trespassing laws, private property and hunting

[Benthos]

Just some questions about private property

if hunting in areas like the Peace, and one sees animals in a field, and the field has no fence and no private property signs, can one shoot an animal? That is, if there is question as to who owns the property (no houses around in the middle of nowhere), just lot's of fields, and the owner hasn't made any attempt to either fence or indicate the land is private, what rights do a hunter have to access that property...

Just curious, I have no idea. on one hand, it might be private, on the other, if the owner hasn't made any attempt to indicate no trespassing, he might be okay with it. if no house is around to ask, what do you do?

Again, maybe people out there have experienced this. That being said, say one was to shoot the animal, then have a farmer drive up. does the farmer have a right to charge one with trespassing?


thanks!

[LostInSpaces]

Posted, Fenced or cultivated find out who owns it before you go.

[elkdom]

Any cultivated land is off limits,posted or not, permission is required to hunt or access,even if Crown land is beyond the private or cultivated land,tresspass charges apply even when one rides a quad or snomobile over cultivated land even in the dead of winter,whensaid property is covered by snow,there are maps available in the Peace region that disclose the land owners names, of all deeded properties, the maps are expensive but not so expensive as a tresspassing fine, and possible hunting priveleges suspensions, always check for access before entering property that may belong to someone, just good hunting ethics, imho , hope this helps you!

[wolverine]

The nub of it is the onus is upon you, the hunter, to determine if it is private property or not. Doesn't matter if it's unfenced, not posted or uncultivated. Sometimes not an eazy chore to accomplish. Hope it works out for the piece of land you are eyeballing.

[bigwhiteys]

Get yourself a landowner map from one of the surveying companies in the area. Wabarsky & Darrow? You won't have to wonder who owns the land and can contact them if you need to.

Carl

[kenkell1]

Thats why I hunt up high and away from any private land...

[Kody94]

Get yourself a landowner map from one of the surveying companies in the area. Wabarsky & Darrow? You won't have to wonder who owns the land and can contact them if you need to.

Carl

McElhanney and Associates has some. Best maps for the Peace are made by Precision Mapping out of Kelowna though. All you need is a map, phone book and cell phone...and you can be in business in minutes.

Cheers.
4ster

[Sieg-MM]

Here's a new angle for you guys:

BC Tresspass Acts states "a person commits an offence if the person does any of the following: (a) enters premises that are enclosed land; b) enters premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the entry is prohibited;(c) engages in activity on or in premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the activity is prohibited. (2) A person found on or in premises that are enclosed land is presumed not to have the consent of an occupier or an authorized person to be there".

"Enclosed land" includes surrounded by a lawful fence, surrounded by a lawful fence and a natural boundary or by a natural boundary alone, or posted with signs prohibiting trespass in accordance with section 5(1);

Section 5(1) states "For the purposes of "enclosed land", signs must be posted so that, in daylight and under normal weather conditions, from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the enclosed land,
(a) a sign is clearly visible, (b) if a sign contains writing, the writing is clearly legible, and (c) if a sign uses graphic representation, the graphic representation is clearly visible".


The nub of it is the onus is upon you, the hunter, to determine if it is private property or not. Doesn't matter if it's unfenced, not posted or uncultivated. Sometimes not an eazy chore to accomplish. Hope it works out for the piece of land you are eyeballing.

I'm no lawyer, but I can read and interpret. The bold words indicate there is a responsibility on land owners to ensure their property meets the definition of enclosed land (including fences, signs, natural boundries etc.) or give notice. Without this evidence, it appears the land owner will have a tough time suing for trespassing :|.

Just taking a different view to stir the pot for you guys :tongue:; basically this topic boils down to ethics. How high are your standards?

[tomahawk]

Read the regulations synopsis and if that's too much read the following sections in the Table of Contents ( page 1):

Before You Hunt
During your hunt
After your hunt
Articles & Forms ( the area's that apply to you)
Resource Management Regions ( where you intend to hunt)

[Kody94]

Does anyone know if there a provision in the Wildlife Act for trespassing, specifically with regard to hunting on cultivated land without permission?

Seems the Trespass Act doesn't speak to that situation, but that will be of little solace if you get caught on cultivated land and there is an avenue to charge you under the Wildlife Act! ;)

[beeker]

Does anyone know if there a provision in the Wildlife Act for trespassing, specifically with regard to hunting on cultivated land without permission?

