Tresspass Permission Slip

[HUNT6246]

Several years ago (if I recall correctly) I got several blank permission slips for hunting, fishing, trapping and tresspass purposes. Now they're all gone! I wanted to use one before the start of turkey season. I believe the blank permits came from a DEC booth at a county fair. They were a blue two part form and one part went to the property owner and you kept the other half. The part you kept was about credit card size and could be stored in your wallet. Before I start from scratch does anyone know if these are still available or is there a template anywhere that I can use to keep from starting at ground zero to make one up?

[bubba]

I get them from the dec for my hunter ed classes. You should be able to go to the local dec office and pick them up.

[Early]

Interesting....How would such permission slips affect the landowner's liability. Without such a slip, you would be a trespasser; with one, you would be an invitee. Would that not increase the landowner's liability?

[fasteddie]

Here is one I found a couple years ago

Permission slip.pdf

[G-Man]

new york has a law that limits your liabiltiy if someone gets hurt while tresspasing on your property posted or unposted...its about the only good law we have

[Early]

True, but with a permission slip...you are not trespassing.

[HUNT6246]

Fasteddie - That's the one I was looking for. Thanks!

[phade]

True, but with a permission slip...you are not trespassing.

You do not need written permission to hunt on a property (althought smart idea). Verbal permission is legal.

This card is just another way to help hunters/landowners.

It does not impact liability. As long as NO money, services, etc. change hands, the owner is protected.

[Early]

Hmmm....My understanding has always been that no permission = trespasser; verbal permission = invitee...or trespasser if a liability issue comes up; written permission = invitee; permission granted in exchange for money = licensee. Landowner's liability increases through this progression.

[phade]

No. If money or services are not exchanged in NY, the landowner is protected.

Verbal...owner is protected...written....landowner is protected. As long as money/services don't change hands...landowner is protected. I haven't looked at the card in a couple years, but it used to be on the card itself...

Edit...here it is...

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ask.pdf

Edited April 24, 2012 by phade

[Doc]

I think that before I got real comfortable about the recent legal changes in landowner liabilty, I would have to read the exact wording of the law. I'm thinking that there still may be plenty of situations where a landowner still takes on liability.

Here's a situation on our property that makes me wonder: We lived on our property for quite a few decades before we found an old dug well half way up the hill (who would have ever expected a well there?). The well was deep enough to drown anybody who happened to stumble into it and it was uncovered (we have since filled it in with rocks and logs. I have heard about liabilities that involve "maintaining a hazardous situation on your property". When you think of all the conditions and situations where that "hazardous situation" might apply, it appears to me that there might still be plenty of liability to sink a landowner. Good, sharp lawyers can make a good case out of just about anything. So before I hung my hat on this latest re-visit of liability law, I would want to carefully read the words of all that. Some interpretation from a quicky newspaper press release may just be overstating just how far the landowner liabilty really has been relaxed.

In terms of categories of liabilty, I know that it always has been that as soon as you accept money for access permission, the levels of liability go up. I'm not sure about "invitees" and such.

At any rate, there definitely is some value to having written permission. Ever receive verbal permission from the landowner only to be harrassed later by the landowner's friends or relatives who are unaware that you were given permission? Sure can ruin your day. Also, how about the landowner that just plain doesn't have all that good a memory? Get it in writing ..... always a good policy.

[phade]

SImilar deal...except I leased the land. Owner just acquired it. He found an uncovered well...sent me an email to warn me about it so nobody gets hurt (he almost did...that's how he found it). I replied back, thank you for the alert and went and covered it up.

He's protected since I signed paperwork releasing him from responsibility for my stupidity and he did his part by letting me know. Now, in your case, not knowing about it for a while...it seems reasonable to not know about a prior partially dug well on a hillside since it is not common practice to put them there. The protections to the landowner really only give way if they are malicious about some situation.

[hunter49]

I was always told by Dec . property does not need to be posted & a person needs permission to be on it, no excuses or you are tresspassing .

[ants]

I remember years ago, the farmer who's land I hunt got some of those (or something like them)

[Doc]

SImilar deal...except I leased the land. Owner just acquired it. He found an uncovered well...sent me an email to warn me about it so nobody gets hurt (he almost did...that's how he found it). I replied back, thank you for the alert and went and covered it up.

He's protected since I signed paperwork releasing him from responsibility for my stupidity and he did his part by letting me know. Now, in your case, not knowing about it for a while...it seems reasonable to not know about a prior partially dug well on a hillside since it is not common practice to put them there. The protections to the landowner really only give way if they are malicious about some situation.

It's probably the paranoia showing through ... lol, but I always think in terms of what could some shyster lawyer do with a situation like that? And as in so many other cases, releases of responsibility sometimes are not worth the paper they are written on. I just get a bit nervous whenever I hear someone saying "aw, don't worry about it, we've got you covered". When it comes to the security of my financial future, I kind of like to be sure or opt to simply keep people off my land. I'm sure that a lot of other landowners feel the same way.

[mike rossi]

Last I checked, and it wasnt too long ago, the law your talking about protects landowners from lawsuits by persons hunting on their property. There is one exception: if the landowner is compensated for hunting priviledges, this law does not protect him. Guess its a good idea to have the correct insurance if you are going to charge for hunting access....

[mike rossi]

I think that before I got real comfortable about the recent legal changes in landowner liabilty, I would have to read the exact wording of the law. I'm thinking that there still may be plenty of situations where a landowner still takes on liability.

