game ownwrship..it's starting to change..good or bad.

[G-Man]

http://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/who-owns-that-deer Not sure I like this but I think some monetary restitution should be made to landowner for trespassing and damages on top of fine from states.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Its been said many times that while that deer stands on your land you are the owner, Will be fun to watch where this goes from here.

[growalot]

That's an interesting dilemma...I suppose if the deer body was found on a person's land, why not give the land owner the deer rack. Other than evidence what does the State do with them? As far as monetary restitution,the state should get that for it's conservation enforcement.

[Doc]

I have always accepted the notion that wild game is a public resource unless reduced to possession through legal hunting means. It would be interesting to see a debate on the concept though.

 

Ha-ha ..... if it was changed to individual ownership, could a farmer video deer or bear coming off your property and then damaging his crops, then submit a bill for damages to you? Or maybe when the deer passes through the hedgerow, he now becomes the property of the farmer. If we can just find people with firm opinions on the subject, this will be an interesting discussion.

[Doc]

Another thought..... If ownership of wildlife was changed to the landowner, then hunters trespassing and taking game of your property, posted or not could be charged additionally with theft as well as trespassing ..... right?

[greensider]

i think i should belong to the land owner where it was killed since he would have had the oportunity to take it legaly

[G-Man]

Another thought..... If ownership of wildlife was changed to the landowner, then hunters trespassing and taking game of your property, posted or not could be charged additionally with theft as well as trespassing ..... right?

that's why I think restitution in $ should be given to landowner on top of any fines paid to the state. As fines are pitiful small another fine paid to land owner for trespassing and damage. Let the animal parts belong to the state, Edited April 9, 2015 by G-Man

[Mr VJP]

This case is all about money.  The land owner wants those antlers for their value.  Passing a law saying the land owner owns the wild animals on his land would open a huge can of worms that would only fuel the litigious society we already suffer with.

 

How long was the deer on the land?  Was it just passing through in the night?  How do you prove what land it was on?  How do you prove any of the facts about the taking of that animal without the legal system getting involved like it was a murder trail for a human being?  Who's going to pay the costs of those trails?  Is it owned by the man who's land it was shot on, or the man's land it died on?  Things will get real complicated, real fast.

 

I also believe moving towards land owners having legal rights to wild animals on their land is moving towards the European model of conservation which would not bode well for the American hunter, where hunting becomes a pastime of the rich and powerful elite.  Status, privilege and connections would become needed to hunt, in addition to your state issued hunting license.

 

Wild game in America belongs to all Americans.  That's the way it should stay.

 

This has nothing to do with those who own game farms containing animals that are fenced in.  That's private livestock, and a whole different legal thing.

 

[phade]

This case is all about money.  The land owner wants those antlers for their value.  Passing a law saying the land owner owns the wild animals on his land would open a huge can of worms that would only fuel the litigious society we already suffer with.

 

How long was the deer on the land?  Was it just passing through in the night?  How do you prove what land it was on?  How do you prove any of the facts about the taking of that animal without the legal system getting involved like it was a murder trail for a human being?  Who's going to pay the costs of those trails?  Is it owned by the man who's land it was shot on, or the man's land it died on?  Things will get real complicated, real fast.

 

I also believe moving towards land owners having legal rights to wild animals on their land is moving towards the European model of conservation which would not bode well for the American hunter, where hunting becomes a pastime of the rich and powerful elite.  Status, privilege and connections would become needed to hunt, in addition to your state issued hunting license.

 

Wild game in America belongs to all Americans.  That's the way it should stay.

 

This has nothing to do with those who own game farms containing animals that are fenced in.  That's private livestock, and a whole different legal thing.

 

I agree with Mr. VJP on this. I see little good coming of it. 

[nyantler]

Although I don't believe any property owner actually owns the deer... I do think that there is a "possession is 9/10 the law" when the animal is actually on the property. Obviously, if the neighbor shoots the deer as it walks on to his property he takes possession of that deer... if he shoots it on your property without your permission that becomes an entirely different issue where I believe you might be entitled to the deer

[dbHunterNY]

if the restitution went to his mother the land owner (not him), then state wildlife enforcement wouldn't be funded enough to have as much of a presence that would lead to poachers being caught in the first place, which is how he'd get restitution.
 

state should have restitution and antlers to allow them to keep doing what they're doing.  meat should go to food closet program.  antlers displayed on wall at public events with poacher mug shot by it.  any property damage caused by the poacher is fair game with restitution payed to land owner. 

 

if the value of antlers is high as in this case, it's muddy in areas managed for whitetails.  some put in lots of time and money to grow big bucks and maybe feel they should get some of it back, but it's still a free ranging wild animal.  it sucks and I feel for them but it's a slippery slope where nobody will be happy.  bucks often travel large property to large property.  say a record book buck or any deer was exclusively living on your land where you put big $$$ into food plots, habitat, etc. and it was then pushed by the poacher and poached just over the property line (off your property).  now what? lol  the monkeyed up rules say you have no ownership at all.  see? muddy as heck and that's why things are good similar to what they are now.

[growalot]

OK..need to correct a few things here...

When a deer is shot and it runs to posted property NOT yours,you DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION to tag that deer. If said land owner says no.You can cry to the DEC but they CAN NOT go against the land owner. If said land owner has a tag then he can tag that deer or even allow another to tag it.

[G-Man]

Perhaps if you look at the poached animal.as evidence, after the trial, said evidence is returned to owner.. if posted land would that not be the landowner, same as a shot animal.crossing on to it? If not perhaps recovery laws should be changed...that will tick alot of non hunters off.... it is a slippery slope...

[Doc]

Re-reading the article, I see they are limiting the details of the legal status of the deer strictly to those animals and animal parts that are the subject of a case involving poached animals. My first mistaken take from scanning the article was that the change was a whole lot more broad in interpretation of animal ownership. It does appear to be limited to ownership of "poached" animals. Perhaps it can be argued by some talented lawyer years down the road to have more widespread meaning regarding wildlife ownership .... I don't know. But all I could find in the article and the article linked within, was that it was a very specific case involving a very valuable state record set of poached antlers (worth a pie of money), and the proper way to legally dispose of ownership of those antlers.

[Mr VJP]

If an animal was illegally shot, and it's runs onto posted land, the landowner cannot refuse to let the DEC onto the land to retrieve it.

[growalot]

Oh they most certainly can and they have around here a few times...the only way they could go in and retrieve said deer is IF there was some issue as to illegal, activities going on... period!

 

Sorry I mis-read that...thought you said legally shot...

Edited April 9, 2015 by growalot