Seems the Trespass Act doesn't speak to that situation, but that will be of little solace if you get caught on cultivated land and there is an avenue to charge you under the Wildlife Act! ;)


3. Wildlife Act (Section 39) - A person is not
permitted to hunt on cultivated land or on
Crown land which is subject to a grazing lease
while the land is occupied by livestock, without
the consent of the owner, lessee or occupant
of the land.


In addition to the above, there is authority under
provisions of the Wildlife Act to limit access by
hunters or other persons. Relevant regulations
include the Motor Vehicle Prohibition Regulation
and the Public Access Prohibition Regulation.

After reviewing both the regulations and the wildlife act, I still am not able to find the part where it states that the onus is upon the hunter to know whether the land is private or not, presuming it is not cultivated, leased, or adequately posted.

If someone can find this written somewhere, it would be interesting to know where. This is a good debate and should provide all involved with some more information as to the actual laws and regulations versus peoples perceptions of them.

[elkdom]

IT is laid out clearly in the BC hunting regs 2007/2008page 12 (notice to hunters) and further more should you kill animal even though you have a tag in a zone open for that species,during a lawfull open season, then if that game harvested on cultivated land becomes an illegal kill, Dawson Creek area last year, a conviction for shooting black bear on cultivated land without owners permission, net fine to the hunter upon conviction was $ 6500 , and hunting suspension

[beeker]

The initial question involves what to do if there is game in a "field"... At this point it is then up to the hunter to decide if this "field" is cultivated...

However; assuming this "field" is just that (a field) and not cultivated, not fenced, not posted, no structures, and no grazing cattle, but, is in fact private land, how could a hunter possibly know or even be held at fault?

[hunter1947]

First of all is this road paved ??? ,if so you have to be so many meters away from the road in order to shoot your weapon. If in drought why take the chance???.

[Tanya]

Tanya's hubby John here;

I have to disagree with you Beeker. If it is a field then it has been cultivated. This is not up to you to decide and you could end up trying to convince a judge otherwise. I think common sense dictates that a piece of ground that has obviously been improved for agriculture probably belongs to someone and therefore the onus is on the hunter to obtain permission. If you are in doubt as has been stated before there are maps available of private property boundaries. The onus is still on you to check and I can tell you from talking to many farmers and ranchers that nothing turns them against hunters more than having people hunting on their property without permission.

[Wolfman]

IT is laid out clearly in the BC hunting regs 2007/2008page 12 (notice to hunters) and further more should you kill animal even though you have a tag in a zone open for that species,during a lawfull open season, then if that game harvested on cultivated land becomes an illegal kill, Dawson Creek area last year, a conviction for shooting black bear on cultivated land without owners permission, net fine to the hunter upon conviction was $ 6500 , and hunting suspension

Its quite the piss-off when people just go onto someone's land without permission and start shooting - not to mention dangerous. Somebody - or their stock - could get shot by accident among other things.

When I lived up in Dawson Creek I recall a guy I know up there telling me that some guys had been hunting on his back quarter without his permission and left a hell of a mess there -top it off with the fact that someone had shot the heck out of a shed he had there. He never did find out who it was...


Wolfman

[willy442]

First of all is this road paved ??? ,if so you have to be so many meters away from the road in order to shoot your weapon. If in drought why take the chance???.

hunter 1947; The road don't have to be paved. If it is a numbered public access you must be 400 meters off of it.

[beeker]

Tanya's hubby John here;

I have to disagree with you Beeker.

If it is a field then it has been cultivated. (why? do you have a legal definition of what dictates a cultivated field from an ordinary field?)

This is not up to you to decide and you could end up trying to convince a judge otherwise. (if you look earlier in the post, I have quoted the regulations involving the posting of private land, )

I think common sense dictates that a piece of ground that has obviously been improved for agriculture probably belongs to someone and therefore the onus is on the hunter to obtain permission. (where did i mention that this land was improved for agriculture? I simply stated that it is a non-cultivated field, no cattle, no structures, no signs, and no fence)

If you are in doubt as has been stated before there are maps available of private property boundaries. The onus is still on you to check and I can tell you from talking to many farmers and ranchers that nothing turns them against hunters more than having people hunting on their property without permission. (but is the onus really on me? according to the wildlife act and the regulations, if i considered the abovementioned points, which are directly from the regulations and cross-referenced with the wildlife act... I really don't see a problem in convincing a judge... in fact I like my odds.:cool:

[Dannybuoy]

hunter 1947; The road don't have to be paved. If it is a numbered public access you must be 400 meters off of it.
err 15 meters ..

