Landowner Permission paper slip.

[TN Whitetail Freak]

I was reading tca book today and from what I read a hunter given permission only has to carry a written slip only if the landowner requires it and has the land posted.....otherwise non posted land permission can be given verbally legally....

 

[smalljawbasser]

ive read so much different stuff and misinformation on this, i have no idea. i'll be watching the responses with interest. i was thinking the hunting regs say you have to have written permission, but in all the trespasser dispute questions, it seems like unless you post it you are out of luck. i think it's a situation where game laws don't match state law.

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

Game laws are state laws are they not?

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

My reference is the site below
https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

70-4-106 is what I was reading

 

[Oldiron]

Game laws are state laws are they not?

Migratory bird are federal regulated laws, but your local game warden will cite you for infractions.

Most other game laws are state, unless you're (not your) on a federal installation or us forestry area. Then, there (not their) are sometimes agreements to let it be governed by state jurisdiction. Such as COE, twra will cite you for game violations if they catch you.

Hope I'm telling you right best I can.

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

I did however know there was a difference in federal game law and state game law but no difference in state game law and state law.....I'm finding some interesting game laws I didn't know about though for instance , I was under the impression one could sell deer hide but not meat however I found a statute that deems it unlawful along with squirrel pelt and tail

 

[Hunter 257W]

I was reading tca book today and from what I read a hunter given permission only has to carry a written slip only if the landowner requires it and has the land posted.....otherwise non posted land permission can be given verbally legally....

I seem to recall SCN stating this here before. I remember him saying that written permission to hunt is only required if the land is posted stating the same. It may have been different in the past. I don't trust my memory there.

 

[scn]

Written permission is only required for land that is posted with the blue paint and signage stating Hunting by Written Permission Only.

However, with that being said, having written permission from a landowner is always good as it can short circuit any questions or trespass issues. But, it is not required except for land posted as stated above.

 

[TLRanger]

Written permission is only required for land that is posted with the blue paint and signage stating Hunting by Written Permission Only.

However, with that being said, having written permission from a landowner is always good as it can short circuit any questions or trespass issues. But, it is not required except for land posted as stated above.

Does this mean I wasted my time and money by posting my property with "No Hunting and No Tresspassing" signs every 100 yards?

 

[smalljawbasser]

Here's what I'm saying, re the difference between state law and game law, as it relates to trespassing.

Nowhere in the TCA does it say a word about blue paint or posted signs. It's plain and simple you can't go on somebody else's property uninvited, with some exemptions for commercial property.

http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2 ... /39-14-405

But as far as the TWRA is concerned, hunting on somebody else's land isn't trespassing, unless a bunch of "blue paint" guidelines are followed.

Why does the state of Tennessee consider trespassing one way if you're walking in the woods, but another way if you're walking in the woods with a gun during hunting season?

It makes no sense. If I think somebody is on my land hunting, I should call the game warden and he should come arrest them for trespassing. Period. They are the ones with the expertise "in the woods" so to speak.

Instead, I'm caught between blue paint and a local county sheriffs department that doesn't want to deal with a hunter. If I'm a lease holder, I'm doubly caught in no mans land.

Now there's a proposal I can get behind. Make it illegal to hunt on another mans land without written permission, period.

 

[scn]

There is so much misinformation/misunderstanding in this thread that it is hard to know where to even start.

There is no such thing as "game law". All hunting/fishing regulations are either statutes passed by the legislature or regulations passed by the TFWC and codified under TCA 70-4-102.

All state statutes are found in the Tennessee Code Annotated. There is a link to all of those statutes on the TWRA home page in the regulations section. State law gives the officers of TWRA the statutory authority to enforce the statutes in Titles 69 and 70 statewide. They can enforce all state statutes on public lands and waters, and elsewhere under certain exigent circumstances.

The general trespass statute is found in Title 39, which is not under normal statutory authority for TWRA. That is why the Sheriff's Dept., who does have authority to enforce that statute, has to be called for trespass violations that don't involve hunting.

If, and only if, someone is hunting without permission can TWRA deal with the violation. There is a specific statute in Title 70 that TWRA can enforce dealing with that violation. It is a TOTALLY different statute than the Title 39 trespass statute that they are not normally authorized to enforce.

I have never said that hunting without permission can't be enforced without blue paint and signage. If someone is on property that you own hunting without your permission, they are in violation of TCA 70-4-106. And, TWRA can enforce that statute, but it will require the landowner to go to court to prosecute the case. If the landowner is unable/unwilling to go through the court proceedings, TWRA cannot deal with it on their on. And, TWRA does not operate a "running off" service to get folks off others land. If there is a hunting without the landowners permission violation and the landowner will agree to prosecute in court, TWRA can and will assist. If you just want TWRA to run them off the land, don't bother to call if you are not willing to follow through with the court proceedings.

