jrm

Thanks much for that. Don't know why I had so much trouble finding it. Yes, it is very boring reading. I still like a legitimate reference point to go back to. Too many people "know" the rule without ever having seen the rules. There is quite a bit of incorrect (read: BS) information out there, some perpetuated by people who should know better and are given the responsibility of teaching it to others.

Thanks for posting this. Very helpful to see the actual wording of the law. Again - is the full law section available anywhere online? I can only find penal codes online. If I am reading this correctly, according to ECL all you need on a sign is name, address and the single word "POSTED." Interesting.

From everything I have read, the only difference is that DEC can enforce when the trespass is hunting related. I don't know the specifics, but they have fines and I imagine the power to revoke a hunting license. If the trespass is not hunting related, the DEC does not have the power to do anything. On the other side, even if the trespass involves hunting, the sheriff can levy additional charges/penalties beyond what the DEC can enforce. For example, a hunter is trespassing on your land. You tell him to leave and he threatens to shoot you. The DEC can fine him for trespass and the sheriff can arrest him on based on the threat. So trespass is bad on its own, but trespass while hunting just opens you up for additional fines/problems. Trespass always violates the penal code. Trespass while hunting ALSO violates the ECL.

Yes - but the way I understand it, and ECO can only handle EC issues - hunting, fishing, trapping. If the trespass does not involve those areas, then you need to go through the sheriff/regular law enforcement. That "jurisdiction" issue is not directly connected to posting.

Thanks, I must have missed that one. I think the DEC recently re-did their FAQ on this. Do you know where/if ECL is available online? The answer DEC provides is interesting in that is does not rule out "KEEP OUT" signs for ECL enforcement purposes. It simply states that ECL "guidelines" (not rules) are more "effective" (not required). From a curiosity standpoint, I would like to see how the actual rules are worded. For all we know, it could be a crack legal team or a barely literate teenager with no clue writing the FAQ answers.

Since penal vs environmental law has been mentioned... DEC gives some specifics about posting. Signs of a certain size with specific information posted a minimum distance. All I could find in the penal law is "conspicuous." DEC will only get involved with hunting violations. For other trespass, you must contact local law enforcement. So the question is: Does a "conspicuous" "KEEP OUT" or "NO TRESPASSING" sign satisfy the penal law requirement? It would seem that an ECO would not have to honor such a sign, but would that still allow the local sheriff to act? I don't know if anyone has a definitive answer, but it is an interesting question. It would also seem to clarify the comments where people did not want to put complete contact info on their "posted" sign - while it might prevent an ECO from acting, the sign alone _may_ still satisfy penal law requirements for posting.

Absolutely. That's why we have courts... rarely are two situations exactly the same. i would think that a driveway itself would be a clear indication of "improvement"... from the driveway. Someone enters via that driveway and my guess is that posting isn't necessary to claim trespass. Of course, there are likely exceptions to this. Some distance down the road, or from a different side of the property could be a very different situation. As I mentioned, context is a big factor. When I noted driveways and other improvements, I see how I didn't fully clarify my assertion. If you have a driveway (i.e. improvement) and someone enters your unposted land via that driveway, or cuts through your cornfield (improvement) that is trespass without need for posting. If you have "posted" signs every 10 ft or improvements or a fence - along ONE side of your property, that doesn't necessarily protect you on another side of your property. I have a neighbor with 40+ acres. His entire property is landscaped. House in the middle, no woods, all fields. He keeps a beautiful "lawn." I would argue that anyone on his property is trespassing with our without signs. It is pretty darn obvious to anyone that this is private, improved and occupied land. My property, although a little smaller is mostly sloping woods. Only about 10-15% of my land - the part near the road - is "developed. From the road, I don't believe I need to post. House, driveway, storage buildings and other "improvements" make it painfully obvious this is private property. Same for the side which borders the neighbor mentioned above. My other two sides, however, I have posted. They are in the woods with little in the way of landmarks to know what is where. It took me a while to learn the layout. First winter I was there, I was hiking through the snow and ended up crossing onto a different neighbor's property (who is also mostly woods). When everything is covered in snow and all the reference points are gone, it is easy to get a bit off course. While I don't want trespassers, I can understand how difficult it would be for a stranger to "know" exactly where the property line is in those woods - with or without a tax or survey map.

