SB 5233 Notice Against Trespass

[grundy53]

Maybe I just misunderstood your point, but people do refuse to do what you think might be logical.

Then they should be prosecuted. Like the laws says.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

I can understand people not wanting to change the law like ID and UT, it's a normal human reaction to reject change. I fail to see how using orange paint in lieu of signs reduces a landowners ability to post their property or a hunter's ability to recognize private land? I think exactly the opposite is true, it benefits the landowner and the hunter.

[grundy53]

I can understand people not wanting to change the law like ID and UT, it's a normal human reaction to reject change. I fail to see how using orange paint in lieu of signs reduces a landowners ability to post their property or a hunter's ability to recognize private land? I think exactly the opposite is true, it benefits the landowner and the hunter.

Agreed. It makes it easier to clearly mark your property lines.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Curly]

And, it's not like the law is requiring paint to be used.  A landowner can continue to not mark his lines or post signs if they wish.  It's a good law IMO.

[Wacenturion]

I can understand people not wanting to change the law like ID and UT, it's a normal human reaction to reject change. I fail to see how using orange paint in lieu of signs reduces a landowners ability to post their property or a hunter's ability to recognize private land? I think exactly the opposite is true, it benefits the landowner and the hunter.

Just to clarify.....where I'm coming from is that I do not think private land that is fenced, has a building or looks as if it belongs to someone needs to be posted or marked at all (the way it is now).  I firmly believe it's the responsibuility of the individual to make sure he or she knows where they are at.  That way there is no debating the excuses or room to manipulate the situation by posting false signs, tearing down correct signs, etc..  But that is just my opinion.

[j_h_nimrod]

Wacenturion - By your lack of any gray area and only black or white I should have known you have been in an enforcement position. You are way to cynical for the general public.  I never said anything about intentionally trespassing, and due diligence should be practiced, but as has been mentioned it is not always clear or even easily determined what the land ownership/use is. And, as you brought up earlier, in this state with a smaller portion of public land, trying to maximize hunting opportunities is important. I spent a couple years not hunting a prime area because what ownership info I could find made me think it was private. Later I determined it was actually state land that had been acquired a number of years previously but that was jot clear and there were structures, fences, previously cultivated land, etc.  Why is it incumbent on the many to cater to the few?  If you have land that is not distinguishable from public land, why is it our responsibility to find your property line?

[bearpaw]

I can understand people not wanting to change the law like ID and UT, it's a normal human reaction to reject change. I fail to see how using orange paint in lieu of signs reduces a landowners ability to post their property or a hunter's ability to recognize private land? I think exactly the opposite is true, it benefits the landowner and the hunter.

Just to clarify.....where I'm coming from is that I do not think private land that is fenced, has a building or looks as if it belongs to someone needs to be posted or marked at all (the way it is now).  I firmly believe it's the responsibuility of the individual to make sure he or she knows where they are at.  That way there is no debating the excuses or room to manipulate the situation by posting false signs, tearing down correct signs, etc..  But that is just my opinion.

I understand what you are saying. I probably shouldn't have taken my comments off the topic of the legislation by mentioning ID/UT laws as it may confuse some about the proposed legislation. The way I read the original post is that the legislation will allow paint to be used in lieu of signs except on access roads which must still have signage. I don't see any other change in the trespass law mentioned. In my opinion and experience, the use of paint actually seems to work better than using signage only! As Curly pointed out, the legislation will not require paint to be used, signage or paint or some of both could be used, and signs are still required on access roads. Here is the legislation language from the first post:

SB 5233 would make a fluorescent orange marking equivalent to a "No Trespassing" sign. The only exception is along access roads which would require a sign.

"Posting in a conspicuous manner" includes posting a sign or signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is restricted or, if the property is located outside of urban growth areas and incorporated cities or towns, the placement of identifying fluorescent orange paint marks on trees or posts on property.

(a) Identifying fluorescent orange marks must be:
(i)  Vertical lines not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii)  Placed so that the bottom of the mark is between three and five feet from the ground; and
(iii)  Placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than one hundred feet apart on forest land, as defined in RCW  76.09.020, or one thousand feet apart on land other than forest land.
(b)  A landowner must use signs for posting in a conspicuous manner on access roads.

I didn't check to see if this legislation is still alive or not? 

[Wacenturion]

Wacenturion - By your lack of any gray area and only black or white I should have known you have been in an enforcement position. You are way to cynical for the general public.  I never said anything about intentionally trespassing, and due diligence should be practiced, but as has been mentioned it is not always clear or even easily determined what the land ownership/use is. And, as you brought up earlier, in this state with a smaller portion of public land, trying to maximize hunting opportunities is important. I spent a couple years not hunting a prime area because what ownership info I could find made me think it was private. Later I determined it was actually state land that had been acquired a number of years previously but that was jot clear and there were structures, fences, previously cultivated land, etc.  Why is it incumbent on the many to cater to the few?  If you have land that is not distinguishable from public land, why is it our responsibility to find your property line?