[Bighorn hunter]

Hey Beeker, is this field you are talking about a natural clearing, or is it in an area which was once covered with trees?

Cultivated doesn't mean seeded. You can have a fallow field that is resting, it is still a cultivated field.Same as pasture, still a cultivated field.

[Bigbuckadams]

(but is the onus really on me? according to the wildlife act and the regulations, if i considered the abovementioned points, which are directly from the regulations and cross-referenced with the wildlife act... I really don't see a problem in convincing a judge... in fact I like my odds.:cool:


YES!!!! The onus is upon you. Quite simply, you must know where you are hunting. Public, Private, Park ....it doesn't matter. Guys come up to my buddies ranch, tear down the signs and cut big holes in the fence, then have the balls to say that the signs were never there and the fence was open. My opinion, if you are going to "hunt" on Private Property without consent, posted or not, you are nothing but a poacher. As far as convincing a judge.....ignorance is no defence, so good luck with that.

[Dannybuoy]

YES!!!! The onus is upon you. Quite simply, you must know where you are hunting. Public, Private, Park ....it doesn't matter. Guys come up to my buddies ranch, tear down the signs and cut big holes in the fence, then have the balls to say that the signs were never there and the fence was open. My opinion, if you are going to "hunt" on Private Property without consent, posted or not, you are nothing but a poacher. As far as convincing a judge.....ignorance is no defence, so good luck with that.
this is the way I always understood it as well

[OOBuck]

I'm no lawyer, but I can read and interpret. The bold words indicate there is a responsibility on land owners to ensure their property meets the definition of enclosed land (including fences, signs, natural boundries etc.) or give notice. Without this evidence, it appears the land owner will have a tough time suing for trespassing :|.

Just taking a different view to stir the pot for you guys :tongue:; basically this topic boils down to ethics. How high are your standards?

I couldn't agree more...

[rocksteady]

err 15 meters ..


hunter 1947; The road don't have to be paved. If it is a numbered public access you must be 400 meters off of it.

You are both right depending on what area you are hunting....

Yellowhead/Coquihalla, others - 400 m

Most other roads that are public roads (highways roads) - 15 m from centreline - most of the time the right-of-way fence, if there is one...

[daycort]

It is up to the hunter to know where he/she is hunting. If a person is that desprate to find a flaw in a law maybe he or she should not be hunting if you can't respect some one elses property. Is your front lawn posted or fenced?

Buy a map get a phone book and make some calls.


Don't let nothing but fear and common sense slow ya down.

[kgriz]

I LOVE this argument :smile:simply because people get so pi*sy about it and often think that thier strong opinions dictate what the rules are.
As far as I can tell, and I have researched this extensively, it seems that the gov't "overachieved" with their "green box" comment on pg 14 of the synopsis when they state:

NOTICE!

TO HUNTERS

To enter, hunt over or trap in
cultivated land, posted land or private
property without the owner’s
permission is committing an offence.
It is the responsibility of the hunter or
trapper to get permission from the land
owner before accessing private land

because this suggests that the onus is LEGALLY on the hunter to always know what private land is under all circumstances. This is not true according to the trespass act:
Trespass prohibited

4 (1) Subject to section 4.1, a person commits an offence if the person does any of the following:
(a) enters premises that are enclosed land;
(b) enters premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the entry is prohibited;
(c) engages in activity on or in premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the activity is prohibited.
(2) A person found on or in premises that are enclosed land is presumed not to have the consent of an occupier or an authorized person to be there.
(3) Subject to section 4.1, a person who has been directed, either orally or in writing, by an occupier of premises or an authorized person to
(a) leave the premises, or
(b) stop engaging in an activity on or in the premises,
commits an offence if the person
(c) does not leave the premises or stop the activity, as applicable, as soon as practicable after receiving the direction, or
(d) re-enters the premises or resumes the activity on or in the premises.

which basically says no to enclosed land and entering land AFTER the owner has told you its private. AKA for non-enclosed land you get one strike.


