Thats still Illegal. You cannot control your shot, which enters private land and is trespassing. Its irrelevant where the duck lands, you cannot shoot into private land, period. If you shot them on the water before they lifted off... keeping all shot on the river you might be ok. Once they get in the air, you're screwed.Yeah, float hunting is a ton of fun! Walking rivers in Utah can be a little difficult because of the river laws here. If you are floating it is legal to go through private land as long as you do not anchor or touch the river bed. You just need to make sure your birds land in the river which takes a little discipline to only shoot birds that will fall into the river.
I'm sure it's possible! Just might take some more time and research to find the right spot. Wish I had some info to help, good luck in your search.Dallan thanks for the incite. It looks like it won't be possible here in Utah. Oh well.
Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you're aware of the fight between sportsmen and landowners regarding river usage when those rivers go through private land. What he's referring to is that in places where you can legally float through private land, if you shoot waterfowl and it lands on the private land you've already broken the law in one way or another because you either have to get out and trespass or you have to waste a game animal. You can't ethically shoot waterfowl while floating through private land really, the possibility of runners is always there.DallanC, can you quote your source on that?
The only issue with private property that I know of in this instance would be discharging a firearm within 600 feet of a building without permission from the owner, or the aforementioned issues with trespass law. I have never heard of any concern with bullets or shot ending up on private property that isn't a structure or something that stands to be destroyed by being shot (cars, signs, livestock, people, etc.). I could be wrong, and that's why I request a source.
That's goes without saying, or at least it should. It says right in the guidebooks not to shoot game you can't retrieve. That's not what I'm taking issue with though, Jedediah. The issue I have is the assertion that you can't legally shoot towards private property. So long as you are sure the game you shoot at would fall in a place you CAN legally retrieve it, such as paddling over and picking it up from the water, and when you shot it, you were sure to shoot in a safe and legal direction, where life and property weren't in danger, it doesn't matter if you shot towards private ground or not. If I'm wrong here, someone please correct me. I know of at least one trip I have planned this year where I'll be hunting a WMA that is adjacent to private land full of grass and russian olive trees, and not much else. I'd hate to get in trouble for taking out a rooster that's trying to escape the WMA and heading for those trees.Unless you've been living under a rock, I'm sure you're aware of the fight between sportsmen and landowners regarding river usage when those rivers go through private land. What he's referring to is that in places where you can legally float through private land, if you shoot waterfowl and it lands on the private land you've already broken the law in one way or another because you either have to get out and trespass or you have to waste a game animal. You can't ethically shoot waterfowl while floating through private land really, the possibility of runners is always there.
