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

Wolfgang wrote:
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?


we got 'em going now baby, we got 'em going now- he's answering every
post with jibberish, i.e. poor loser

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.

wrote:[i]
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?


your posts are a poor excuse for not posting your land per statute...

maybe the time you spend windbagging here, you should spend posting
your land properly

On 5 Dec 2006 04:56:25 -0800, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:


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 ?

Yeah, that's a toughie...well, you could look around, and if you're not
in your single-wide, you could hazard a guess that you aren't standing
on something that you might someday own, assuming you can eventually
make all the payments...

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

Wait just a gol-durned minute, here...the King of England? The sneaky
******* - first, pretending to be a woman, and now, she's, er, he's
retaking the colonies by buying up all the hunting land in rural
Pennsylvania...and ya think there's a chance she, oops, he'd not be a
citizen of the USA, do ya?

think about the abuses of that system, you are proposing

Yeah, if the King of England owned all of the hunting land in PA, and
then, didn't post it according to PA law, why **** fire and save
matches, cats would lie down with dogs, and...and...and...OK, so cats
lying down with dogs would be bad enough...

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

Yeah, that's a foolproof strategy - hit 'em in the pocketbook...after
buying up all the land, should his royal highness be tempted to sell,
those billionaire tycoons might be too broke to afford any "Posted"
signs...

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

ever heard of Zyprexia and clozapine? Talk to your doctor...side
effects such as lunatic USENET postings, nonsensical historical
allusions, and a completely ****ed-up understanding of multiple legal
issues are possible, and if you develop an erection lasting more than
four hours, call Stevie and taunt him...

that's the USA

Ah, it's just like a Lee Greenwood concert...

On 3 Dec 2006 13:36:04 -0800, "the lying liberal from Lancaster"
wrote:
[i]

Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:04:16 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
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

Right in the law, it exempts housing / buildings from the posting law.

It does? Well, shoot, that explains why every mother****ing house in PA
doesn't have a big ol' sign on the door that says, "No one is allowed to
come in and help themselves to whatever they wish"...

Come on, Billy Mac, fess up - you are really a Nazi queer who hangs
around German train stations hitting on ugly older men, right?

Betcha _this_ won't...well, you know,
R

As I stated in another post. You add nothing constructive to the gene pool.


or the thread....

Now that's just not true. For example, I'd point out that you and Billy
Mac are morons...

no doubt he has a cookie-cutter lot in postage-stamp estates, that he
wants to post...and kick people out of...

But...but...but...I don't wanna post it...I thought ya didn't have to
post yer home...well, it's not fair, I tell ya what...if I have to put
up a posted sign on my lot in good ol' postage-stamp estates, it'll
block my entire view of the landfill...I'm with ya, brother: POWER TO
THE PEOPLE!!

On 5 Dec 2006 05:16:31 -0800, "duty-honor-country"
wrote:
[i]

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?


your posts are a poor excuse for not posting your land per statute...


maybe the time you spend windbagging here, you should spend posting
your land properly

You ASSume I don't already post it....WRONG!! And you ASSume that I am
not well-aware of the requirements for posting, fencing, etc., and in
multiple jurisdictions...WRONG!!

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!!

"duty-honor-country" wrote in message
ups.com...

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...

The fatherland? O.k., let's be especially generous today and work on the
assumption that this means something. Care to share with us what it might
be?

Wolfgang

"duty-honor-country" wrote in message
ups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
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?


we got 'em going now baby, we got 'em going now- he's answering every
post with jibberish, i.e. poor loser

Kismet. Whattya gonna do......ainna?

Wolfgang

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



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 ?


Yo ho, anonymous ****head!

Here in the land of the, at least semi-literate, we have a county government
with offices that handle just such questions. For example,

This is the map of my mother's and uncle's land: http://tinyurl.com/3qc2o

Which can be found by going to this site: http://maps.co.caldwell.nc.us/

You might even check with the register of deeds?

With just the slightest amount of due diligence, you might even find someone
who knows someone, who knows the landowner? You see, you know that you
don't own the land. So, maybe it belong to someone other than you?

Really, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp. Sure the owner might be
required by law to post his or her land, but it never hurts to ask first,
before you go stepping on you dick!

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

What does it matter, if they don't live in the area? If they post the land
and you don't have permission to hunt it, you are trespassing.

From your source:

"The current state of American hunting law reflects the history of the right
to hunt in this nation. Most states now have statutes requiring landowners
to post their land to exclude hunters; the other states have statutes
requiring hunters to get explicit permission from landowners before they
hunt. Even Vermont, which has a constitutional provision granting hunters
the right to hunt on unenclosed private land, has a posting statute."
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?54+Duke+L.+J.+549
You see things have changed a slight bit since the 1700s.

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

Ok, we know that you are a TROLL and that you're not all that bright, but
the last King Of England died in 1952. They now have a Queen. Her name is
Elizabeth II

Be that as it may. Many foreign companies own land in the U.S., and I'd bet
a shiny nickle that Queen Elizabeth II has some land here too. And I bet
that you can't hunt that land either.

think about the abuses of that system, you are proposing

I propose nothing. You on the other hand propose to rush willy nilly on to
someone's land with a firearm, without the decency of asking the landowner
first! If I were proposing anything, and I am not, I would proposr that you
think before you shove you head up your ass, next time.

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

No they don't, you dimwitted mutant ****-maggot. Billionaire tycoons, or
raccoons for that matter, would simply pay someone to post their lands for
them and you still couldn't legally hunt that land--dumbass!

Posting statutes give common folk the right to protect their lands from
imbeciles like you!

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

Yeah, I'm a student of political science, so I know that "government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." is
a the last phrase in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and has nothing to do
with posting statutes, but referred to the salvation of the Union.

that's the USA

Well yeah, since Lincoln's armies were able to defeat those of the
Confederate States. However, that's a story for another time, right?

Op