In some cases felonies are involved, poaching for example, however whether you or I agree with the law isn't the point. It is the law, and teaching students it isn't accomplishes nothing other than exposing them to legal risk.
I admit the access doesn't thrill me, but it would be difficult to enforce game laws without it. The likely alternative would be licensing of private property for hunting to be allowable, with a consent to enter. Maybe a better alternative in some ways, fees could be higher, but not much different from a practical point of view. The unlicensed property of non-hunters would be better protected, but since a hunter there would be evidence of a crime, wardens could enter anyway. I'm not sure there's a better solution than the current law. Anticipating the question from someone, underlying these laws is the fact that the wild animals being hunted are the property of the people of the State of Wisconsin, the landowner has no ownership rights at all.
IMO, granting ownership of wild animals on personal property to the state, is just wrong. If you have a 15,000 acre property, you are going to have plenty of wild animals on it. They are yours. More specifically, any animal at any given time on your property, is your property. If they roam off of your property, they are then the property of the land owner they are then residing on. If an animal is listed as an endangered species, then I would agree that the collective as a vested interest. Otherwise, they do not. Either way, the game warden should have to come up to the main house, and check in with the property owner to gain access. If he didn’t, he would be committing an unlawful act.
If the laws are not structured e in this manner, then there is a serious problem with the law. It doesn’t comply with my understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
I appreciate your point of view on this. You take care.