Again, if hunting is not involved, it IS NOT a violation that TWRA can deal with. That is why the Sheriff's Dept. (or Police Dept inside city limits and in metro counties) is who you have to call to address non-hunting trespass issues.

Many years ago TWRA, the TN Conservation League, and the TN Farm Bureau worked together to draft a change in TCA 70-4-106 that they hoped would be able to keep a landowner from having to go to court to prosecute a hunting without permission violation. That is where the blue paint and Hunting by Written Permission Only deal came about. The statute lists the only legal signage for that procedure. Regular no hunting or no trespassing signs do not meet the terms of the statute. It has to be done with signs saying Hunting by Written Permission Only and referring to the statute. TWRA has a brochure on the signage and the marking procedures.

The statute worked as intended for a couple of years until the lawyers figured out the loopholes. It is so unenforceable that TWRA officers have been told to basically disregard it and treat it like any other hunting without permission violation that requires the landowner to participate. That section in TCA 70-4-106, with the specified signage and blue paint markings, as I referenced earlier in this thread, is the ONLY time that written permission is required by state law.

There is NO requirement in TCA 70-4-106 to have ANY signs up for a violation of hunting without the landowners permission violation takes place. You have to have the landowner's permission in order to hunt, period, and even with no signs on the property. Having the boundaries posted with signs certainly helps win the case in court as it derails the "excuse" that I didn't know I was on property where I didn't have permission. But, again, the signage is not required.

The Title 39 trespass statute doesn't mention having to have any signs up. But, it goes on to say that if signage is not posted at all major points of ingress into the property, the lack of signage can be a legal defense to the trespass violation. So, you need signage at all major points of ingress into the property to successully prosecute for trespass.

So, to hopefully sum it up: Hunting without the landowner's permission--call TWRA.

Trespass issues that DO NOT include hunting, call the Sheriff's Dept.

 

[scn]

I did however know there was a difference in federal game law and state game law but no difference in state game law and state law.....I'm finding some interesting game laws I didn't know about though for instance , I was under the impression one could sell deer hide but not meat however I found a statute that deems it unlawful along with squirrel pelt and tail

You need to re-read. TCA 70-4-210 specifically makes legal the sale of deer pelts and squirrel tails.

 

[scn]

Written permission is only required for land that is posted with the blue paint and signage stating Hunting by Written Permission Only.

However, with that being said, having written permission from a landowner is always good as it can short circuit any questions or trespass issues. But, it is not required except for land posted as stated above.

Does this mean I wasted my time and money by posting my property with "No Hunting and No Tresspassing" signs every 100 yards?

If you thought that type of signage triggered anything specific by requiring written permission, then you were incorrect. Only the signage specified in TCA 70-4-106 meets those legal requirements.

If you thought such signage was required to prosecute the violation of hunting without landowners permission, then you were incorrect.

But, there is little doubt that having such signage greatly increases the odds of successfully winning your case in court. So. IMO, you did not waste your time and money.

 

[smalljawbasser]

That helps a lot SCN, thank you (again) for taking the time to clarify. I truly appreciate it. It makes sense that the spirit of the law was to allow an officer to punish for trespassing without the landowner having to appear in court.

In my own personal experience, and in reading the dozens of recurring threads on here, it's clear that slob hunters and ginseng hunters with no regard for private property are a huge problem.

it seems to me that another change in the law is long overdue. If a statute is (understandably) being basically ignored, it's time for a change. The trespassing, theiving, littering, and destruction of public property needs to stop. I own a small farm, and lease another. Both have suffered from trespassing, and law abiding, tax paying citizen should not feel this helpless.

In your opinion, would that change need to originate in the State Legislature, or the TWRC?

I am willing to organize a petition, and bring it to the attention of John Holsclaw, Ron Ramsey, and/or Jeff McMillan and Chad Baker. I have seen firsthand (smallmouth size limit on South Holston) what can happen when citizens are united around a common sense position.

Thoughts?

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

I did however know there was a difference in federal game law and state game law but no difference in state game law and state law.....I'm finding some interesting game laws I didn't know about though for instance , I was under the impression one could sell deer hide but not meat however I found a statute that deems it unlawful along with squirrel pelt and tail

You need to re-read. TCA 70-4-210 specifically makes legal the sale of deer pelts and squirrel tails.

I just re-read thanks for clearing that up my mind subconsciously put 'un' in front of lawful.

 

[scn]

That helps a lot SCN, thank you (again) for taking the time to clarify. I truly appreciate it. It makes sense that the spirit of the law was to allow an officer to punish for trespassing without the landowner having to appear in court.

