Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 04:34:44 PM
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 (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5048&year=2013)
Post by: hughjorgan on February 01, 2013, 04:40:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 04:41:55 PM
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.
Post by: xd2005 on February 01, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 04:45:19 PM
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.
Post by: HornHoarder on February 01, 2013, 04:46:37 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 04:47:21 PM
Post by: logger on February 01, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 04:51:13 PM
Post by: bearhunter99 on February 01, 2013, 05:07:13 PM
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.
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 05:10:53 PM
What about when the paint gets "scraped" off by some "animal".... :dunno:
Post by: Alan K on February 01, 2013, 05:12:17 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 01, 2013, 05:13:45 PM
Post by: baldopepper on February 01, 2013, 05:17:17 PM
Post by: Alan K on February 01, 2013, 05:22:14 PM
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.
Post by: jess on February 01, 2013, 05:55:15 PM
Post by: WSU on February 01, 2013, 06:13:01 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 06:13:36 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 06:47:08 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=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.
Post by: xd2005 on February 01, 2013, 06:57:06 PM
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 (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.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 07:06:10 PM
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.
Post by: xd2005 on February 01, 2013, 07:13:22 PM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 07:23:06 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 01, 2013, 08:47:53 PM
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. :chuckle:
Post by: xd2005 on February 01, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
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. :chuckle:
But than you also have to carry white for aspen!
Post by: carpsniperg2 on February 01, 2013, 09:15:13 PM
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:16:15 PM
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. :twocents:
"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,
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 09:17:34 PM
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.
Post by: Humptulips on February 01, 2013, 09:19:36 PM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 09:20:12 PM
I didn't write it. If you read the RCW there is more information to help understand it: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. :twocents:
"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,
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.
Post by: Humptulips on February 01, 2013, 09:24:31 PM
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. :twocents:
"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,
The law sounds pretty clear to me. No fence, no improvements, no farming it's open to the public. Don't like it, post it or fence it.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 09:26:31 PM
That is correct. In my mind that does not excuse an ethical hunter from knowing where boundaries are and honoring private land, but the law does allow that.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. :twocents:
"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,
The law sounds pretty clear to me. No fence, no improvements, no farming it's open to the public. Don't like it, post it or fence it.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:27:20 PM
Look at all the grass land throughout the country that appears to be "unused" most of the year yet is harvested every 6-9 months, too easy to say "it looked unused to me"
A bad revision IMO.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 09:28:35 PM
I understand that Bob but "unimproved and apparently unused land" leaves to much room for speculation or opinion. It leaves the trespasser easily claiming ignorance to get out of what he knows is a trespassing violation, and puts the responsibility on the land owner rather than the public doing their own research."In my mind that does not excuse an ethical hunter from knowing where boundaries are and honoring private land." :tup:
Look at all the grass land throughout the country that appears to be "unused" most of the year yet is harvested every 6-9 months, too easy to say "it looked unused to me"
A bad revision IMO.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:30:04 PM
:chuckle: Now if we could only count on every hunter being ethical it would be a non issue. ;)I understand that Bob but "unimproved and apparently unused land" leaves to much room for speculation or opinion. It leaves the trespasser easily claiming ignorance to get out of what he knows is a trespassing violation, and puts the responsibility on the land owner rather than the public doing their own research."In my mind that does not excuse an ethical hunter from knowing where boundaries are and honoring private land." :tup:
Look at all the grass land throughout the country that appears to be "unused" most of the year yet is harvested every 6-9 months, too easy to say "it looked unused to me"
A bad revision IMO.
Post by: Humptulips on February 01, 2013, 09:41:19 PM
I understand that Bob but "unimproved and apparently unused land" leaves to much room for speculation or opinion. It leaves the trespasser easily claiming ignorance to get out of what he knows is a trespassing violation, and puts the responsibility on the land owner rather than the public doing their own research."In my mind that does not excuse an ethical hunter from knowing where boundaries are and honoring private land." :tup:
Look at all the grass land throughout the country that appears to be "unused" most of the year yet is harvested every 6-9 months, too easy to say "it looked unused to me"
A bad revision IMO.
