|
|
Post by hoosierbaits on Oct 17, 2011 11:31:43 GMT -5
What is the correct interpretation of "hunting without permission"? Does it always come down to giving them a first warning due to the tresspassing issue discussed in the other post above? If they don't know where they are how could they have permission? If they don't know the land owners name and the land owner doesn't know them what happens?
|
|
|
|
Post by morrison on Oct 17, 2011 15:49:16 GMT -5
IC 14-22-10-1
Consent to use private land
Sec. 1. A person may not:
(1) fish, hunt, trap, or chase;
(2) shoot with any kind of firearm or archery equipment;
(3) search for or gather any plant life (defined as the members of the kingdoms Fungi and Plantae); or
(4) search for or gather any artifacts (as defined in IC 14-21-1-2);
upon privately owned land without having the consent of the owner or tenant of the land.
As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.186-2003, SEC.59.
This statute is different from the trespass statute (I.C. 35-43-2-2) in that it requires the person to have permission if engaging in certain activities. In normal terms, This statute states that if you are going to hunt, fish, trap, hunt mushrooms, collect artifacts, ect, you are required to have the permission of the landowner. Trespassing states you have to knowingly or intentionally enter onto real property that you know that you are not to be on or at due to some method whether it is a court order, being asked to leave or directed to leave by a law enforcement officer. The statutes are very similar in the fact that they deal with being on someone elses property. However, the "without consent" does not require the person being advised previously. It is understood that when participating in certain activities listed above that a person must have permission from the owner.
|
|
