No Trespassing Paint Legislation 3/7 Update

[bigtex]

Senate Bill 5048 would allow landowners to paint “fluorescent orange paint marks” on trees or posts to signify No Trespassing. These marks would essentially be the same as a “no trespassing” sign. The paint marks must be vertical lines atleast 8 inches long and 1 inch wide. The bottom of the mark must be between 3 and 5 feet from the ground. If it is forestland the marks cannot be more then 100 feet apart, if it is not forest the marks cannot be more than 1,000 feet apart.

The bill had a hearing before the Senate Law and Justice Committee. The Democrat members of the committee are opposed to the bill, Republicans are in favor.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5048&year=2013

[hughjorgan]

Why would democrats oppose this?

[bigtex]

Why would democrats oppose this?

I don't know. Didn't watch the hearing.

It may just be they don't believe an orange paint mark should qualify as a sign. They may think is could be an enforcement issue, etc.

[xd2005]

Seems with a few cans of spray paint your average Joe could make a whole lot of public land appear private with no trespassing.

[bigtex]

Seems with a few cans of spray paint your average Joe could make a whole lot of public land appear private with no trespassing.

Very true.

And that violation was decriminalized last summer. It went from a misdemeanor offense to now an $85 Infraction.

[HornHoarder]

Isnt that a legal way to post private land in Idaho?

[Bob33]

Maybe it's the color orange. It could be offensive to some group. Perhaps they need a more neutral color.

[logger]

wow, I have property lines marked all over hell then, thats how I mark my cut boundary's. could get confusing for me anyway.

[bigtex]

Personally, I am opposed. For many of the issues you guys already mentioned.

[bearhunter99]

Isnt that a legal way to post private land in Idaho?

Very similar, they have to paint fence posts or trees to signify private property.  I don't see a huge problem with it as it would clarify some issues.  The way the law is now you are required to know whether the land is public or private so you should be doing some investigation before hunting a new area anyway.  I think in some cases it would clarify the property boundaries since the section lines are not easily found in the field.

[mfswallace]

So I'm hunting public land next to private land with no fence or didstinguishing border except trees.  I see a deer and instantly start working my way to him.  I know from scouting and maps I'm close to the edge but I don't see the 8"x1" orange stripe and step 15 feet past it because I'm focused on the deer....see where the fuzzy line comes in...

What about when the paint gets "scraped" off by some "animal".... 

[Alan K]

Most property lines between timber company lands have blaze marks anyway (at least when any thoughts of cutting are in the works), don't really see what the point of this would be.  As far as small private owners' lands go, I'd find it hard to believe someone would rather paint up the trees on their property rather than post signs along the way.

[hughjorgan]

The guy that owns the first couple miles of the 1600 road in the Nile spray painted his trees. Does that mean that signage is not legal? I also thought it wasn't required for property owners to post anyways, even though lots of folks do.

[baldopepper]

This system has been in place in Utah for many years and personally I don't like it.  First of all, that paint job stays in place for many, many years even after the land has changed hands and the new owners don't really care if you tresspass or not. Secondly you do get a lot of painting done by non-owners on private land and also painting on public ground.  Just to easy to grab that can of paint and spray and be gone.  Obviously land owners like it as it is easier and cheaper than putting up signage.  Some guides and locals have used it for years down there to create their own little private areas.  Heck, easy deal if you scout out a nice bull or buck just get out the old spray can and hold that area unless someone has a good map or knowledge of the area. 5 years later that orange spot is still there.  Needless to say those big orange spots are also kind of unsightly as rarely are they done neatly, just big gobs of orange on big trees and rocks. Our current system of signage seems to work just fine to me.

[Alan K]

This system has been in place in Utah for many years and personally I don't like it.  First of all, that paint job stays in place for many, many years even after the land has changed hands and the new owners don't really care if you tresspass or not. Secondly you do get a lot of painting done by non-owners on private land and also painting on public ground.  Just to easy to grab that can of paint and spray and be gone.  Obviously land owners like it as it is easier and cheaper than putting up signage.  Some guides and locals have used it for years down there to create their own little private areas.  Heck, easy deal if you scout out a nice bull or buck just get out the old spray can and hold that area unless someone has a good map or knowledge of the area. 5 years later that orange spot is still there.  Needless to say those big orange spots are also kind of unsightly as rarely are they done neatly, just big gobs of orange on big trees and rocks. Our current system of signage seems to work just fine to me.

What I bolded is why I'd be surprised that anyone would want to do that to their land.  Unsightly in my opinion! Is it illegal to paint your own property right now if you want to? I don't think so. . . Is it already illegal to trespass? . . . Yeah. . . So what does this accomplish exactly?  Whether property lines are painted, posted, unposted, it's still illegal to trespass without permission, so what the heck is the Senate doing wasting their time on this.