Nor the wildlife act which states the same about enclosed land

So technically the onus is on the landowner to make sure that their land meets the definition of "enclosed" or they provide ownership proof to the hunter ( even if only verbal sayso) if the land is not enclosed.

As for the lame arguement of the def. for cultivated... it's doesn't seem to be clearly defined in any reg. involved so common sense would dictate checking the dictionary to weed out bias:

cultivated - (of land or fields) prepared for raising crops by plowing or fertilizing; "cultivated land"
uncultivated (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uncultivated) - (of land or fields) not prepared for raising crops;
"uncultivated land"

Seems pretty clear:smile:


BE VERY CAREFUL IN THINKING THAT IT IS OK TO STATE THAT A HUNTER SHOULD ALWAYS KNOW IF LAND IS PRIVATE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF LAND OUT THERE THAT IS PRIVATE THAT YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW IS.....
ESPECIALLY AROUND LAKES WHERE THERE ARE OUT-OF-COUNTRY OWNERS. ALSO BE CAREFUL NOT TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE AND HEAR....ESPECIALLY IN REALLY OLD AGRICULTURE CATTLE AREAS SUCH AS BY WILLIAMS LAKE/SODA CREEK ETC. WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF "DRIFT FENCES" AND ILLEGALLY POSTED AREAS.GOOD OWNERSHIP MAPS ARE CRUCIAL HERE.

OH AND DON'T FORGET BIG BROTHER HAS A WAY AROUND ALL OF THIS LEGAL JARGON, IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING THEY CAN ALWAYS DO THIS TO YOU BECAUSE HUNTING IS A PRIVILEDGE NOT YOUR RIGHT:roll::

Suspension and cancellation of permits

25 (1) A regional manager, for any cause he or she considers sufficient, and after providing an opportunity for the person to be heard, may suspend or cancel a permit held by a person, may order that the person is ineligible to obtain or renew a permit for a period and, if he or she does make an order, must inform the person of the period of ineligibility.
(2) An officer may, without the necessity of holding a hearing, exercise the powers of a regional manager under this section to suspend a permit and, if a permit is suspended by an officer, the matter must be referred to the regional manager, who may confirm, reduce, extend or terminate the suspension

[daycort]

kozakgriz,

Thanks for that post. So I guess it comes down to ethics, either you got um or ya don't.

[beeker]

This topic is not about people blatently trespassing on others property...
It is a discussion about a possible scenario that could occur while out hunting.

As has been discovered before on this forum, there are many areas of the regulations that are grey and can be interpreted differently... hence the discussion... The problem lies in the fact that a lot of people state their opinion but do not support it with facts.

One suggestion I have for the regs is to include the definition of "cultivated land"... that may help clear up some confusion...

Daycort - it's just a discussion, no need to get your panties in a knot...perhaps you could support your opinion with some facts from the regulations or wildlife act to prove your point instead of insulting others who are "discussing" this topic...

[daycort]

beeker, your right it is a discussion. I just think if it even remotely looks like private land stay off, it is plain and simple. Are you willing to jepordize your good name and have your name printed in a local news paper, over a meaning in a dictionary?

To me hunting means to much to me, so in the scenario stated at the start of the thread, don't shoot. Look for a land owner in a tractor, riding a horse or a four wheeler or get a land owner map before you head out hunting and make a phone call.

Remember blatently tresspassing is still tresspassing.

[Gateholio]

I've always understood the onus is on the landowner to identify his property and post or fence it.

There is a chunk of my property that a person would think is not private, for there are no fences, can't see any building, just looks like forest... as for "cultivated" well, not all of us are farmers. It's easy to identify a field of corn, but a hayfield can just look like like an old grassy meadow to many people.

[kgriz]

I agree with you beeker on most parts except that I don't think by any means that one could define everything although cultivated is a fairly important one. Also I certainly don't take offence to daycourts comment even if it was intended to be sharp as I wasn't providing an ethics rant I was stating what I feel are the facts and he has been more than helpful to me in the past:lol: offering lots of advice on my uncle's buff hunt.
Most importantly, I agree that people shouldn't blatantly trespass on agricultural land for no other reason than its not yours and usually easy to identify if the landowner is being honest in their posting and fencing. Its the land that is not easy to identify that I have issue with the synopsis suggesting that you should know about....like un-enclosed timbered or cleared (but bot cultivated) areas that are becoming more and more common with out-of -country owners, land claim settlements etc. I think that the "hunters resposibility" statement is simply an easy out by the enforcers to put the onus off of them. I have dealt with all sorts of private land issues for work, and its not always that easy to get the lines right even when you have access to all of the docs and data let alone with the bc atlas/regs combo and a couple of title searches that would be the most most hunters would try.

