Originally Posted by Llama_Bob
Originally Posted by Jackson_Handy
I wish the individuals involved well and hope they win. I think "intent" should be taken into account, they had no intention to trespass or hunt on private property (hence why G&F didn't cite)


Incorrect. They had no intention to hunt. They had every intention to trespass, knowing that they would unavoidably pass through clearly marked private property and doing so anyways.

There are two statutes at play here - plain trespassing and trespassing to hunt. The later is enforced by Game and Fish. The former, by normal law enforcement. This was a violation of the former but not the latter, so G&F stayed out of it.


Well I disagree with that assessment. If they intended to trespass they wouldn't have used a ladder. It sounds like they went to great lengths to not trespass.

I don't care for bha, and I'm disappointed but not surprised the corporate HQ remains silent on this case. It's sad really.

But I wish the defendants well and hope this case provides common sense precedence in corner crossing.