands to recreational use without the concern of possible lawsuits looming over their heads. Under Title 14, Section 159-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, a landowner does not have a duty of care to keep a premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational or harvesting activities or to give a warning of any hazardous condition on the premises to anyone entering for those purposes. For purposes of the statute, a premises includes improved and unimproved land, roads, structures, and water bodies on or flowing through those lands. The statute applies regardless of whether the landowner has posted the property or granted permission to individuals to enter the land.

Recreational or harvesting activities are very broadly defined to include just about anything you can do outside. Some of the more popular activities include hunting, trapping, hiking, sight-seeing, snowmobiling, skiing, canoeing, biking and the gathering of forest, field or marine products. It does not include commercial agricultural or timber harvesting.

There are limited exceptions where the landowner protections will not apply. One is where there has been a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. Another exception to the statute arises if the landowner runs commercial recreation activities on the land and charges a fee for those activities. Where there is no commercial activity, landowners may still charge fees for the use of their lands and benefit from the recreational use statute as along the fees are not meant as compensation for the exclusive use of the property.

As an extra deterrent to bringing lawsuits against landowners for injuries sustained on their land, the statute provides that a court may award legal costs, including attorney’s fees, to a landowner who is found not to be liable for a person’s injury

Since the law was passed over 40 years ago there has never been a successful lawsuit in Maine. They've taken the incentive away from ambulance chasers by making them potentially liable for costs...

in Oregon, if you post "No Hunting" you can't even hunt on it yourself?!

If he so desired, I believe that he could get around it by saying "hunting by permission only."

 

[John_Mc]

If he so desired, I believe that he could get around it by saying "hunting by permission only."

That depends on the laws in each state.

Up until a few years ago, posting "Hunting by Permission Only" was not legally enforceable in Vermont. You had to put up "Posted: No Hunting / No Tresspassing" in order for it to be enforceable. You could then add an additional sign saying "Hunting by Permission Only", but the latter sign by itself would do you no good (other than letting considerate hunters know your preferences). More recently, Vermont passed legislation recognizing the "By Permission Only" postings.

 

[Zmann.]

The "oh and a friend and shotguns and a stand" after you already agreed to conditions should make it an immediate hard no. This guy clearly won't respect boundaries and his friends would be worse.

agreed He was playing on kindness then when the door was open he barged in
I find the word "No" comes more easily any more thanks to the abuse of too many yesses ,, lol