hunting
The fall hunting season is upon us, and landowners across Ohio are being asked to give permission to allow hunting on their land. That means now is a good time for a refresher on the laws that affect Ohio landowners and hunting. Here are ten legal tips for landowners considering hunting activities on their land.
- Ohio law requires permission in writing--but landowners should review the permission form and know who they’ve permitted. Ohio law requires a hunter to obtain a hunting license and written permission from a landowner or the landowner’s agent before hunting on private lands or waters. Landowners should expect to be asked to sign the permission form provided by ODNR, which is available on ODNR’s website. The permission form allows a landowner to designate a permission period—either the entire hunting season or specific dates. If a hunter uses a different permission form, it might contain additional provisions beyond the permission to hunt, such as the right to install a tree stand or a blind on the property. Landowners should have an attorney review a form if unsure of its meaning and should document names and contact information for hunters granted permission to hunt on the property. Contact information will be helpful if there is a hunting incident or a need to contact the hunter.
- Know the laws for family members and tenants. A landowner who is a resident of Ohio, the landowner’s spouse, all children of any age, and all grandchildren under the age of 18 are exempt from the hunting license requirement when hunting on the landowner’s land. All other family members must obtain a hunting license and follow the written permission requirement. When a landowner is not an Ohio resident, only the landowner, spouse, and children living with the landowner may hunt without a license, and only if the landowner’s state of residency grants the same rights to Ohioans who own land in that state. In a rental situation where a tenant resides on the land, the tenant and the tenant’s children who live on the land may hunt on the property without a hunting license and written permission.
- The hunting license exemption also applies to certain entities. If the owner of land is a limited liability company or a limited liability partnership with three or fewer individual members or partners, a member or partner who is a resident of Ohio may hunt on the land without a hunting license, as can the member or partner's children of any age and grandchildren under the age of 18. If a trust owns the land and has a total of three or fewer trustees and beneficiaries, a trustee or beneficiary who is an Ohio resident and their children of any age and grandchildren under the age of 18 may hunt on the land without a hunting license.
- A hunter must also have written permission to pursue or retrieve an injured animal. Hunters often mistakenly believe they have the right to pursue an injured animal onto another property, but Ohio law says otherwise. Written permission of a landowner is required for each of these hunting activities: shooting, shooting at, catching, killing, injuring, or pursuing a wild animal or bird. Contrary to popular belief, the law does not require a landowner to give a hunter permission to pursue an injured animal—it’s a choice a landowner can make.
- Two Ohio laws can protect landowners from liability for hunting injuries. The first is Ohio’s Recreational User Statute, which states that a landowner has no legal duty to keep the premises safe for a hunter and other recreational users who have permission to be on the land. This means the law will protect a landowner from liability if a hunter is harmed while on the property, but it won’t protect a landowner who caused the harm through intentional or reckless conduct. Note that the liability protection does not apply if a landowner charges a hunter a fee for hunting, unless the fee is a payment made under a hunting lease. Read more about the Recreational User’s Statute in our law bulletin on farmoffice.osu.edu. A second Ohio law addresses liability for someone who is hunting on land without permission. In that case, Ohio law states a landowner is not liable for “injury, death, or loss to person or property” that arises from a violation of the requirement to have a landowner’s permission to hunt on the land.
- Be mindful of the number of hunters who could be on the land. For safety purposes, a landowner should be careful about allowing multiple hunters onto the land at the same time. Strategies for managing multiple hunters include designating a specific parking area so hunters know if another hunter is present and setting specific hunting periods for different hunters. Taking reasonable steps to manage multiple hunters will help ensure that someone isn’t harmed, and it can also protect a landowner from a potential claim that the Recreational User’s Statute shouldn’t apply because the landowner behaved recklessly by not managing multiple hunters allowed on the land. While such a claim might not be legally successful, it would require landowners and their insurance providers to prove that the Recreational User’s Statute protects the landowner from liability.
- Consider a hunting lease. Many hunters and hunting groups prefer to secure hunting rights through a hunting lease. A lease can provide a landowner with additional income and is one situation where the liability protection of Ohio’s Recreational User Statute applies even if a payment is made to the landowner. A lease can also address other rights and responsibilities, such as number and gender of animals to be taken, placement of tree stands and blinds, use of feeders and bait, where animals may be cleaned, and property maintenance activities by hunters. See our law bulletin on hunting lease considerations in the property law library on farmoffice.osu.edu at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/property-law.
