Hunting and fishing on lands of others by unlawful entry; remove requirement of payment of restitution to landowner for whitetail deer taken thereon.
Summary
House Bill 1462 amends Mississippi’s trespass-and-game-law provisions in Section 49-7-79 to change the penalty structure for unlawful hunting, fishing, shooting, or trapping on another person’s land. The bill keeps the existing prohibition on knowingly entering another’s land without permission or accompaniment for those activities, along with the current misdemeanor fines, hunting/fishing/trapping privilege suspension for repeat offenders, seizure of unlawfully taken wildlife, and restitution requirements generally applicable to unlawfully taken animals, birds, fish, or parts thereof.
The main substantive change is that the restitution payment to the landowner would no longer apply when the unlawfully taken animal is a whitetail deer. Instead of the statutory restitution payment, the landowner would be able to pursue civil remedies for property damage caused by the unlawful entry, and that damage would be treated as criminal trespass. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1462 would narrow the existing restitution remedy in Mississippi’s wildlife trespass statute by carving out whitetail deer from the mandatory restitution owed to private landowners for unlawfully taken game. It would leave the underlying criminal offense and penalties in place, but shift the landowner’s recourse for deer-related incidents from a statutory restitution payment to civil remedies for damages caused by the trespass. The bill would amend Section 49-7-79 of the Mississippi Code and affect hunters, landowners, and enforcement of wildlife trespass violations.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a targeted adjustment to hunting and landowner protections rather than a broad policy overhaul. The caption and text indicate support for removing the restitution requirement for whitetail deer taken on another’s land, while preserving penalties for unlawful entry and other wildlife offenses. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the supplied materials.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the bill’s removal of mandatory restitution for whitetail deer, which may be viewed by landowners as reducing compensation for unlawful taking of game on private property. On the other hand, hunters or wildlife interests may see the change as limiting duplicative penalties where criminal trespass and other sanctions already apply. The bill also shifts the landowner’s remedy toward civil litigation for property damage, which could be seen as either a more appropriate remedy or a less certain one depending on perspective.