Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2015, 06:03:50 PM
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.
The bill is sponsored by Senators Sheldon, Dansel, Dammeier, Becker, Schoesler, and Honeyford. All are Republicans except Sheldon, however he caucus' with Republicans.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5233.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5233.pdf)
Post by: bobcat on January 18, 2015, 06:09:13 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 18, 2015, 06:11:18 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2015, 06:12:04 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2015, 06:13:19 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 18, 2015, 06:15:46 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 18, 2015, 06:16:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 18, 2015, 06:18:33 PM
easier to tear down >:(
A fence post or a tree with paint on it is easier to tear down than a plastic sign? :dunno:
Post by: Curly on January 18, 2015, 06:31:09 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on January 18, 2015, 06:33:55 PM
Post by: Curly on January 18, 2015, 06:34:24 PM
sounds like it'd make things more confusing not less, especially in timber sale areas.I don't believe timber sale areas use vertical orange lines. 100' apart may be a little too close of spacing though.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 18, 2015, 06:39:11 PM
I have no problem with it. The problem currently is dirtbags will tear down signs and claim there was no sign so they didn't know they couldn't be there. This would help give them that out.what about the dirtbags that are going to go in before the season and spray paint their own new boundaries to direct people elsewhere?
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2015, 06:39:54 PM
Orange corner marker, NO HUNTING sign, NO TRESPASSING sign. ............is there really any other excuse needed to not knowing you're trespassing?? Pretty sad
Turn the bino's around and look at the issue from the other way around, it could keep people from utilizing public lands, feel free to hunt or timber lands that's OK to hunt because there's a line of paint on the trees.
Like BT said, there's paint and ribbons and crap hung all over the place; heck I don't even know what it all is.
Also, it would be almost impossible to convict anyone from this.
Post by: Curly on January 18, 2015, 06:40:24 PM
I have no problem with it. The problem currently is dirtbags will tear down signs and claim there was no sign so they didn't know they couldn't be there. This would help give them that out.what about the dirtbags that are going to go in before the season and spray paint their own new boundaries to direct people elsewhere?
I don't know. What about the guys that post public land to keep guys off it so they can have to themselves?
Post by: bobcat on January 18, 2015, 06:42:09 PM
The law is like this in Idaho and it seems to work for them.
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2015, 06:42:29 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2015, 06:46:17 PM
It's already illegal to trespass. This really wouldn't change much. Like Bob33 said, with GPS technology, people should always know whose land they are on anyway.
The law is like this in Idaho and it seems to work for them.
I don't have enough feelings about it one way or the other to have a heated argument over it, if it passes then we'll deal with it good or bad. By proxy I'm against new laws by default until I'm shown a need for it; I don't see a great need for this only convenience for larger land holders....and I'm not sure I want to make it easier for them.
Post by: jrebel on January 18, 2015, 06:47:25 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 18, 2015, 06:50:12 PM
:yeah: too easy for someone to come along and put up orange tape on an area in hopes to keep out people.Orange corner marker, NO HUNTING sign, NO TRESPASSING sign. ............is there really any other excuse needed to not knowing you're trespassing?? Pretty sad
Turn the bino's around and look at the issue from the other way around, it could keep people from utilizing public lands, feel free to hunt or timber lands that's OK to hunt because there's a line of paint on the trees.
Like BT said, there's paint and ribbons and crap hung all over the place; heck I don't even know what it all is.
Also, it would be almost impossible to convict anyone from this.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 18, 2015, 06:54:34 PM
It's already illegal to trespass. This really wouldn't change much. Like Bob33 said, with GPS technology, people should always know whose land they are on anyway.You make the inference that everyone should own a GPS...and either have the map chip or a smart phone and hunt in an area with reception.
The law is like this in Idaho and it seems to work for them.
The guys with maps and using the assessor's site will be updated to the last date their info was updated. So, then they roll in to the woods and somebody sprayed a hundred random trees. Now they have to go to a back up spot while determining if a parcel was subdivided or if a timber company did a land swap with DNR since their last update. Seems it could be a mess, especially how cheap and easy one can of paint could be vs hanging signs. The huggers could be out there marking everything in sight.
Post by: bobcat on January 18, 2015, 07:04:32 PM
It's already illegal to trespass. This really wouldn't change much. Like Bob33 said, with GPS technology, people should always know whose land they are on anyway.You make the inference that everyone should own a GPS...and either have the map chip or a smart phone and hunt in an area with reception.
The law is like this in Idaho and it seems to work for them.
The guys with maps and using the assessor's site will be updated to the last date their info was updated. So, then they roll in to the woods and somebody sprayed a hundred random trees. Now they have to go to a back up spot while determining if a parcel was subdivided or if a timber company did a land swap with DNR since their last update. Seems it could be a mess, especially how cheap and easy one can of paint could be vs hanging signs. The huggers could be out there marking everything in sight.
