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

duty-honor-country wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
Kevin Vang wrote:
In article . com,
says...
the lying liberal from Lancaster wrote:

...so what's your F-ING problem ?....

NAHAY?

It begins with an expensive education


I dunno about that. I wouldn't be surprised to find Dickie had
attended expensive schools, but I believe he heroically resisted
becoming educated while he was there.

Good point. The result does not necessarily provide an accurate
reflection of the expenditure required for someone to make the effort
of delivery.

I wish I'd thought of that.

Wolfgang
who would have......eventually.....seriously.


and now comes the window dressing that is a futile attempt to retreat
under a smokescreen of infantile insults...

meaning you don't own any land to post, regardless- and can't stand
being told what the law really is

Oh goody! Yet another anonymous dumbass hall of fame wannabee.

too bad !

Uh uh......too good!

Wolfgang
place your bets, boys and girls.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
place your bets, boys and girls.

I'd bet he gets in on the first ballot, 'cept the field had been
exceptionally crowded lately.

Joe F.

ObROFF:

Some western US states have liberal stream-access laws -- Montana and
Idaho in particular, in my experience. If you stay below the high-water
mark you're legal. Some landowners on trout streams don't like this. Tough.

In other western US states, like Colorado (the only one I'm sure of),
trespassing and stream-access laws are far more in the landowners'
interest. The landowner doesn't have to post and he owns the stream, as
I understand it. You can get arrested, fined, lose your hunting and
fishing rights in neighboring states, and even go to prison for
misreading a map.

As a fisherman and hunter, I far prefer laws that require posting, and I
far prefer liberal stream access. Duh!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

duty-honor-country wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
the lying liberal from Lancaster wrote:

...so what's your F-ING problem ?....

NAHAY?

It begins with an expensive education and is exacerbated by an absolute
dearth of anything to say, compounded by a remarkable (even for Usenet)
inability to say it, and the (admittedly chocolate and vanilla)
assumption that if one doesn't believe it oneself, eveybody else MUST!


Simple......ainna?

Well, it IS......if'n yuh noes it in yer hahrt!

Wolfgang
absinthe......period.



translation:

a smokescreen from another person who is not man enough to admit when
he was wrong...and is too stupid to realize the info helps him whether
he's hunter/fisherman, landowner, all of the above, or neither...

stevie?......kennie?.....kennie?.....dicklet?..... .predator?

Wolfgang
well, one witess twit or another.......does it really matter?

rb608 wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
place your bets, boys and girls.

I'd bet he gets in on the first ballot, 'cept the field had been
exceptionally crowded lately.

Lane ten is now open......no waiting.

Wolfgang

duty-honor-country wrote:
Opus wrote:
"the lying liberal from Lancaster" wrote in
message

I guess it's time you "landowners" woke up and smelled the coffee ?

I'm curious as to your *point*.

Are you tryin' to inform those who may wish to exclude hunters from their
land, in Penn,, that they might wish to post their lands?

I mean, it's not as though you are creating any original work of your own,
right? http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?54+Duke+L.+J.+549

Or, is this just another pointless post from a pointless TROLL?

Again, just curious.

Op


Points intended a

#1 if you own land, and live in a posting statute state- then post it-
don't expect hunters to stay out, if you're too lazy to get off your
butt and post the land as the law REQUIRES. We post our land, you can
post yours too- if the state statute requires it. Some landowners get
a feudal king mentality that just because they own land, they aren't
subject to state laws about the land. Wake up, and know the laws about
your property. You posted the link, just like I did- but how many
hunters and landowners are aware of that info ? not many...

#2, if you're a hunter, and the land is posted- don't enter without
asking for permission

#3, if the land is NOT posted, and you live in one of the "posting
statute" states- you can enter the land LEGALLY without the permission
of the landowner- THAT'S THE LAW- and if landowners don't like it, he
can tell you to leave- and you have to leave- but if the landowner
doesn't like it, again- he shoujld get off his lazy butt and post his
property, as the statute requires.

#4, if the land isn't posted, and the landowner asks you to leave, you
have to leave

#5, if you come to Curdistan some minnehoovian will shoot your dumb
ass......and nobody (least of all your family) will care.

