No Hunting (without permission) Signs on Land

[robertsjm711]

This might be an "Off Topic", but I thought this is a good place to start.

I have some property in Lane county that borders Siuslaw National Forest and was unsure of the requirement of posting No Hunting signs. I am not opposed to hunting on my land, I just don't want anyone on it without my permission. I know in other states it is a requirement to place specific signs, specific intervals with specific information and even register it with the county; and while I don't think it is that onerous here, I am unaware of the landowners obligations, and I have not found a definitive answer in my online searches.

Is it the hunters responsibility to know what property they are on? Is some of that responsibility on the landowner?

Thoughts or other questions i should ask or research?

Note, I do not live at this property, it has no dwelling but a small portion of it is obviously touched by man. The other parts are wild.

Thanks!

Read More

 

[deerbandit]

I don't know the answer to your question but you are blessed to have that. Beautiful.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I think what you need can be found here. FWIW I don't see any practical difference between "hunting" and "trespassing"

ORS 105.700 – Prohibiting public access to private land

In addition to and not in lieu of any other damages that may be claimed, a plaintiff who is a landowner shall…

oregon.public.law

 

[Diamondback]

I think what you need can be found here. FWIW I don't see any practical difference between "hunting" and "trespassing"

ORS 105.700 – Prohibiting public access to private land

In addition to and not in lieu of any other damages that may be claimed, a plaintiff who is a landowner shall…

oregon.public.law

"BUT I'M A HUNTER I'M SPAYSHUL! MUH RIGHTZ TO KILL BAMBI!!!"

 

[Lilhigbee]

Interesting reading on the subject here;
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/what-is-the-purple-paint-law.380347/

 

[Koda]

In Oregon its the hunters, or anyones legal responsibility to know what property they are on. The landowner does not have to place signs. That doesnt mean its not a bad idea though, as its not unreasonable for hunters to be off trail and not know exactly where the property line is and unintentionally trespass.

 

[robertsjm711]

Interesting reading on the subject here;
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/what-is-the-purple-paint-law.380347/

Now that I think about it, I have heard that, but thought it was a rumor. I have never seen purple, and have been in a lot of borders from public & private lands. I do not intend to fence my property - and always used Onxhunt or my Garmin to know where I was at. I would rather not have a no trespassing or property closed sign on all my trees, but that would be better than unwanted traffic.

 

[robertsjm711]

In Oregon its the hunters, or anyones legal responsibility to know what property they are on. The landowner does not have to place signs. That doesnt mean its not a bad idea though, as its not unreasonable for hunters to be off trail and not know exactly where the property line is and unintentionally trespass.

This is what I believe and follow, but wanted to confirm. thanks!

 

[Koda]

This is what I believe and follow, but wanted to confirm. thanks!

Note. im not a lawyer. Just that I have never been able to find a law on it for the landowner.

 

[No_Regerts]

If that creek is a navigable waterway, that adds a wrinkle to the deal.

 

[robertsjm711]

If that creek is a navigable waterway, that adds a wrinkle to the deal.

It is not navigable per the USCG navigability determination, and is pretty low flow during summer months. Many down trees would not allow any boat or kayak to pass (on my property, upstream and downstream), but could be wadded on foot.

 

[CRBMoA]

It is not navigable per the USCG navigability determination, and is pretty low flow during summer months. Many down trees would not allow any boat or kayak to pass (on my property, upstream and downstream), but could be wadded on foot.

In Oregon, the public has a vested interest in ANY navigable water. The definition of 'navigable water' can obviously vary greatly depending on location, season, current local precipitation, historical use, etc.

 

[Koda]

so theres no limit on how small a stream is? Like a tiny creek you can step across? What about seasonal creeks that dry up in the summer?

 

[CRBMoA]

so theres no limit on how small a stream is? Like a tiny creek you can step across? What about seasonal creeks that dry up in the summer?

That deserves a better answer than I can give at the moment, but Real Estate ownership and easement(s), and the right, title and interest to use a particular piece of real estate can vary wildly.

Regarding matters concerning the rights of the Public in and to navigable waterways in the State of Oregon, people in my profession NEVER bet against the State.

Trespassers are on much less solid ground, but it still reduces to case-by-case analysis.

 

[Idaho44]

Many states make the hunter responsible for "no trespass". They are supposed to know. Written permission from the owner or manager can also be a requirement. Posting and painting can mitigate most but not all trespass. You do have to catch them! Grizzly bear traps have their origin in 'poacher' traps that were prevalent on English estates. Fortunately they are considered 'booby traps' and are against the law in many states. It would be difficult to legitimate one in todays culture..

 

[LuckySG]

Figure boat = smallest possible canoe

"According to a 2005 Oregon Attorney General opinion, on waterways that have not been determined to be state-owned, the public is allowed to use the surface of the waterway for any legal activity unless the waterway isn't wide, deep or long enough for a boat to pass along it." https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Pages/Waterways.aspx

No one has the right to cross your property to get to water and the same goes for getting off the water on your shore.

 

[jbett98]

The only lawful exception that I heard of is hunters following a pack of hunting dogs being able to legally cross your property in pursuit of game.
Each state may vary on this.
Years ago, I once had a pack of hunting dogs come running through the property I was renting on the North fork of Eagle Creek.
They were supposedly chasing a cougar, but ran up against my dog in the front yard.
He was half Rottweiler and I suspect half Tasmanian Devil, as he proceeded to rip into the male lead hound dog.
The hillbilly looking hunters kept shouting that they had the legal right to follow their pack of hounds anywhere in the chase and they weren't to happy about the upcoming vet bills their dog was going to need.
Not my problem that they didn't heed the warning signs about a guard dog on the property.

 

[Mark W.]

In Oregon use of dogs is ONLY permitted to hunt or pursue bobcat, raccoon, fox, and unprotected mammals. And of course Birds.

 

[Cavedweller]

"According to a 2005 Oregon Attorney General opinion, on waterways that have not been determined to be state-owned, the public is allowed to use the surface of the waterway for any legal activity unless the waterway isn't wide, deep or long enough for a boat to pass along it." https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Pages/Waterways.aspx

No one has the right to cross your property to get to water and the same goes for getting off the water on your shore.

Unless "your shore" is below the normal high water mark. Since that is usually in winter, someone rafting, canoeing, kayaking, etc. in summer may use the portion of your property below the high water mark:

"Additionally, the opinion states that if the waterway meets the above criteria, the public has the right to use the submerged and submersible land below the line of ordinary high water for water-dependent uses (such as swimming, boating and fishing), and "uses incidental to a water-dependent use such as camping when travelling a long distance and walking while fishing."

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think what you need can be found here. FWIW I don't see any practical difference between "hunting" and "trespassing"

ORS 105.700 – Prohibiting public access to private land

In addition to and not in lieu of any other damages that may be claimed, a plaintiff who is a landowner shall…

oregon.public.law

Reading this it seems very straightforward to my way of thinking. Put the signs up as required in the link above. Then put up additional signs if needed where you have seen trespass in the past or obvious places ppl would cross onto the property (ie near trails etc.). Not only would this deter people, it gives u a means to pursue trespass if u ever need to. In Clackamas county the sheriffs deputy said there is nothing they can do if someone trespasses and u have no signs. I have heard the same for multnomah county but not from a LEO.