First and foremost I was a wildlife biologist who way back in the day was also by nature of the times, a commissioned wildlife agent.  Many non enforcement types had enforcement capabilities, just the way it was done years ago.  I have plenty of grey matter and for what it's worth I proudly spent my entire career fighting for the sportsmen of this state, you and everyone else that buys a license, many, many times in opposition to those throughout the years who viewed you the public, only as Joe Six Pack.  As far as trespass and why landowners stop allowing access, a large portion of my 30+ years at WDFW was spent working with landowners and acquiring access for the public.  So I probably have as much if not more first hand knowledge than most in that arena.  I will also say that I'm about as far away from being cynical toward the public as any state employee you're ever going to meet.  Sorry if I sound brash, but I find that statement somewhat offensive.

You said earlier..........

If you own the land and are too lazy to post it, why do you think someone is lazy for not researching the often convoluted land ownership?  Also you assume that:

1.) everyone has common sense, we already know they don't
2.) everyone know where and how to research land ownership
3.) everyone has internet at their disposal to do the research
4.) everyone has the gadgets to tell them where that often invisible line exists
5.) that the actual land boundaries are placed correctly, I have found plenty that were not
6.) everyone cares about who owns the land



You also said later.............

Why is it incumbent on the many to cater to the few?  If you have land that is not distinguishable from public land, why is it our responsibility to find your property line?

I think you need to reread your statements.  To me they sound like excuses.  Most private land is distinguishable from public land.  With today mobile devices and obvious ease of finding out just about anything, there is little room for excuses for not taking the responsiblity to know where one is at, irregardless of what said property looks like.  If you don't know, don't go.

As far as what you list above pertaining to me and my assumptions......I'll just say simply that what I'm assuming is that individuals have to be responsible themselves. 

1.  Common Sense..........................their problem, not the landowners
2.  Don't know how to research.........learn
3.  Don't have internet access...........doubt it, but bet they have smart phones
4.  Invisible line gadget/detectors......no one has them unless perhaps the CIA
5.  Boundaries not placed correctly.....happens, go back and do more #2
6.  Cares about someone's land.........their problem, not the landowners

[fireweed]

Here is an example. I'm sure many of us have spent time in the Swakane. I'm sure many don't know that Weyerhaeuser owns quite a bit of land up there most of the main roads go through Weyerhaeuser property at some point. I would like to hear from those who say " if you don't know or don't get permission then stay out". Were you aware that you went on Weyerhaeuser property? Did you call Weyerhaeuser and ask permission before going on their property?



The white squares are owned by Weyerhaeuser. They include portions of the Entiat ridge road, Roaring ridge road, Tillicum creek road, Dinkelman ridge road as well as many other lesser roads. Have you ever traveled on any of them?

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 
You are correct and the law AS WRITTEN carves out an exemption for "apparently unused land" and timberland because of just such situations.  The legislature recognized that a hunter can go from private to public to private on timberland easily and the law REQUIRES timberland to be posted against trespass or the hunter has an implied "license or privilege"  to cross the land.  Now, whether it is ethical to stomp through private timberland without permission is a different issue, but it is clearly legal to cross forest land that is "neither fenced nor signed". 

From the Law directly:  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.

[Magnum_Willys]

.   

[Landowner]

I have no problem posting my ground so that everyone knows that trespassing is not allowed, and written permission is required to be on my ground.   Posting eliminates a lot of problems for me. 

However, I don't want to post my name and phone number on a sign.  I don't want the calls.  If someone wants to ask for permission to hunt, or hike, or whatever, they will find me with reasonable effort. 

Seems like a lot of time is spent on here worrying about private ground when there are literally millions of acres belonging to the public open for hunting in this state. 

[eldplanko]

I can understand people not wanting to change the law like ID and UT, it's a normal human reaction to reject change. I fail to see how using orange paint in lieu of signs reduces a landowners ability to post their property or a hunter's ability to recognize private land? I think exactly the opposite is true, it benefits the landowner and the hunter.

Agreed. It makes it easier to clearly mark your property lines.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

I agree... This discussion has taken a silly side turn on a separate topic.

How's this different than "dashed yellow stripe" on the road means you can pass? It's a convenience thing for everyone. What's the downside?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gringo31]

I think for some on here, the issue is really that they don't like trespass laws.  They at heart don't like private property laws.  Call it envy, or not "fair" or whatever.  If you own land and say no to outside hunters, some will not respect that choice and call you out to be the bad guy (you don't own the animals etc).

 

[Bob33]

Paint the trees with rainbow stripes. That will keep more hunters away.

[Landowner]

Here is a thought, if you own land and wish to post it either:
a.  Post signs
b.  Paint the trees with a stripe of any color you choose, they are your trees after all
c.  Paint a orange stripe
d.  paint an stripe on the ground all the way around your property:) 

It is your private property, the state can pass a law that says signs or paint or whatever.  If you have performed your due diligence and clearly marked your property, there is no justifiable argument for trespassing.

I think I'll paint my trees and  ground with brown stripes.