There are many different circumstances and very different situations being discussed in this thread. Rural land in the middle of the woods is very different than a backyard in the suburbs. Posting is supposed to be a tool to inform potential trespassers that an otherwise non-obvious border exists. That's why all the EC and penal laws refer to "unimproved" or "vacant" land. Having a driveway makes the land "improved" and thus does not require posting. Is it still a good idea to post? It can't hurt and may be helpful depending on exact location and circumstances. Gate across the driveway? If someone is opening a closed gate or climbing/circumventing it, then I can easily see why the sheriff and ECO are willing to enforce trespass laws without the need for you to post. Someone enters your driveway, comes in to your cornfield, climbs your fence... you do not need to post. Based on the info DEC has on their website up until recently, you wouldn't need to post to prosecute someone who was on a trail you brush-hogged. On the other hand, if that big oak tree in the middle of the woods happens to be on your property line and someone walks past it, you don't have much of a case unless the land (or at least that section of it) is posted. The law seems to give the benefit of the doubt in an unclear situation. This is a good thing. Although I know where my property line is, there are places where it isn't _exact_. I would not want to be arrested because a storm knocked down some trees I use as a point of reference and cause me to step 5ft over the line. What you can claim, the need to post and what enforcement options are available are relative to context.

While I have done a bit of research on this issue, I am not a lawyer, judge, prosecutor, legislator or state trooper. Those are the people who decide the real answer. There is nothing in the current law to prevent you purchasing ammo out of state and bringing it back to NY. The law only addresses sales inside NY. From what I recall, there is also nothing in the law to specifically prohibit online sales from an out-of-state retailer shipping to you in NY. However, many retailers consider this a grey area and do not want to risk problems. Larger retailers all have a "presence" in NY and are thus bound by the NY law. Even thought the database provision isn't active, they want to play it safe and not be a high profile target of Albany. An arrest of "John Doe, law abiding citizen" is not a attractive as "stopping this evil mega-corporation from filling our streets with dangerous guns." The bigger you are, the better a target you represent. The above is all theory. In practice, no one knows what will happen. I have heard "stories" - from unreliable sources - that police will be targeting vehicles with NY plates returning from places like PA where there is a Cabela's on the way back. I find this highly unlikely, and don't know what "charge" could be used. Still, some people are saying they "heard" this. Lots' of crazy rumors floating around and who knows what will happen. Coming back with a brick of .22? They might try, but can't do anything. Decided to stock up and buy a few cases of something? They might accuse you of being a non-licensed dealer looking to avoid the database system. Truth doesn't matter - they control the media and can spin the story to make you look like Al Capone. I think November will have a big effect on all this. If Cuomo and the rest of the incumbents who supported the safe act all win and don't fee threatened by the election results, we will see "improved" legislation and heavy handed enforcement. New legislation could easily clear up any "buy out of state" question for the worse. If people get voted out and/or feel that safe support endangers their political career, things might cool down for a while. All IMO. YMMV. Non-professional opinion on closed course. Do not attempt at home. Etc.

Not really the same thing. Sale/possession of fireworks is illegal as well as their use. If you put a bottle rocket in a package that called it a "wall decoration" with a "do not expose to heat or flame" warning, it would still be illegal to sell/posses in NY. I have seen these products all over Dicks, Gander Mountain, Tractor Supply and some local stores. In one store I asked about them, not understanding how they could be sold since baiting/feeding is not legal. The clerk just gave me a "knowing" smile. I think the issue is that the _contents_ of the product are legal and there is no way to regulate. One of the products shown in these photos is "50% pellets/50% corn." How do you outlaw or regulate corn? I am guessing "pellets" are the same/similar pellet feed I give to my horses... can you imagine showing proof of horse/livestock ownership and having all legitmate feed purchases tracked and monitored? Impractical, impossible and absurd. What I find amazing is the marketing/packaging of these products. The package states and promotes a use that is completely illegal in NYS (feeding/baiting deer). They don't even make an attempt to appear legit. Actually, I always though it was a crime to promote and encourage someone else to commit a crime. On those grounds, this type of packaging should not be allowed. I am surprised that the big chains carry these items. Changing the packaging will not eliminate the use or practice, but it may help prevent folks who don't know any better (non-hunters who just want to "feed the pretty deer") from adding to the problem. Those who want to break the law will always do so, especially when the ingredients are so readily obtainable. Heck, it is probably less expensive to buy some cheap corn and livestock fee to make your own.

That retailer will do an ammo transfer to an FFL in NY. There are several who will do that. I was referring to online merchants who will ship ammo directly to your door without an FFL. There are still a few.

PM sent

There are some online retailers who will still ship ammo to a NY address (not NYC). From what I have read, it is not illegal - especially since the "database" part of safe has not been implemented yet. YMMV.