[daycort]

In my previous posts my intentions were not to offend anyone.

I do have strong opinions about this subject of tresspassing.

[kgriz]

Oh and I forgot to mention.........

"Ethics"

A word used a lot on this site and as far as I can tell, usually a synonym for "opinion". Unless you belong to or are applying to a profession, club etc. one person's idea of appropriate ethics are certainly not anothers. I've seen some very "ethical" hunters do really "unethical" and downright crappy things as a person and visa-versa, so we should be careful to judge on ethics. At the guts of it, most law isn't much better, often originating as religious belief, ethics of the time etc. so I guess that when it comes to tough and grey situations you're prob. screwed either way:D
Remember:
Before shooting ANTHING please make sure that you are:
1. properly licenced
2. within legal shooting times as the geography dictates, not something easy like the GPS or newspaper
3. Not on any land that could possibly be private no matter what it looks like
4. your gun has the proper kinetic energy if required ( if your not a handloading enthusiast, please consult one immediately)
5. Your in the right zone, be careful the synopsis sucks, and the lines in the rec atlas pertaining to the legal desciptions in the wildlife act are not always on easy features ie. are you on the right unanamed creek or at the appropriate height of land?
6. does your intended target have the right point length, curl length to the mm, have you watched it pee??? to tell sex, are there babies hiding where you can't see...better wait an hour until you can tell.
7. being ethical by everyones standards at all times

YEESH..........and the general public thinks hunters are dumb red-necks, I
would suggest that most have to be eagle-eyed, well versed in cartography and satellite positioning, a lawyer, as well as a preacher to make everybody happy.

[Tanya]

Tanya's hubby John here:

The original question was about hunting on a field. By this I understood something that was obviously a field which to me therefore has manmade improvements on it. Personally I would rather have a regulation defining where we can hunt than to be faced with no hunting signs every 20 feet.
Mucks up the view you know. As a landowner I can tell you that if you insist on hunting on obviously private property because you think you can get away with it then the sign every 20 feet is what you will get. If you don't believe me take a drive down Allenby road in Princeton.
As for property that is not improved in any way and not fenced I believe the onus should be on the landowner to post signs or put up a fence.

[kgriz]

Exactly what I think as well

[hunter1947]

The way I see it in most cases when the land owner doesent want anyone or hunters on his property ,they will Post Private property sines at different places on there land saying ,NO HUNTING ,OR NO TRESSPASING ,ETC.

[Bigbuckadams]

As I stated earlier in the thread, there are problems with the posting of signs. The problems that I have encountered are mainly people ripping them down. I'm not saying it's just hunters, but motorbikers, guys on sleds and quads as well. The piece(s) of property I help maintain have cultivated fields, but probably 80% of it is rangeland. I always thought I would love to own a big chunk of land, but it is a major pain in the butt. It takes 2/3 people, about 12 full days to walk and fix the fence every spring. We do this 2-3 times/year, as well as regular maintenance.
If there are ANY doubts about the land being private, investigate first, there are lots of critters out there. It is your responsibility, as a hunter, to know where you are hunting at all times. There are "loopholes" in plenty of areas of law, just look at O.J. and the lady who got a bunch of cash for spilling coffee on her lap. " They didn't tell me it was hot ".
To me, this is not a question of law, but common sense, ethics, respect...whatever you want to call it. If you TRULY believe the opposite of what I am saying, then what happens when you leave your house and forget to lock your door? A window ? I am sure that over 90% of us don't have signs and a proper fence on our lots/houses. So when the local crackhead comes in your window or front door and takes everything you own, I guess that is OK and all legal because you failed to have the proper fence and the required No Tresspass, No Stealing signs.
Ya, I'm getting a little bit ridiculous, just trying to put the shoe on the other foot. Some landowners don't mind granting permission to hunters, but if permission isn't granted prior to hunting, it is poaching. Investigate the area prior to hunting and ask permission if it's private, the worst outcome is you get a NO.