Have a lovely holiday season!

Wolfgang

duty-honor-country wrote:[i]
Wolfgang wrote:
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 13:37:42 -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


ps- as a landowner, you're pret-ty damn UNINFORMED about posting
statutes that have been in effect since the land was first settled by
the Pilgrims on the Mayflower...

Well whaddaya know - you learn something every day...I had no idea "the
Pilgrims on the Mayflower" first settled Pennsylvania...although, now
that you mention it, it might explain those funky-assed hats some of
them folks up yonder way tend to wear...

I guess it's time you "landowners" woke up and smelled the coffee ?

OK...have you decided yet?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wolfgang
emeril oprah emeril latifah latifah absinthe emeril


(laughter...) pretty lame attempt at sarcasm, and someone missed the
point about the Mayflower, didn't they...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

as if I really meant they landed in Pa....

IQ of poster- less than 50 I'd estimate...

qwdt0245tmw'vw4[03ui4t=hh??!!

Wolfgang

Opus wrote:
"duty-honor-country" wrote in message
oups.com...


and now comes the window dressing that is a futile attempt to retreat
under a smokescreen of infantile insults...

meaning you don't own any land to post, regardless- and can't stand
being told what the law really is

too bad !

Bottom-line is that hunters need to know the laws of any state that they
intend to hunt. If they don't they deserve whatever they get.

You seem bent on hunting land that isn't yours, just because it isn't
posted? Around these parts, the best way to find out if you can hunt land
that isn't yours and isn't public land, is to ask the land owner for
permission first! Not after he has found you on his land and asked you to
leave and never come back.

Your attitude and logic is detrimental to all hunters. "If it ain't posted,
****'em! I'm gonna hunt it 'til they tell me otherwise!" The only thing
that creates is hostility toward hunters in general. Huntin' land is
becomin' scarce enough as it is, without anonymous ****s trying to stir up
****!

The deer in the link below was taken *on* my families property. The bottom
photo was taken by my game camera. The young man that killed the deer is
the son of a co-worker, who had no where to hunt and I invited him up to our
property. We have a small piece of land in the middle of 58,000 acres of
Pisgah National Forest game lands.

http://tinyurl.com/yzsw9x


Op --who has private property and allows decent hunters to hunt it.--


yo, Zippy- how the hell are you supposed to know who owns what, with
large tracts of hundreds of acres, and no homes in sight ?

that's what the posting statutes were specifically designed to prevent-
the wholesale CLOSING OFF of hunting lands by owners who don't even
live in the area

otherwise the King of England could effectively buy and close all
hunting land in the USA- and not post it either- and not even be a
citizen to boot

think about the abuses of that system, you are proposing

the posting statutes see to it, so that billionaire tycoons don't
effectively choke off hunting from common folk

ever heard of government by the people, for the people ?

that's the USA

rw wrote:
ObROFF:

Some western US states have liberal stream-access laws -- Montana and
Idaho in particular, in my experience. If you stay below the high-water
mark you're legal. Some landowners on trout streams don't like this. Tough.

In other western US states, like Colorado (the only one I'm sure of),
trespassing and stream-access laws are far more in the landowners'
interest. The landowner doesn't have to post and he owns the stream, as
I understand it. You can get arrested, fined, lose your hunting and
fishing rights in neighboring states, and even go to prison for
misreading a map.

As a fisherman and hunter, I far prefer laws that require posting, and I
far prefer liberal stream access. Duh!


good points- in Pa. all streams are owned by the commonwealth- it is
illegal for a landowner to dam or redirect or privately stock a stream
anywhere in Pa.- but the landowner retains rights on the land along the
stream- so if it's posted, you can't fish it- UNLESS you have hip boots
or chest waders, and walk IN the stream at all times- this is ok for
small streams, but larger rivers forget it- eventually the water is
just too deep or raging to walk in the stream at all times

Wolfgang wrote:
rb608 wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
place your bets, boys and girls.

I'd bet he gets in on the first ballot, 'cept the field had been
exceptionally crowded lately.

Lane ten is now open......no waiting.

Wolfgang


watch yourself, this isn't the fatherland, Wolfie...