- Ohio laws address harm to property caused by hunters. What if a landowner gives permission to a hunter, but then that hunter causes property damage? Ohio’s hunting law is one law that can help. It prohibits a hunter from acting in a “negligent, careless or reckless manner so as to injure persons or property.” A hunter who violates this law can face first degree misdemeanor charges and revocation of the hunting license and must also pay compensation to the harmed landowner. Ohio’s reckless destruction of vegetation law is a second helpful law. It allows a landowner to seek compensation for “reckless” destruction of vegetation, trees, and crops and would address a situation where a hunter acted intentionally and without regard for the consequences. Intentionally cutting down a tree without permission or running an ATV through a planted crop are behaviors that could be deemed reckless. Under this law, a landowner could receive triple the amount of the harm caused to the property by a hunter’s reckless behavior.
- It’s a good time to mark property boundaries. Many of the old fences that marked a farm’s property boundaries in Ohio are long gone, and it’s not as easy today for hunters to know where one farm begins and another ends. Especially for landowners who don’t want hunting on their land, be sure boundary lines are clear to hunters. Use corner posts, fences, and “no trespassing signs.” In woodlots, marking the trees on the boundary with paint is also helpful. For an overview of woodlot boundary marking, refer to this video from OSU Extension at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSYYn_onE80.
- Ohio has a process for dealing with poachers and trespassers. Ohio’s “Turn in a Poacher” program (TIP) establishes mechanisms for reporting a violation of wildlife laws, such as hunting without permission or a license and taking animals out of season. A person can report a violation using an online reporting form on ODNR’s website or by calling the TIP hotline at 1-800-POACHER (762-2437). Incident reporters are encouraged to share details such as what happened, the location, vehicle description and license plate, and descriptions of suspects. All information submitted to TIP is confidential, and reporters may choose whether or not they are willing to speak with a wildlife officer about the incident.
Hello, readers! We hope you are all staying safe and healthy. Understandably, news related to agricultural law seems to have slowed down a little bit over the last few weeks as both the federal and state governments have focused mainly on addressing the unfolding COVID-19 outbreak. That being said, there have been a few notable ag law developments you might be interested in.
Federal government extends the tax deadline. The IRS announced on March 21 that the deadline for filing or paying 2019 federal income taxes will be extended to July 15, 2020.
Ohio Coronavirus Legislation. The Ohio General Assembly quickly passed House Bill 197 on Wednesday March 25, 2020. HB 197 originally just involved changes to tax laws, but amendments were added to address the current situation. Amendments that made it into the final bill include provisions for education—from allowing school districts to use distance learning to make up for instruction time, to waiving state testing. Other important amendments make it easier to receive unemployment, move the state tax filing deadline to July 15, extend absentee voting, allow recently graduated nurses to obtain temporary licenses, etc. Of particular note to those involved in agriculture, HB 197 extends the deadlines to renew licenses issued by state agencies and political subdivisions. If you have a state license that is set to expire, you will have 90 days after the state of emergency is lifted to renew the license. HB 197 is available here. A list of all the amendments related to COVID-19 is available here.
Proposed changes to hunting and fishing permits in Ohio. In non-COVID news, Ohio House Bill 559 was introduced on March 18. HB 559 would allow grandchildren to hunt or fish on their grandparents’ land without obtaining licenses or permits. In addition, the bill would give free hunting and fishing licenses or permits to partially disabled veterans. You can get information on the bill here.
EPA simplifies approach to pesticides and endangered species. Earlier this month, the U.S. EPA released its “revised method” for determining whether pesticides should be registered for use. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies must consider whether an action (in this case, registration of a pesticide) will negatively impact federally listed endangered species. EPA is authorized to make decisions involving pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The revised method consists of a three-step process. First, EPA will consider whether use of the pesticide “may affect” or conversely, have no effect on the listed species. If no effect is found, EPA can register the pesticide. On the other hand, if EPA finds that the pesticide may affect the endangered species, it must examine whether the pesticide is “likely to adversely affect” the species. In this second step, if EPA decides that the pesticide may affect the endangered species, but is not “likely to adversely affect” the species, then the agency may register the pesticide with the blessing of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Conversely, if EPA finds that the pesticide is likely to adversely affect the species, it must move on to step three, where it must work with FWS or NMFS to more thoroughly examine whether an adverse effect will “jeopardize” the species’ existence or “destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat.” The revised method is meant to simplify, streamline, and add clarity to EPA’s decision-making.