Not my view at all. If the land is not posted and not used that implies it is open to the public. It should be posted if you think otherwise. How does one even know when you enter this piece of property if there isn't some indication like a fence, polwed field or maybe a sign.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 09:43:34 PM
I use a GPS.I understand that Bob but "unimproved and apparently unused land" leaves to much room for speculation or opinion. It leaves the trespasser easily claiming ignorance to get out of what he knows is a trespassing violation, and puts the responsibility on the land owner rather than the public doing their own research."In my mind that does not excuse an ethical hunter from knowing where boundaries are and honoring private land." :tup:
Look at all the grass land throughout the country that appears to be "unused" most of the year yet is harvested every 6-9 months, too easy to say "it looked unused to me"
A bad revision IMO.
Not my view at all. If the land is not posted and not used that implies it is open to the public. It should be posted if you think otherwise. How does one even know when you enter this piece of property if there isn't some indication like a fence, polwed field or maybe a sign.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:45:54 PM
How indeed! Its your responsibility to do the research and know. ;)How does one even know when you enter this piece of property if there isn't some indication like a fence, polwed field or maybe a sign.
"ignorance is no excuse for the law" but this revision opens ignorance up as a excuse.
Post by: Humptulips on February 01, 2013, 10:12:54 PM
How indeed! Its your responsibility to do the research and know. ;)How does one even know when you enter this piece of property if there isn't some indication like a fence, polwed field or maybe a sign.
"ignorance is no excuse for the law" but this revision opens ignorance up as a excuse.
Not according to the law. It is not illegal to walk on someone elses land. Read the law, if it's not obviously used, fenced or posted it is open. The reponsibility lies with the landowner if they wish to keep people off their land. Beyond that you can tell someone to leave and they can find out where the boundaries are.
Not may people walk around with a surveyor and the GPS thing is a relatively new thing. The law predates any thought of such thing.
Post by: huntnphool on February 02, 2013, 11:13:32 AM
oh brother! :bash:How indeed! Its your responsibility to do the research and know. ;)How does one even know when you enter this piece of property if there isn't some indication like a fence, polwed field or maybe a sign.
"ignorance is no excuse for the law" but this revision opens ignorance up as a excuse.
Not according to the law. It is not illegal to walk on someone elses land. Read the law, if it's not obviously used, fenced or posted it is open.
Post by: lokidog on February 02, 2013, 06:47:43 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 07, 2013, 07:46:24 PM
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2013, 07:56:08 PM
Some kids with a few cans of spray paint could wreak havoc. This sounds like a bad bill.
Post by: bigtex on March 07, 2013, 07:58:50 PM
Some kids with a few cans of spray paint could wreak havoc. This sounds like a bad bill.
:yeah:
Post by: buckfvr on March 07, 2013, 08:07:22 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 07, 2013, 08:14:02 PM
Post by: xd2005 on March 07, 2013, 08:30:55 PM
If some kids spray paint public land and it keeps the ignorant away, isn't that a good thing? ;)
Until you go and hunt it thinking some kids spray painted it, only to get in trouble for trespassing due to the state swapping the land with a logging company the week before the season started.
Post by: Bob33 on March 07, 2013, 08:36:53 PM
That could happen just as easily withour paint.If some kids spray paint public land and it keeps the ignorant away, isn't that a good thing? ;)
Until you go and hunt it thinking some kids spray painted it, only to get in trouble for trespassing due to the state swapping the land with a logging company the week before the season started.
Post by: hoyt2002 on March 07, 2013, 08:38:02 PM
On the other hand I've seen land owners run people off public land claiming it's theirs so there will be some posted public land. The farmers/ranchers will have to look at real property lines not what grandpa told them they owned when they were kids. That will be a problem for some.
Post by: grundy53 on March 08, 2013, 12:27:15 AM
I understand that Bob but "unimproved and apparently unused land" leaves to much room for speculation or opinion. It leaves the trespasser easily claiming ignorance to get out of what he knows is a trespassing violation, and puts the responsibility on the land owner rather than the public doing their own research.that isn't part of the revision. That's how the law reads now.
Look at all the grass land throughout the country that appears to be "unused" most of the year yet is harvested every 6-9 months, too easy to say "it looked unused to me"
A bad revision IMO.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2013, 10:30:59 PM
Post by: csaaphill on March 08, 2013, 11:16:30 PM