- Messages
- 5,147
- Reactions
- 8,830
And maybe trail cams?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.And maybe trail cams?
^^This.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 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.
It wasn't always this way, remember?In Oregon use of dogs is ONLY permitted to hunt or pursue bobcat, raccoon, fox, and unprotected mammals. And of course Birds.
Agree the high ones stand out. The low ones can get overgrown by tall grass, brush, or tree limbs.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.
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.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?
Wow that's creative. Was it a trip wire? I wonder how he kept animals from setting it off?Then there's always a more direct solution...
Which is why my next property will be owned by a trust. Much harder to determine who is involved.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.
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.)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.
It does exist in some jurisdictions.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.)
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.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.
Interesting. Thank you.It does exist in some jurisdictions.
From a few weeks ago:
elsie