hunters and landowners in Pa.- interesting rights and responsibilities under laww

On 3 Dec 2006 13:33:30 -0800, "the lying liberal from Lancaster"
wrote:
[i]

wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R


answer- read and know the laws of the country and state you live in-
don't make assumptions, as you just did- ASSuming something, only makes
an "ASS" out of you

Yeah, like if someone were to ASSume that my reply and questions to
Vince's reply were actually questions directed at them, they might look
like an ASS or something...

read it yourself here, it's the LAW

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

on that page, you'll see that occupied buildings are NOT required to be
posted- so to answer your question- NO- I don't have to post my house
and yard- per the law

And please point out where I suggested to Vince that he is required to
post his house, yard, or anything else

but we do post our 50+ acre property,

HOLY ****!! You have _50+_ acres? Geez Louise, I had no idea I was
talking to a major landholder...are you like the Laird of Pennsylvania
or something?

as the law requires- so what's your F-ING problem ?

"F-ING?" OK, so are you the 12-year-old son of the Laird of
Pennsylvania or something?

You automatically ASSumed that I had no property
of my own to begin with, and was looking to "bogart" in on unposted
land -WRONG !

Well, at you managed to get one word right - WRONG!

these statutes have been challenged by congressmen that were also
landowners- and they lost the case- the postings statutes hold in
court- so if they couldn't defeat the posting statute, you sure as hell
aren't going to

Golly, as long as YOU'RE sure, I guess that's pretty much the end of all
hope...ah, well, at least I can take solace in the fact that I don't
have to worry about PA anymore...that, and the fact that I didn't give a
tinker's damn about PA before your troll...

read it here

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

quote:

Rod Froelich, owner of seventy-five hundred acres in Sioux County,
North Dakota, was tired of having hunters enter his land to hunt
without his permission. Froelich had not posted "no hunting" signs on
his land, which under the common reading of the state's posting statute
meant that hunters were not obligated to seek his permission to hunt.1
As a member of the North Dakota House of Representatives, he sponsored
legislation that would have required hunters to get permission from
landowners before hunting on private land.2 When the legislation
failed, Froelich, with the support of the North Dakota Stockmen's
Association3 and the North Dakota Farm Bureau,4 sued the governor and
the director of the Game and Fish Department of North Dakota, seeking a
declaratory judgment that hunters must have landowner permission before
hunting on private land.5 In moving for summary judgment, Froelich
argued that the posting statute, which provided for a criminal penalty
if a hunter entered posted land, did not abrogate his common law right
to exclude and his civil trespass remedy to enforce that right on
unposted land.6 He further argued that if the statute was interpreted
to effect such an abrogation -- which was the common reading -- it [*pg
550] would amount to an unconstitutional taking.7 In reply, the
defendants simply relied on the existence and history of the posting
statute to support their position that the public could hunt on
unposted land without permission, free from any civil or criminal
sanction.8 They further stated in a newspaper article that, "The
assumption that unposted land is open for hunting has been the case for
decades, if not since statehood."9 The court deemed Froelich's
complaint a request for an improper advisory opinion and granted
summary judgment for the defendants, declining to reach the merits of
the case.10

The year before Froelich filed his suit, an Arizona landowner mounted a
similar protest before an Arizona House of Representatives committee,11
lobbying in support of a bill to repeal Arizona's recently enacted
posting statute.12 Although agreeing that the statute clearly abrogated
a landowner's civil trespass remedy against people hunting on unposted
land, she argued that it unfairly undermined private property rights.13
In hearings before the committee, she stated that proper posting under
the statute was difficult if not impossible, that some hunters knock
down "no hunting" posts, that hunters were often dangerous, and that,
in the end, the state's posting law was simply inimical to private
property rights.14 Three other landowners testified similarly.15
Members of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona Wildlife
Federation, and the National Rifle Association argued in response that
the posting law was a reasonable "compromise" between the [*pg 551]
rights of hunters and landowners.16 After a lively debate, the bill
failed.17

These two conflicts revolve around state posting statutes -- statutes
that require private landowners desiring to exclude hunters from their
land to post "no hunting" signs.