Here's a situation on our property that makes me wonder: We lived on our property for quite a few decades before we found an old dug well half way up the hill (who would have ever expected a well there?). The well was deep enough to drown anybody who happened to stumble into it and it was uncovered (we have since filled it in with rocks and logs. I have heard about liabilities that involve "maintaining a hazardous situation on your property". When you think of all the conditions and situations where that "hazardous situation" might apply, it appears to me that there might still be plenty of liability to sink a landowner. Good, sharp lawyers can make a good case out of just about anything. So before I hung my hat on this latest re-visit of liability law, I would want to carefully read the words of all that. Some interpretation from a quicky newspaper press release may just be overstating just how far the landowner liabilty really has been relaxed.

In terms of categories of liabilty, I know that it always has been that as soon as you accept money for access permission, the levels of liability go up. I'm not sure about "invitees" and such.

At any rate, there definitely is some value to having written permission. Ever receive verbal permission from the landowner only to be harrassed later by the landowner's friends or relatives who are unaware that you were given permission? Sure can ruin your day. Also, how about the landowner that just plain doesn't have all that good a memory? Get it in writing ..... always a good policy.

The problems I have had were with people who lie and say they own property I dam well know they dont. And people who post land they dont own.

[Doc]

Last I checked, and it wasnt too long ago, the law your talking about protects landowners from lawsuits by persons hunting on their property. There is one exception: if the landowner is compensated for hunting priviledges, this law does not protect him. Guess its a good idea to have the correct insurance if you are going to charge for hunting access....

What I am not quite understanding is what does it really mean that he is "protected"? Does that mean that there is nothing that he can be sued for? What is the extent of this protection?

Here's an example: A salesman steps up on your porch and a floorboard breaks and he falls through and breaks his leg. I would expect that I might be hearing from his attorney. Now if the guy is a hunter instead of a salesman is he automatically shut out from bringing a lawsuit. Ok, don't like that one, try this: Suppose you have an old hunting camp in the middle of the woods and some kind of mishap happens there when a hunter steps inside. Does the new law keep him from sueing? How about if I have built and old treestand and have abandoned it. A hunter comes along and the whole thing comes ripping out of the tree. Can he sue me or not? See, I don't know the answers to those kinds of questions. So when someone says I am protected, I have to know how and to what extent.

I don't know what this new law says specifically, and I don't know how long it is or how much ridiculous legalese is written into it, but for those who run into a "hard-sell" landowner, it just might be useful to carry along a copy of this law if it really does offer iron-cladprotection for him. It just might open a few doors that otherwise would stay closed. You know, it just might be a good idea if the DEC would write up some short understandable version of the law and incorporate it into a permission slip and offer it to sportsmen. They claim to be working on opening up private land to hunting. What a great way to assist hunters in gaining access to some of that private land. It wouldn't cost that much and just might allay some of the concerns of landowners like myself. Have a stack of them available at license issuing locations.

[Paula]

Here's an example: Ok, don't like that one, try this:

your a funny guy Doc

[Doc]

your a funny guy Doc

Not that funny.....especially if you have ever been sued. It gets real serious, real quick.

[tughillhunter]

A local farmer here has a sign in sign out book and gives lil tags for your vehicle. I thought that was a neat idea. Sign in in the milk house and get your tag and go. Similar to like a boat launch pass.

[mike rossi]

Doc, I get your point. Even if your convicted of a crime, you can still file a lawsuit. You can craft any written disclaimer, but the court can overrule paperwork. Sure its possible to get sued even with this law, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder. We all heard the old husbands tales about the burgler who sued the homeowner and the tresspasser who sued the landowner. But can anyone verify this actually happening? You have every right to post your property and deny access and you should do that if you want!

I got those cards out in my truck, I think they actually have something about this law printed on them?

[Doc]

Actually, when trying to open up some access for hunting, the reality about liability is no where near as important as the landowner perceptions. My thought is that if there is a law that eliminates landowner liabilities, something is going to have to be done by the one requesting access to present the landowner with convincing paperwork. I'm pretty convinced that most landowners have this liability thing in their mind when they deny access. Combining a presentation of the law on the same paper that the permission request is printed on would be a heck of a good idea.

[mike rossi]

Well most states have programs which the game dept. and landowners have an agreement to allow hunting access; these programs have different names in every state, such as walk in program or landowner cooperative agreement, ect.. I couldnt imagine these programs existing without absolute landowner protection?

Much of this demand for private land to hunt wouldnt exist if public hunting land acreage was increased; and such lands were managed more intensely & more from a wildlife land prospective instead of under a multi-use concept. Those advocates of parking areas, trails, and similair non-wildlife expenses are misspending our dollars that should be put into the aquisition of habitat and maximizing & sustaining the potential of same habitat. (Please Note: Its getting quite old to respond to the uninformed or misinformed that there is no money for this - there is millions annually - and any other use of these funds is considered a diversion and a breech of agreement.)

[growalot]

The problem is the permission slip state that.......the land owner it absolved from liability except in the case of willfully or maliciously not warning and guarding against hazards...

This is where you can get into trouble....for one has to now rely on the judgement of the courts to decide..ie...that the "widow maker" that fell out of a tree and hit the hunter..hiker ect...doesn't fall into that category...I mean hey... the owner is responsible for the maintenance of his property...and irregardless of the out come.in court... the owner would then have to deal with possible loss of or increase of insurance payments