Interesting question. There is a training "fad" in the horse world called "Natural Horsemanship." I won't bore you with the details. Bottom line is the irony - whether you subscribe to the techniques of "natural horsemanship" or not, just about everyone will admit that there is nothing "natural" about putting a human on the back of a horse. Same thing with "wild" horses in America - there is no such thing. Horses went extinct in the Americas prior to colonization. There are only feral horses. Same thing here. While there are "natural" areas, they are created and/or managed by humans. At best we can call them "feral" areas. Even left untouched, they are affected by the surrounding area. Development of the human habitat has permanently altered the landscape. Our presence has had some sort of effect on the land since it was first settled. So "natural" really depends on where you want to draw the line.

SteveB, I'm with you on the basic premise, but am trying to better understand your proposed solutions. 1. Replacing laws with the painted line. What makes you think this works better than what we have now? I would bet there are people in these other states who think it doesn't and would prefer a sign system like we have in NY. Frankly, putting up some cheap signs and checking on them/replacing them once a year doesn't seem that much more difficult than paint. I think of my property - one side has no trees at all to paint, another side we lost several trees from storms in the spring. So I would still need signs and have to maintain the paint areas. Having the option to use paint in lieu of signs would be great. More options to fit individual circumstance is a good thing. I don't think the NY laws are overly confusing (on this topic). Either way, the same people would write a "paint" law, so we could expect it be just as clear/confusing as it is now. Paint and signs are both a passive deterrent. The same people will see paint and ignore it (or honor it) just as they do the signs. It's like any other law - only the honest people will obey and the criminals will still ignore. More laws will not fix this. 2. Written permission to be carried. Good concept, but the execution is problematic. We are talking private property. Only the landowner has the right to allow or forbid people from their property. Your suggestion would create a presumption of guilt for anyone on that property. Some workman comes on the property and doesn't have the written permission with them, and they can be arrested? Your brother-in-law happens to drop in while you are not around and uses his spare key. Of course, if you are home and complaining about someone who shouldn't be there, the lack of written permission idea has more traction. I can still think of many situations where this could cause unnecessary problems for both homeowner and his guests. There are also people who don't mind others hunting their land (or hiking the trails). Having every stranger contact you for written permission creates a lot of work for the landowner. 3. Stiffer penalties As I understand it, EC penalty is a ticket for a few hundred dollars. That sounds pretty stiff to me. For non-EC enforcement, I think the penalty would depend on the situation. I don't have a problem giving the police some discretion here. If someone is apparently trying to break-in or steal something, I think (hope) the police would pursue a criminal charge. If it is just the old guy down the road who had dementia and wandered off - I don't see a reason to impose mandatory jail time. What kind of penalties would you like to see that we don't already have? Remember that a felony conviction could bar someone from gun ownership for life. We could argue whether this is fair for willful trespassers, but that has to be balanced with a "zero tolerance" approach which could affect those making an honest mistake. Even those who put in the work can make an honest mistake.

Thanks... That doesn't sound to bad. I actually do something similar with survey tape. The land was surveyed before I bought it and I like to keep the tape "current" so I know where the lines are. As surveyors do, you can line up the knots on the tape with the property line. Either paint or tape is easy to do yourself. I can see it would be costly if you have to pay for a survey. Tape might be better without a survey, since it is easier to correct a mistake.