EPA publishes rule on cyazofamid tolerances. Continuing the EPA/pesticide theme, on March 18, EPA released the final rule for tolerances for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid in or on commodities including certain leafy greens, ginseng, and turnips.
Administration backs off RFS. In our last edition of the Ag Law Harvest, we mentioned that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had handed a win to biofuels groups by deciding that EPA did not have the authority to grant three waivers to two small refineries in 2017. By granting the waivers, the EPA allowed the refineries to ignore the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and not incorporate biofuels in with their oil-based fuels. The Tenth Circuit decision overturned this action. The Trump administration has long defended EPA’s action, so that’s why it’s so surprising that the administration did not appeal the court’s decision by the March 25 deadline.
Right to Farm statute protects contract hog operation. If you’re a regular reader of the blog, you may recall that many nuisance lawsuits have been filed regarding large hog operations in North Carolina. In Lewis v. Murphy Brown, LLC, plaintiff Paul Lewis, who lives near a farm where some of Murphy Brown’s hogs are raised, sued the company for nuisance and negligence, claiming that the defendant’s hogs made it impossible for him to enjoy the outdoors and caused him to suffer from several health issues. Murphy Brown moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the nuisance claim should be disqualified under North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act, and that the negligence claim should be barred by the statute of limitations. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina made quick work of the negligence claim, agreeing with Murphy Brown that the statute of limitations had passed. North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act requires a plaintiff to show all of the following: that he is the legal possessor of the real property affected by the nuisance, that the real property is located within one-half mile of the source of the activity, and that the action is filed within one year of the establishment of the agricultural operation or within one year of the operation undergoing a fundamental change. Since the operation was established in 1995 and the suit was not brought until 2019, and no fundamental change occurred, the court determined that Lewis’s claim was barred by the Right to Farm Act. Since neither negligence or nuisance was found, the court agreed with Murphy Brown and dismissed the case.
Tags: ag law harvest, taxes, tax, hunting, fishing license, pesticides, endangered species, EPA, renewable fuel standard, RFS
Comments: 0
With summer in full swing, Ohio’s poor planting season won’t dampen the desires of those who want to use farmland for recreational activities like fishing or riding ATVs. And while we worry over the washouts in so many farm fields, an archaeological buff recently explained that those wash outs provide a good opportunity to find arrowheads and other relics. The fact that a field wasn’t planted didn’t stop a hot air balloon operator from asking a farmer if he could land in the unplanted field recently. Even when the land is not highly productive, Ohio farmland is always appealing to recreational enthusiasts for these and other types of recreational activities.
But what if a farmer doesn’t want recreational enthusiasts on the property or doesn’t want the risk of potential liability for a recreational user? A few of our resources provide guidance for these situations, which we can address in two important questions:
- Do you not want people engaging in recreational activities on your farm? If so, then take a look at our law bulletin on The Do’s and Don’ts of Dealing with Trespassers on the Farm. If you don’t give a person permission to come onto the farm for recreational purposes, the person is trespassing if he or she chooses to enter the property without your permission. But be aware that a landowner can’t intentionally put a trespasser in harm’s way and in certain situations, can be liable for a trespasser who suffers harm on the property. Know the legal rules for dealing with trespassers so that you can protect your property without risking liability. We explain these rules and situations in the law bulletin.
- Are you okay with letting a person use your farm for recreational activities? If so, you’ll want to read our law bulletin on Okay to Play: Ohio Recreational User Statute Limits Liability for Hunters, Snowmobilers, and More. Ohio’s Recreational User Statute offers immunity to landowners who allow recreational uses, but only if the landowner meets the four conditions of the law. A landowner of nonresidential premises who gives permission to a person to engage in recreational activities without charging a fee doesn’t have the traditional legal duty to keep the recreational user safe from harm. Our law bulletin explains each of the statute’s important conditions in detail so that a landowner can qualify for its liability protection.
Like the weather, managing the risk of recreational users and trespassers on the farm is a constant challenge for farmers. But unlike the weather, a landowner can effectively control this type of risk. When someone shows up to fish, ride ATVs, hunt arrowheads or land a balloon on the farm, be ready by having a good understanding of the laws that apply to recreational activities on the farm.
Tags: Ohio Recreational User's Statute, recreational immunity, trespass, trespassing law, hunting, ATV, snowmobiling
Comments: 0