No Hunting (without permission) Signs on Land

[VinnieBoomBah]

And maybe trail cams?

 

[jbett98]

I would post the signs way up in a tree where you would need a tall ladder to remove them.

 

[robertsjm711]

And maybe trail cams?

I do have trail cams, I am planning on getting more - maybe a cheap one as a decoy and a well hidden one (or more ?). Luckily there is only one good place to enter the property unless you are cutting trail in the brush.
I think I will put some signs up and more cameras.

 

[Diamondback]

I'd also suggest hiding some cameras better than others in an "overlapping coverage" pattern... that way Sneaky Petes in avoiding the obvious ones get channeled into the "ambush cams". Thinking they got away with it will embolden them to not hide their faces, making nice mugshots for Johnny Law.

 

[The Heretic]

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.

Basically, if you are not sure whether it is public land or private, you have to assume it is private and you have to have explicit permission. Laws were passed to require this and maps made so that it was clear what was public land, and everybody has to assume that if it isn't public it is private. especially hunters

 

[orygun]

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.

Or intentionally trespass and plead stupid. Signs placed high do help, cuz the low ones get ripped down and the "stupid" game starts all over again.

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

It wasn't always this way, remember?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Or intentionally trespass and plead stupid. Signs placed high do help, cuz the low ones get ripped down and the "stupid" game starts all over again.

Agree the high ones stand out. The low ones can get overgrown by tall grass, brush, or tree limbs.

Plus the low ones just don't stand out or are as imposing as ones places up high and preferably in a wide open area, even if that means the sign is 5-20 yards back from the actual boundary.

Also it can't hurt to double up and go low and high. Whoever is tempted to trespass is probably going to think, "wow, this guy is really serious about trespassing" which is exactly the message u want to convey imo. And it's all that much harder for them to say, "I didn't see the sign".

 

[The Heretic]

ORS 498.120 – Hunting on another’s cultivated or enclosed land

No person shall hunt upon the cultivated or enclosed land of another without first obtaining permission from the owner or lawful occupant…

oregon.public.law

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

 

[Horatius]

as a long time, Oregon resident and hunter. just put up the signs so those of us who want to stop the chase at your property know where it is. I don't consult GPS when hunting. Those who won't follow the law should be prosecuted. If trailing a cripple and I see your signs I know I need to seek your or Fish and Game to continue, if just pursuing He wins.

 

[Mark W.]

Or intentionally trespass and plead stupid. Signs placed high do help, cuz the low ones get ripped down and the "stupid" game starts all over again.

It wasn't always this way, remember?

OH I remember well I had friends that lost half their income when that stupid law got passed. NO more guided Bear or Cougar hunts.

 

[VanceInWA]

Then there's always a more direct solution...

 

[joshkk]

Something else to consider: "Vacant Land Insurance," which offers financial protection from liability for both invited and uninvited guests.

The cheapest option is usually to add it to your homeowner's policy if the vacant land is in the same state as your home.

Own Land? Here's Why You Need Vacant Land Insurance

If you own vacant land, here's what you need to know about vacant land coverage and protecting your assets.

www.fool.com

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Then there's always a more direct solution...

Wow that's creative. Was it a trip wire? I wonder how he kept animals from setting it off?

 

[Zechariah]

Usually the guys that have the w/permission signs usually later change them to no trespassing these days. Only takes one to mess it up for everybody and these days that happens pretty fast.

 

[OldBroad44]

So owner assumes paint bombed trespassing hunter is going to get his eyeglasses and gun and clothes smeared with paint and then retreat meekly and sin no more? I doubt it. I'll bet something happens to that property. Or to the home of landowner. A fire, for example. Booby trapping can be done by a trespasser as easily as the property owner. And might be a shotgun rather than a paint bomb. Property owners are a matter of public record, so they and their homes can be found, burned down, dog poisoned, livestock stolen or killed, whatever. And that's assuming the paint bombed guy isn't pissed off enough to actually kill the guy who paint bombed him. If the idea is to make people stop trespassing without pissing them off enough to seek revenge I think the paint bombing fails. In addition, had the guy not been wearing glasses, he would have got paint in his eyes, possibly doing permanent damage. So this is a real booby trap, and is illegal.

 

[The Heretic]

Property owners are a matter of public record, so they and their homes can be found, burned down, dog poisoned, livestock stolen or killed, whatever.

Which is why my next property will be owned by a trust. Much harder to determine who is involved.

 

[Bobbygun]

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.

I know this is an older post but I'm curious. Did you verify the truthfulness of their claim? I've never heard anyone claim they could trespass because they were following hounds. About 40 years ago a hound hunter called my dad to see if it was alright to go on his property to look for a missing hound. I told the guy I would meet him at the gate and help him look. He never said anything about having a "right" to trespass. (It turned out I actually had worked in a mill with the guy and knew him.)

 

[elsie]

I know this is an older post but I'm curious. Did you verify the truthfulness of their claim? I've never heard anyone claim they could trespass because they were following hounds. About 40 years ago a hound hunter called my dad to see if it was alright to go on his property to look for a missing hound. I told the guy I would meet him at the gate and help him look. He never said anything about having a "right" to trespass. (It turned out I actually had worked in a mill with the guy and knew him.)

It does exist in some jurisdictions.

From a few weeks ago:

elsie

 

[elsie]

So owner assumes paint bombed trespassing hunter is going to get his eyeglasses and gun and clothes smeared with paint and then retreat meekly and sin no more? I doubt it. I'll bet something happens to that property. Or to the home of landowner. A fire, for example. Booby trapping can be done by a trespasser as easily as the property owner. And might be a shotgun rather than a paint bomb. Property owners are a matter of public record, so they and their homes can be found, burned down, dog poisoned, livestock stolen or killed, whatever. And that's assuming the paint bombed guy isn't pissed off enough to actually kill the guy who paint bombed him. If the idea is to make people stop trespassing without pissing them off enough to seek revenge I think the paint bombing fails. In addition, had the guy not been wearing glasses, he would have got paint in his eyes, possibly doing permanent damage. So this is a real booby trap, and is illegal.

I would say that it is a means of identifying the trespasser. If he comes after the land owner with something as serious as arson, because he got startled and a little paint on him then that is a serious escalation.

That said, it would be up to a court to determine if a paint bomb rose to the level of a booby trap. And if he went to court over it, it would be identifying himself as a trespasser thus exposing him to counter-charges.

elsie

 

[Bobbygun]

It does exist in some jurisdictions.

From a few weeks ago:

elsie

Interesting. Thank you.

I wonder about Oregon's laws and where jbett98 was when he encountered the hound hunters.