Permission for Deer Retrieval

It seems the majority of the problems with regards to this come from bad blood/pissing matches between hunters and not so much from landowners unless they are very staunch anti-hunters or if there is some existing bad blood. What is the common theme here? Yep you guessed it....bad blood. The old you F with me I'll F with you attitude kicks in. Any reasonable person is not going to refuse any reasonable person from retrieving an injured/dead animal from their property. The problem is when people start to be unreasonable and sometime it doesn't take much to get there. I live in the country and own property and have permission to hunt on adjacent properties to mine but don't have permission to hunt on several other adjacent properties. If I shot a deer and if it ran onto one of these properties and expired how I handled it would depend on where on the property it was. If it was at the back of the property no where near the house and the owner didn't know I was even there. I would just go and get it, drag it back to my property and be done with it. If it was out in the middle of their field somewhere near the house where the owner could see me I would go and knock on the door and tell them what I was doing so they weren't wondering what was going on out in their field. I would expect the same courtesy on my property. Right or wrong this is how I would do it. If you've gotten yourself into a situation where you have to get the authorities involved then you're either dealing with a very unreasonable person or you've done something to make that person unreasonable..

Just my .2 cents.

Gooseman I agree. Under the FWCA for roadkill, all a person must do is when they get home (with the roadkill) is fill an online form called "notice of possession" free of cost, fill it out, print it off, and than your legal with taking your roadkill. Now there will be exceptions for this however it does apply to big game, specially protected raptors, and fur bearers that i know of. So that officer would be in the wrong. Now, to the point of an officer entering private land (trespass). They are authorized to do so when acting under the act, not only can they enter the land, BUT they can authorize a person to enter the land under their direction, with or without the officer for the purpose of assisting the officer. For the example that was brought up, an officer acting under the FWCA may enter onto private land to retrieve a deer, RG would be very easy to obtain IMO. At the same time, I do believe if a person is acting under good faith and retrieving (trespassing) the deer it would be hard to convict them, however the onus will be on them to prove they were retrieving it under good faith, and not just hunting/trespassing to hunt and to prove all due diligence possible IMO. (bad shot, deer managed to travel 250+ yards) This is just my 2 cents, but i agree and think that if a person doesn't do all their due diligence and a injured deer MAY/COULD be able to go to their surrounding properties within REASON (i.e.. property is 500 yards away - well does a deer normally go that far after a kill shot, generally no, however a property is 45 yards away from a stand - than yes you better ask because it is reasonable for a wounded deer to travel that far, than if they get refused then yes, the person would be at their fault and should not be able to get their deer. However a property is 500+ yards a way, a bad shot happens, or something happens where the deer travels to the property, yes they do deserve to get their deer with or without permission IMO, because would a reasonable person believe a deer wounded lung shot would travel that far etc etc.

I like this topic, and all the input;

NOP link

http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/s...E&NO=018-0427E

Blake

Another point, I do believe if a person willingly knows that a deer is on his property he would be allowing it to spoil. This refers back to the whole smoking pot in your buddies car. (ie. Your out driving with your buddies in your car, they have marijuanna on them, get pulled over and caught, you can all be charged for possession, yes you don't have it or agree with it but still can be charged - same thing goes for the deer on some ones land, you know its their, you allow it to spoil, than yes IMO you can be charged). When it comes before the courts your going to be asked, ya the hunter did say a deer went onto your property, a CO did find a dead deer on your property, but did you do everything to see if it was still on your property?...oh no you didn't? well than your due diligence is out the window and the onus on you that yes there was a deer that was on your property that was spoiled. However IMO an officer would have to prove that a deer did actually spoil; and the hunter asked the property owner/ a CO before their was any charge..

blake

You make some good points but I disagree with a couple things. A landowner has no responsibility to go and retrieve a deer on his property, even if he knows it is there. The landowner did not shoot the deer nor was he involved in hunting it. What if a road kill deer runs on his property....is he responsible for that too??

A CO needs to be acting under the FWCA to enter private property. I'm not so sure that someone saying their deer ran onto the private property would fall under "acting under the act".

If you can get a CO to attend (and thats a big if), I'm sure he would try and help you get access, but I don't believe he has the authority to enter private land or give you permission to, based on what is being discussed here.

Furthermore, you are using a "possession" in a federal act versus "possession" in a provincial act, and they are not necessarily the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Some people believe it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.