For what it worth there, Nancy Grace, not all states have "must post"
requirements - in fact, it's only about half - nor are all the posting
requirements the same in every state. One might just live dangerously
and assume that's a big part of the reason they call them state posting
statutes. And secondly, given only the information you've provided,
without access to the entire record in the former and either the
transcript or the minutes in the latter, anyone putting forth
all-encompassing legal conclusions might, oh, I don't know, look like a
****ing ASS or something...

wrote:[i]
On 3 Dec 2006 13:33:30 -0800, "the lying liberal from Lancaster"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R


answer- read and know the laws of the country and state you live in-
don't make assumptions, as you just did- ASSuming something, only makes
an "ASS" out of you

Yeah, like if someone were to ASSume that my reply and questions to
Vince's reply were actually questions directed at them, they might look
like an ASS or something...

read it yourself here, it's the LAW

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

on that page, you'll see that occupied buildings are NOT required to be
posted- so to answer your question- NO- I don't have to post my house
and yard- per the law

And please point out where I suggested to Vince that he is required to
post his house, yard, or anything else

but we do post our 50+ acre property,

HOLY ****!! You have _50+_ acres? Geez Louise, I had no idea I was
talking to a major landholder...are you like the Laird of Pennsylvania
or something?

as the law requires- so what's your F-ING problem ?

"F-ING?" OK, so are you the 12-year-old son of the Laird of
Pennsylvania or something?

You automatically ASSumed that I had no property
of my own to begin with, and was looking to "bogart" in on unposted
land -WRONG !

Well, at you managed to get one word right - WRONG!

these statutes have been challenged by congressmen that were also
landowners- and they lost the case- the postings statutes hold in
court- so if they couldn't defeat the posting statute, you sure as hell
aren't going to

Golly, as long as YOU'RE sure, I guess that's pretty much the end of all
hope...ah, well, at least I can take solace in the fact that I don't
have to worry about PA anymore...that, and the fact that I didn't give a
tinker's damn about PA before your troll...

read it here

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

quote:

Rod Froelich, owner of seventy-five hundred acres in Sioux County,
North Dakota, was tired of having hunters enter his land to hunt
without his permission. Froelich had not posted "no hunting" signs on
his land, which under the common reading of the state's posting statute
meant that hunters were not obligated to seek his permission to hunt.1
As a member of the North Dakota House of Representatives, he sponsored
legislation that would have required hunters to get permission from
landowners before hunting on private land.2 When the legislation
failed, Froelich, with the support of the North Dakota Stockmen's
Association3 and the North Dakota Farm Bureau,4 sued the governor and
the director of the Game and Fish Department of North Dakota, seeking a
declaratory judgment that hunters must have landowner permission before
hunting on private land.5 In moving for summary judgment, Froelich
argued that the posting statute, which provided for a criminal penalty
if a hunter entered posted land, did not abrogate his common law right
to exclude and his civil trespass remedy to enforce that right on
unposted land.6 He further argued that if the statute was interpreted
to effect such an abrogation -- which was the common reading -- it [*pg
550] would amount to an unconstitutional taking.7 In reply, the
defendants simply relied on the existence and history of the posting
statute to support their position that the public could hunt on
unposted land without permission, free from any civil or criminal
sanction.8 They further stated in a newspaper article that, "The
assumption that unposted land is open for hunting has been the case for
decades, if not since statehood."9 The court deemed Froelich's
complaint a request for an improper advisory opinion and granted
summary judgment for the defendants, declining to reach the merits of
the case.10

The year before Froelich filed his suit, an Arizona landowner mounted a
similar protest before an Arizona House of Representatives committee,11
lobbying in support of a bill to repeal Arizona's recently enacted
posting statute.12 Although agreeing that the statute clearly abrogated
a landowner's civil trespass remedy against people hunting on unposted
land, she argued that it unfairly undermined private property rights.13
In hearings before the committee, she stated that proper posting under
the statute was difficult if not impossible, that some hunters knock
down "no hunting" posts, that hunters were often dangerous, and that,
in the end, the state's posting law was simply inimical to private
property rights.14 Three other landowners testified similarly.15
Members of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona Wildlife
Federation, and the National Rifle Association argued in response that
the posting law was a reasonable "compromise" between the [*pg 551]
rights of hunters and landowners.16 After a lively debate, the bill
failed.17

These two conflicts revolve around state posting statutes -- statutes
that require private landowners desiring to exclude hunters from their
land to post "no hunting" signs.