[Bighorn hunter]

As I stated earlier in the thread, there are problems with the posting of signs. The problems that I have encountered are mainly people ripping them down. I'm not saying it's just hunters, but motorbikers, guys on sleds and quads as well. The piece(s) of property I help maintain have cultivated fields, but probably 80% of it is rangeland. I always thought I would love to own a big chunk of land, but it is a major pain in the butt. It takes 2/3 people, about 12 full days to walk and fix the fence every spring. We do this 2-3 times/year, as well as regular maintenance.
If there are ANY doubts about the land being private, investigate first, there are lots of critters out there. It is your responsibility, as a hunter, to know where you are hunting at all times. There are "loopholes" in plenty of areas of law, just look at O.J. and the lady who got a bunch of cash for spilling coffee on her lap. " They didn't tell me it was hot ".
To me, this is not a question of law, but common sense, ethics, respect...whatever you want to call it. If you TRULY believe the opposite of what I am saying, then what happens when you leave your house and forget to lock your door? A window ? I am sure that over 90% of us don't have signs and a proper fence on our lots/houses. So when the local crackhead comes in your window or front door and takes everything you own, I guess that is OK and all legal because you failed to have the proper fence and the required No Tresspass, No Stealing signs.
Ya, I'm getting a little bit ridiculous, just trying to put the shoe on the other foot. Some landowners don't mind granting permission to hunters, but if permission isn't granted prior to hunting, it is poaching. Investigate the area prior to hunting and ask permission if it's private, the worst outcome is you get a NO.

Very well said, can't agree more.
BHH

[Randaroo]

I'm a farmer/land owner who isn't against hunting, that being said I've had problems with hunters in the past with respect to my land.

I realy encourage people to get out from in front of the TV and be active so for the community at large I cut trails for cross country skiing, equestrian, hiking, and biking. I've recently posted the entrances with signs that list the activities that myself and all the adjacent landowners feels fits the apropriate use of the lands.
That is " No Hunting, no shooting, no motorised vehicles" the sign has graffic figures of skiiers, hikers and equestrian as symbols to show allowed uses.
The properties are bounded by a river with a dike reserve, nowhere are you outside 400 meters from a structure or 50 meters from an adjacent trail.
The lands are well used by horsey people, hikers, skiers(winter).
the lands are not completely fenced though the entrances are obvious and restricted by cultivated fields, sections of fencing and an obviuos log gate, the common entry point. signs at all entrances.
The rub here is: thier are a lot of deer that like my feilds and fully visable from the road, I can well understand the overwelming feeling when someone has spent a week in the bush and gotton skunked passing by to see a five-point munching so close to the road.
The question is, are the signs too polite and are they effective enough for hunters to understand the apropriate uses outlined by the land owner(s)?
Did I say I really hate signs...

[Randaroo]

I should note that the system of finding out the property designations in BC or anywhere are onerious, painful and expensive.
Has anyone got a login to the provincial "Gator" site? Has anyone figured it out? Noticed the missing information on it? (a title search isn't all the information out there.)
So i sympothise with those really trying to find out whos' land, whats its status, or what!?!
No body hears you scream in deep space!

[BCHunterFSJ]

Seems to me that we have got side tracked from the original topic... It is a "no - brainer" that if land is cultivated you need permission. However, I know of many places up here in the Peace that are not cultivated and not posted, but are still private property. Those are the ones you have to be careful about.

[wolverine]

There are very few landowners who will allow you to hunt their property because most of them have had damage done to fences, outbuildings, equipment etc. Why would anyone who calls themselves a "hunter" want to jeoprodize any future opportunities to hunt on private property by knowingly trespassing on private land? I used to let guys on my property in Kamloops to hunt, fish and camp but only if they obtained permission first and played by my rules (clean your camp, no fires unattended and pack your garbage out) Anyone I caught out there without permission was escorted off the property. It just got to the point where the land was posted and I let nobody except for people I knew well to use the property. Discussions like this seem to show that there are still a lot of people out there that think it's okay to trespass because "they" interpret the wording in the synopsis differently than the obvious intent. Again, so many seem to have the expectation of entitlement and a total lack of respect for anything that they don't agree with. It's a sad commentary actually.