No Trespassing Paint Legislation 3/7 Update

[jess]

land dont need to be posted to write someone a trespass ticket on it.. Why would this bill matter?

[WSU]

I think that we should make sure we keep marking requirements obvious.  There is no need to make the requirements for marking more lenient.  I wonder what the intent is?  You already don't have to post your land to make trespassing apply, right?

[huntnphool]

Why would a land owner go to the expense of doing this every 1000' when its not required for them to do it? The responsibility of knowing if you are trespassing falls on the public, not the land owner.

[Bob33]

You guys need to unravel your underwear a bit. This is not a new law. This would amend RCW 9A.52.010.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.52.010

The RCW states "A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner."

This amendment would clarify the definition of "Posting in a conspicuous manner" which is already in the RCW.

[xd2005]

You guys need to unravel your underwear a bit. This is not a new law. This would amend RCW 9A.52.010.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.52.010

The RCW states "A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner."

This amendment would clarify the definition of "Posting in a conspicuous manner" which is already in the RCW.

I don't believe this changes any arguments made thus far.

[Bob33]

A landowner is not obligated to post his land. This would not change that.

However, if a landowner does not post unimproved and apparently unused land "in a conspicious manner" a person may enter it:

"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner."

This would simply define what "posting in a conspicuous manner" means.

[xd2005]

I think we understand all that. Again, I am simply arguing I don't believe that is effective means of posting. For one, it's quite permanent, so if someone posts the land, than does a land swap with the state, the trees will still be marked, leading to confusion and would take some effort by the state to remove it.

Second, it's too easy for people to just grab a couple cans of paint and make any public land they want appear private with no trespassing. Knowing public land is hard enough as it is with the number of land swaps and sales the state does, so even if I knew something was public, I would sure have to think long and hard about entering. Sure, they can do the same with signs now, but those are far less permanent.

[Bob33]

I can't disagree with some of those points. I think the intent is to bring some consistency to what different landowners consider "conspicuous posting". 

[lokidog]

I think we understand all that. Again, I am simply arguing I don't believe that is effective means of posting. For one, it's quite permanent, so if someone posts the land, than does a land swap with the state, the trees will still be marked, leading to confusion and would take some effort by the state to remove it.

Second, it's too easy for people to just grab a couple cans of paint and make any public land they want appear private with no trespassing. Knowing public land is hard enough as it is with the number of land swaps and sales the state does, so even if I knew something was public, I would sure have to think long and hard about entering. Sure, they can do the same with signs now, but those are far less permanent.

Just bring your can of brownish spray paint along to fix the errors you find along public land.   

[xd2005]

I think we understand all that. Again, I am simply arguing I don't believe that is effective means of posting. For one, it's quite permanent, so if someone posts the land, than does a land swap with the state, the trees will still be marked, leading to confusion and would take some effort by the state to remove it.

Second, it's too easy for people to just grab a couple cans of paint and make any public land they want appear private with no trespassing. Knowing public land is hard enough as it is with the number of land swaps and sales the state does, so even if I knew something was public, I would sure have to think long and hard about entering. Sure, they can do the same with signs now, but those are far less permanent.

Just bring your can of brownish spray paint along to fix the errors you find along public land.   

But than you also have to carry white for aspen!

[carpsniperg2]

Why would a land owner go to the expense of doing this every 1000' when its not required for them to do it? The responsibility of knowing if you are trespassing falls on the public, not the land owner.

Indeed. There is no reason for me to waste my time or money to do this. It is up to the hunter to know where they are and if it's ok to hunt.

[huntnphool]

"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders,

That is a very slippery slope indeed Bob, who is to say that the land is being used or not? All this would do is have guys saying "it didn't look like the land is being used" as an excuse to trespass.

[Bob33]

If this were law and a hunter were to accidentally wander onto unimproved and apparently unused land that did not have the appropriate orange paint, he could legally access it without risk. As it is today, the landowner could argue his land was "conspicuously posted" even if he had a small sign somewhere.

The best solution is for a hunter to know where property boundaries are and who owns the land - then it doesn't matter who painted or posted what. 

[Humptulips]

I can't disagree with some of those points. I think the intent is to bring some consistency to what different landowners consider "conspicuous posting".

It certainly wouldn't be "conspicuous posting" if nobody knew what the paint meant. It would be if the paint color was codified in law so this is not just clarification. It is a new law and a bad one IMO.
 

[Bob33]

"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders,

That is a very slippery slope indeed Bob, who is to say that the land is being used or not? All this would do is have guys saying "it didn't look like the land is being used" as an excuse to trespass.

I didn't write it. If you read the RCW there is more information to help understand it:

A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of a building which is not open to the public. A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Land that is used for commercial aquaculture or for growing an agricultural crop or crops, other than timber, is not unimproved and apparently unused land if a crop or any other sign of cultivation is clearly visible or if notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner. Similarly, a field fenced in any manner is not unimproved and apparently unused land. A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, is not a license or privilege to enter or remain on the land at other times if notice of prohibited times of entry is posted in a conspicuous manner.