For what it worth there, Nancy Grace, not all states have "must post"
requirements - in fact, it's only about half - nor are all the posting
requirements the same in every state. One might just live dangerously
and assume that's a big part of the reason they call them state posting
statutes. And secondly, given only the information you've provided,
without access to the entire record in the former and either the
transcript or the minutes in the latter, anyone putting forth
all-encompassing legal conclusions might, oh, I don't know, look like a
****ing ASS or something...

hey, we post our 50 acres, just like everyone ELSE has to, per the
law...

where's YOUR land ? total acreage doesn't matter- you could have one
acre or 1000, it has to be posted

how'd you like to get a $300 speeding fine on I-80, when there is no
posted speed limit ? You'd be fighting that to the death, no doubt...

practice what ya preach

want to read the minutes ? see for yourself- the law is quite clear

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

if a congressman with all his pull, money, and connections can't beat
the posting statutes, how is someone as thick-headed as you going to
beat them ? read below, per the "intro" from link above:

Rod Froelich, owner of seventy-five hundred acres in Sioux County,
North Dakota, was tired of having hunters enter his land to hunt
without his permission. Froelich had not posted "no hunting" signs on
his land, which under the common reading of the state's posting statute
meant that hunters were not obligated to seek his permission to hunt.1
As a member of the North Dakota House of Representatives, he sponsored
legislation that would have required hunters to get permission from
landowners before hunting on private land.2 When the legislation
failed, Froelich, with the support of the North Dakota Stockmen's
Association3 and the North Dakota Farm Bureau,4 sued the governor and
the director of the Game and Fish Department of North Dakota, seeking a
declaratory judgment that hunters must have landowner permission before
hunting on private land.5 In moving for summary judgment, Froelich
argued that the posting statute, which provided for a criminal penalty
if a hunter entered posted land, did not abrogate his common law right
to exclude and his civil trespass remedy to enforce that right on
unposted land.6 He further argued that if the statute was interpreted
to effect such an abrogation -- which was the common reading -- it [*pg
550] would amount to an unconstitutional taking.7 In reply, the
defendants simply relied on the existence and history of the posting
statute to support their position that the public could hunt on
unposted land without permission, free from any civil or criminal
sanction.8 They further stated in a newspaper article that, "The
assumption that unposted land is open for hunting has been the case for
decades, if not since statehood."9 The court deemed Froelich's
complaint a request for an improper advisory opinion and granted
summary judgment for the defendants, declining to reach the merits of
the case.10

The year before Froelich filed his suit, an Arizona landowner mounted a
similar protest before an Arizona House of Representatives committee,11
lobbying in support of a bill to repeal Arizona's recently enacted
posting statute.12 Although agreeing that the statute clearly abrogated
a landowner's civil trespass remedy against people hunting on unposted
land, she argued that it unfairly undermined private property rights.13
In hearings before the committee, she stated that proper posting under
the statute was difficult if not impossible, that some hunters knock
down "no hunting" posts, that hunters were often dangerous, and that,
in the end, the state's posting law was simply inimical to private
property rights.14 Three other landowners testified similarly.15
Members of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona Wildlife
Federation, and the National Rifle Association argued in response that
the posting law was a reasonable "compromise" between the [*pg 551]
rights of hunters and landowners.16 After a lively debate, the bill
failed.17

These two conflicts revolve around state posting statutes -- statutes
that require private landowners desiring to exclude hunters from their
land to post "no hunting" signs.

On 5 Dec 2006 05:14:00 -0800, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:


hey, we post our 50 acres, just like everyone ELSE has to, per the
law...

You ASSume "everyone ELSE has to" do that. WRONG!!

where's YOUR land ? total acreage doesn't matter- you could have one
acre or 1000, it has to be posted

You ASSume that. WRONG!!

how'd you like to get a $300 speeding fine on I-80, when there is no
posted speed limit ? You'd be fighting that to the death, no doubt...

You ASSume that. WRONG!!

practice what ya preach

want to read the minutes ? see for yourself- the law is quite clear

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

You ASSume that is the minutes or the law. WRONG!!