In my own personal experience, and in reading the dozens of recurring threads on here, it's clear that slob hunters and ginseng hunters with no regard for private property are a huge problem.

it seems to me that another change in the law is long overdue. If a statute is (understandably) being basically ignored, it's time for a change. The trespassing, theiving, littering, and destruction of public property needs to stop. I own a small farm, and lease another. Both have suffered from trespassing, and law abiding, tax paying citizen should not feel this helpless.

In your opinion, would that change need to originate in the State Legislature, or the TWRC?

I am willing to organize a petition, and bring it to the attention of John Holsclaw, Ron Ramsey, and/or Jeff McMillan and Chad Baker. I have seen firsthand (smallmouth size limit on South Holston) what can happen when citizens are united around a common sense position.

Thoughts?

IMO, the illegal trespass/hunting issues are one of the top problems we are facing as hunters today. The slobs out there know that the chances of being caught are fairly slim, and that if they are caught, the financial penalties are likely less than the cost of paying onto a lease.

It is beyond something that the Commission can do. It will take either modifying some current statutes or passing a new law to address it. I, personally (and not speaking for TWRA since I am no longer there) would love to see the following:

1. A mandatory fine of at least $500 upon conviction for hunting without landowner permission. I know that in some states that have it (GA was $300 many years ago), that it does serve as a deterrent. While I have seen some judges disregard mandatory things in their sentence, that is sort of rare. I think some folks looking at an automatic fine like that might think twice before hunting without permission.

2. Although I have some mixed feelings, I think that requiring written permission from the landowner for hunting big game on all private lands might help as well. While I know a few landowners would not want to go to the trouble, and some folks might lose a place to hunt, I think it would cut down on some of the abuse. That way, on private land, when an officer checked a big game hunter, they would either have to have written permission on their person or if they were hunting under the landowner license exemption have the currently required landowner exemption form. If they had neither, if the law was properly crafted, it could allow the wildlife officer to issue a citation on the spot and NOT require the presence of the landowner in court.

Just my thoughts...

 

[smalljawbasser]

I will contact my representatives and report back.

Thanks again.

 

[Biggun4214]

I know several landowners that refuse to give written permission because they are afraid of liability.

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

I know several landowners that refuse to give written permission because they are afraid of liability.

Title 70 Chapter 7 kinda of covers landowners from being liable?

 

[scn]

I know several landowners that refuse to give written permission because they are afraid of liability.

That is the main reason I said I have mixed feelings. I think in the end it would help give some better enforcement to 106 if everyone had to have it on their person, and could derail the issue of the landowner going to court. But, you are spot on that some landowners would quit giving permission, period, if a written permission requirement went in. Chapter 7 addresses their lack of liability in a major way, but some would not give written permission.

 

[PillsburyDoughboy]

Wow every time I have had land owners permission to hunt I just take one of those cards filled out in advance and ask the landowner to sign it. It's never been a issue getting them to sign it, they are usually very happy to sign it seeing as your going to be watching over their property.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dean Parisian]

Why don't you get a RELEASE OF LIABILITY signed by the person who owns the land? Protect the landowner, protect yourself.

Assumption of Risk, Hold Harmless & Release Agreement
Assumption of Risk
Hunting can be a dangerous sport. There are many dangers and risks associated with any hunting activity, and to protect the interests of the Parisian Family and Ghost Ranch, we require ALL hunters on the Ghost Ranch to sign this Liability Release.
I, the undersigned, am aware there are hazards associated with hunting the Ghost Ranch that may include, but are not limited to the discharge of firearms, walking, climbing deer stands, ATV/vehicle accidents, forces of nature and illnesses and injuries in remote areas without immediate medical help. I acknowledge these risks and assume them.
I agree that neither I, nor anyone acting on my behalf, will make a claim of any kind against any member of the Parisian Family, the Ghost Ranch or their heirs, successors, assigns, employees, directors, officers or agents. I agree that I am physically capable of hunting the Ghost Ranch and assume full responsibility for myself and any person under my direction or control, including any minors, for bodily injury, expenses, loss of personal property, claims and death.
Release of Liability
By signing this agreement I specifically agree that I will hold the Parisian Family and the Ghost Ranch harmless from all claims, demands, costs, actions and liability arising as a consequence of an accident, negligence, damage or injury which I might occasion or cause upon another person or entity. I have read these terms and conditions and accept them. I acknowledge this agreement to be effective and binding upon me and those persons under my direction or control, including my heirs, successors, assigns, administrators and attorneys. I further agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Parisian Family and the Ghost Ranch for any claims made resulting from any use of or activity conducted on the Ghost Ranch.

____________________________________
Signature
____________________________________
Date