---

I thought that was the strategy to be used when dealing with your spouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooseman

I find it real hard to believe that an OPP officer wanted you to tag a road kill as I would believe that in itself is wrong due to the fact your tag is only for legally taken game not road kill. Any road kill I pick up I always get the reporting officers business card and keep it with the deer. The last one hit in front of my house the officer had never seen one gutted so asked if he could watch. Sure was nice having someone hold the light :)
i would love for someone like yourself to tear a strip off me on my land cause you wouldn't get permission after that to hunt a deer close enough to here that would run onto mine or for that matter any land within a good couple of miles of here.
but back to the original topic, do yourself and all other hunters a real great dead and get permission and don't just trespass as it leaves a real bad taste in land owners mouths

---

He did just that. It was my first time every get a hit deer and this was about 6 years ago.

Also your saying you would not allow someone on your land to get a downed or wounded deer, why? And if you didn't allow me and then finding out you were also a hunter then I would have to believe you were a thief and not allowing me just to get my deer for yourself. I would loose my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent

You make some good points but I disagree with a couple things. A landowner has no responsibility to go and retrieve a deer on his property, even if he knows it is there. The landowner did not shoot the deer nor was he involved in hunting it. What if a road kill deer runs on his property....is he responsible for that too??

A CO needs to be acting under the FWCA to enter private property. I'm not so sure that someone saying their deer ran onto the private property would fall under "acting under the act".

If you can get a CO to attend (and thats a big if), I'm sure he would try and help you get access, but I don't believe he has the authority to enter private land or give you permission to, based on what is being discussed here.

Furthermore, you are using a "possession" in a federal act versus "possession" in a provincial act, and they are not necessarily the same.

---

36. (1) A hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal shall not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
Spoiled flesh
(2) A person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).

This is what I am looking at when I say a landowner 'could' have responsibility. To me, and my interpretation of the act of subsection 36(2), a person who possess game wildlife that was hunted shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption...what I am looking at here is, it does not say the person that shot it, it says game wildlife that WAS hunted. (my interpretation may be wrong, your right, but it is opinion base, and for the courts to decide). But to me, this is saying a wounded deer (wounded from being hunted) is now on another's property (in his possession) may be held responsible as he is allowing it to waste. Thus being said, does not say anything about roadkill etc.

S. 94 of the act says enter on to private property, and S. 91 talks about inspecting. If the deer was being hunted, and the CO can prove their was a deer shot rather than hearsay(word of mouth) than yes he could gain RG to inspect if the deer was shot legally/illegally. This may be iffy to, or looking to make reasons to enter the property...IMO

Now that being said, Brent, I do believe you are right and S.94 only obtains to something in the CO's case such as a biologist, ballistic specialist, technician etc etc not a person that was hunting..

To my knowledge if there is no possession in the FWCA; they can refer to federal or other provincial acts,

I would say that applies to the "hunter". The property owner was not the one that hunted that animal so I don't think they could be held responsible. Not saying it makes it right but I don't think they could be charged if they didn't allow the person to come on their property and the meat spoiled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blakev

36. (1) A hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal shall not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
Spoiled flesh
(2) A person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).

This is what I am looking at when I say a landowner 'could' have responsibility. To me, and my interpretation of the act of subsection 36(2), a person who possess game wildlife that was hunted shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption...what I am looking at here is, it does not say the person that shot it, it says game wildlife that WAS hunted. (my interpretation may be wrong, your right, but it is opinion base, and for the courts to decide). But to me, this is saying a wounded deer (wounded from being hunted) is now on another's property (in his possession) may be held responsible as he is allowing it to waste. Thus being said, does not say anything about roadkill etc.

S. 94 of the act says enter on to private property, and S. 91 talks about inspecting. If the deer was being hunted, and the CO can prove their was a deer shot rather than hearsay(word of mouth) than yes he could gain RG to inspect if the deer was shot legally/illegally. This may be iffy to, or looking to make reasons to enter the property...IMO

Now that being said, Brent, I do believe you are right and S.94 only obtains to something in the CO's case such as a biologist, ballistic specialist, technician etc etc not a person that was hunting..

To my knowledge if there is no possession in the FWCA; they can refer to federal or other provincial acts,

---

Seriously? A landowner is not in possession period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I hate to tell you,deerslayer99,but,if you were the landowner,somebody just sold you some Arizona swampland.

---

Well lets just say Trimmer 21 and Werner that $2350 plus victim surcharge fines were imposed for doing what a lot of you think is ok BUT isn't......long story short.....deer was shot on a property with permission....we tracked it and found it on another property who we had no idea who owned it...field dressed the deer and went on our merry way......the next day CO's and cops were all over us......all this for a simple trespassing and a deer involved......there is no set fine for trespassing, its whatever they want to impose.....so don't tell me someone sold me some Arizona swampland.....until you have it happen to you and know what the law is.....be quite about issues you can only assume on......