I'm on an ipad this week which makes it difficult to quote and provide external reference links. Apologies in advance for the auto-correct fiasco which may follow. One thing being missed in the "no different than being in the backyard" comments is the word "unimproved." Your backyard - typically adjacent to your home, typically landscaped -is improved property. There is no need to post that type of land. I don't see it now, but as recently as a few months ago, the DEC website indicated something as simple as brush hogging would qualify as "improved" land. The basic principle of the law is that you do NOT have the right to enter private property. The "improved land" wording gives a lot of leeway towards the landowner. It simply acknowledges that in very rural areas, where property lines may be hard to determine, that honest mistakes can be made. Some views on this will depend on where you live. I think the more rural a setting and the more rural land up you have, the more you and understand the issues. All land is owned by someone. I absolutely agree that it should be the hunters responsibility - and not the landowner's - to know where they are and respect private property. I also don't believe someone should be charged with criminal treaspass for an honest mistake. If you are in an area with all private property and no public hunting land, I see little excuse for a trespasser. Just because there is a stretch of property on the side of the road with no fence, this shouldn't give anyone the right to pull over and start hunting, hiking, staving, etc. On the other hand, if you are using a property you have the right to (public or private) there is always the possibility of accidentally wandering across a border when all the trees look the same. Putting the rules aside for a moments, posting is a courtesy. You don't want trespassers on your land and are being courteous enough to let them know where your border is. They, in turn, are expected to return that courtesy by honoring your request. Either the original post or one soon after mentioned technicalities such as posting on trees invalidating the signs. I still don't see any support for that statement. There is only the size and distace requirement which are also mentioned on the DEC site. Pretty simple requirements. The other link mentions specific months. Not sure if this is actually part of the law. I can't find the EC law right now, but the month listing is not in the NYS penal law. As I recall, the land owner is NOT responsible for missing or destroyed signs. I can't recall the exact time frame, but believe it was only once per year when the signs had to be placed/repaired. As long as the signs were placed at the required interval, the landowner was covered for the entire interval - whether or not the sign was still there. What is this purple line thing? Is that an actual line painted in the ground? If so, how does it survive the seasons? How can it be applied through thick brush? Wouldn't it look awful? I'd rather post a few signs than have an ugly line pained through my woods. And how do you handle the groups of people on your property who simply think it is the path for a gay pride parade?

The way I have understood it, the "posted" rules only apply to _unimproved_ land. A front yard - certainly one that people are like to sit in - is probably landscaped. You might even have a driveway and house right near it. This means the land is obviously private property and does not have to be posted. The DEC website it makes a reference to this. It even used to state something about brush-hogging qualifying as "improved" land which doesn't need to be posted. I can understand giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they are in a state forest and accidentally wander into adjacent private land. However, there should be no excuse for entering what is obviously someone else's property. I know some people who like to "quote" rules about posting. One person (who is supposed to be very informed on the topic) told me that a posted sign on a tree "doesn't count." He claimed it had to be on a certain type of freestanding post and a specific height off the ground. He thought these "improperly" placed signs made it okay to hunt on the property (as long as he didn't get caught). When I asked him for a reference, code or rule to support his statement, he backpedaled and claimed each town has it's own rules so I had to look at the local level. I think he is full of it. I could not find any written rule. If someone has a link, I would love to see it. The DEC website has some comments on this. NYS Penal law has the following (from section 140); The only thing I can find is "conspicuous." EC law probably has more detail, although that is separate from penal law (but it does come in to play when dealing with DEC penalties). I have seen the name and address requirement mentioned in several places. Oddly, most signs I see do not have this info, or have incomplete info. I have no idea if this would actually lessen your position, but I think it ridiculous if it did. Also keep in mind that it must be the property owner who tells someone to leave/makes the complaint. A neighbor of mine once called the sheriff because some kids were riding ATVs across another neighbors property. The Sheriff showed up and told him there is nothing he could do unless the property owner is the one to complain. Based on this my neighbor and I exchanged numbers so we could watch out for each other's place and get each other on the phone to authorized the sheriff to act.

Honest and dumb question... I completely understand that you are NOT hunting after dark. However, how to you convince the DEC officer of that when you are sitting in your hunting spot with your rife after legal hunting hours? Maybe I am paranoid, but I sometimes worry when I set up targets on my property to practice bow shooting out of season.

Note, I did quote your original message. So the distinction between the accomplishment vs the shortcut was apparent to anyone who read my entire post. The distinction is relevant. Of course, there are many who would not separate themselves from the accomplishment and would thus find your distinction moot. "I have no respect for you as a hunter" and "I have no respect for your accomplishments as a hunter" is going to come across the same to most people. Of course, stalking a bear for two weeks while living off the land and then taking him with your bare hands is a greater accomplishment than sitting in a climate controlled building and shooting one chained to a tree. (Hyperbole intentional, that is not the example you used). The point is that this level of distinction was not made in your original "respect" comment. People read things and take it personally - just as you seemed to take my post personally and respond defensively. I tried to make it clear that I am not "attacking" you or your position, but merely pointing out how the very situation you were lamenting gets started. I didn't quote the rest of your post here, since I am have no interest in getting into the "baiting" debate. I have no problem with your opinion. I only hunt a private stretch of land in NY and as baiting is not legal here (as was pointed out in your original post). Any of my references to it my prior post were only meant as a topical example for my opinion as to how discussion turns to disagreement which turns to heated argument. The point remains that your post I referenced started out with talk of impartiality and ended with an opinion ("no respect" = judgement in my book) on the topic which seemingly contradicts your original claim. I am not challenging your opinion on the topic. Simply pointing out that, based on other posts in the thread, there are some that could take your "respect" comment as a challenge of sorts. Either way, you have an opinion on the topic (just as valid as anyone else's) which would seem to be at odds with a claim of impartiality. It wasn't personal. I just found the irony a good example to use in response to your musings. I have no wish to get into another p***ing match with one of the regulars here (a moderator, no less). Just pointing out how words are often viewed from the other side of the screen.

Doc, With all due respect, I think you answered your own question. There is nothing wrong with disagreement. I think a big part of the problem is that people have no respect for anyone else's opinion. Your earlier post claims that you don't like framing the question as "right or wrong." Then you end the same post implying that baiting is a shortcut and stating you don't have respect for those that use a shortcut. In other words, you framed the question as right or wrong and then told at least some people they are wrong. While more subtle than most situations, I am sure you can see how some folks might take that personally - or at least feel like they need to defend their position. It is fine to disagree, but solidarity comes from having respect for someone else's opinion. From the posts in this thread, there are apparently people who have no problem with baiting, others who do and some who see it as no different from food plots (for good or ill). None of those people are "wrong" - none of them are "not real hunters." If someone baits, it doesn't stop you from not baiting and vis a versa. (Of course, it is not legal in NY - we are talking about the concept in general, applied where legal). Where all these types of discussions seem to fall apart (with any topic on any internet forum) is when that difference of opinion turns into a real or perceived value judgement or personal attack - you are dumb/unethical/immoral/etc. The fact that most people seem to be functionally illiterate (see how easy it is to make a comment that some could take offense at) combined with the fact that it is difficult to convey meaning usually done through body language only makes matter worse.

I don't know much about turkey, but I was under the impression they did not have much of a sense of smell. From what I have been told, they do have good eyesight. Complete guess - maybe they are able to recognize the trees that drop acorns. "The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree." (With my luck, someone will point out that there is "no such thing" as a dumb question - only dumb answers.)

How is any of this a rant? Someone posted their opinion on a certain class of gun. He has every right to that opinion. I, and others, pointed out what we believe to be a flaw in his logic - a flaw that we think could come back to bite him. A simple discussion, handled in a civil matter. I agree it would be a great opportunity to discuss appropriate timing for introducing kids to guns. instead of complaining (.e. rant) about other posts, why don't you elevate the level of conversation by starting it off? Lead by example and all that.

Do you really think they will try to ban large size sodas? I think that is more "out there" than banning guns. There are people who want to ban ALL guns. They keep trying. They win by increments. Their voice is bolstered by the general media and they are winning the public relations battle. For all practical purposes, they banned guns in Australia and England. The anti-gunners point to those places as "civilized" examples. They note that the U.S. is "clinging to a wild west gun culture" which has "no place" in the modern world. I absolutely believe that a ban on all guns is an extremely remote possibility at this time. Twenty years from now? Fifty? Who knows. Whatever it becomes, the foundation for those rules is being laid today. I won't defend fully auto guns. They are heavily regulated and difficult enough to obtain. What I will point out is that the argument you are using against them is exactly the same argument that anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are using against you right now. To a non-hunter or an anti-gun advocate, your hunting rifle "serves no purpose." You don't NEED to hunt. You can get food at the supermarket "like everyone else." It is either a hobby or a business for you. If others choose to shoot full-autos at targets, their hobby or business is just as valid. If someone likes to fire automatic weapons, it is not place to question the validity of their pursuit. I say more power to them if they can afford to blow through ammo like that! Gun owners are being attacked on all sides. I am not suggesting changing you opinion on automatics. That is a discussion for when they are common carry weapons. What I am suggesting is that gun owners need to stick together and present a united front - just like the anti-gunners do. If the break us down to self-defense vs target vs hunter vs collector, etc. than we will ALL lose.

They said that about handguns in NY and we got the Sullivan Act. They said the same thing about automatics and we got the NFA. Now it is what they say about semi-autos and we have the safe act. You don't think your hunting rifle is also on the list? The goal is to eliminate all guns. They simply realize they can't do it all at once so they do it a piece at a time. Problem is that when all the "other" gun owners have been defeated, there won't be enough "hunters" left to make a difference when they come for the "rest" of the guns. Why does anyone need a 6500# SUV that can travel >100mph? Put a 9-year old kid behind the wheel of one of those and let her loose on Arizona's 75mph highways. The result would likely be just as tragic. The only difference is that no one would be asking why someone needs a vehicle like that.