You still need to know where you are, GPS or not. In the past I always just used a map and compass. If I saw some painted trees I wouldn't let that stop me if I knew I could legally hunt beyond that line.
Again, they use paint to mark property lines in Idaho, and Wyoming, so I'm not sure why it will work there but not here. I really don't see how it would change anything in the real world anyway. I don't care if a landowner wants to put up a sign or spray paint on a fence post. If the landowner would rather use the paint I don't see why they shouldn't have the option.
Post by: csaaphill on January 18, 2015, 07:16:06 PM
ya hope that never happens where it's mandatory to carry one ill throw mine away. I have it like it used it the first time this year worked great told me exaclty where the road was and which direction to walk, but make it mandatry it's chucked!It's already illegal to trespass. This really wouldn't change much. Like Bob33 said, with GPS technology, people should always know whose land they are on anyway.You make the inference that everyone should own a GPS...and either have the map chip or a smart phone and hunt in an area with reception.
The law is like this in Idaho and it seems to work for them.
The guys with maps and using the assessor's site will be updated to the last date their info was updated. So, then they roll in to the woods and somebody sprayed a hundred random trees. Now they have to go to a back up spot while determining if a parcel was subdivided or if a timber company did a land swap with DNR since their last update. Seems it could be a mess, especially how cheap and easy one can of paint could be vs hanging signs. The huggers could be out there marking everything in sight.
Post by: Firedogg on January 18, 2015, 07:16:40 PM
The orange stripe idea won't work because it is too easy for areas to be mismarked and even when full signs are put up there are still trespassers. Make it a harsher penalty for trespassing and help land owner's protect their rights. Know before you go!
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2015, 07:19:40 PM
Make it a harsher penalty for trespassing and help land owner's protect their rights. Know before you go!The penalty isn't the problem. It's the lack of prosecution that is the problem.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 18, 2015, 07:33:56 PM
My son caught some idiots today sitting on stump on our property eating crackers while there car was parked in the ditch. :bash:
He asked them to leave politely and they said what's the difference between the stump and car was. Our fence is down as I'm currently in the process of replacing it.
He told them that's the ditch this is private property, they left. :tup:
Post by: Curly on January 18, 2015, 07:40:56 PM
I think it would be easier to convict trespassers since they can't tear down the signs like they currently do and claim ignorance. Hard to claim they don't see a line of orange painted trees.Orange corner marker, NO HUNTING sign, NO TRESPASSING sign. ............is there really any other excuse needed to not knowing you're trespassing?? Pretty sad
Turn the bino's around and look at the issue from the other way around, it could keep people from utilizing public lands, feel free to hunt or timber lands that's OK to hunt because there's a line of paint on the trees.
Like BT said, there's paint and ribbons and crap hung all over the place; heck I don't even know what it all is.
Also, it would be almost impossible to convict anyone from this.
I don't really care either though, but I wouldn't have a problem if it passes (the only change I'd recommend if I cared would be to increase the spacing requirement).
Post by: Humptulips on January 18, 2015, 09:05:50 PM
Post by: stevemiller on January 18, 2015, 11:27:56 PM
Post by: rasbo on January 19, 2015, 03:27:09 AM
bingo, try getting LE to come to a trespasser call,if tickets were written and every call responded to soon the trespassing would really slow down,,we have tresspassers daily on clearly marked property.Illegals hunting and searching for metals a constant,,,Make it a harsher penalty for trespassing and help land owner's protect their rights. Know before you go!The penalty isn't the problem. It's the lack of prosecution that is the problem.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on January 19, 2015, 06:30:00 AM
Post by: baldopepper on January 19, 2015, 06:49:50 AM
No..Hell no. Idiot local "hunters" post land of absentee landowners , timber co. land , and state land just so they can hunt it themselves. This will make it easier for them to post more land that should be available to hunt. Won't change a thing as far as catching or charging trespassers. I had a hunter cross a fence, go past No Trespassing signs , and sat in one of my blinds. I did catch him and persuaded to let me take a picture of his hunting license. AND , the trespasser worked for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. I insisted on prosecution. After three call from the prosecuting attorney to plea bargain (which I rejected) he was convicted of trespassing... This will be a great law for cheaters. If it passes I will buy stock in orange spray paint companies. Guess I should stock up now before everyone posts their favorite hunting spot.. I know some good public land here in Stevens County that would make a great "private" hunting spot. :twocents:This has been the law in Utah for years and I can attest to how it is abused by hunters who want to preserve a "honey hole" for themselves by spraying public or absentee owner land. It got to be kind of a standing joke. Those who ignore signs are going to ignore the spray paint also, but for the rest of us who abide by the law, we'll shy away from those painted areas unless we are absolutely sure it's been faked. That paint doesn't wear off, it stays there no matter if the land changes hands and the new owner doesn't object to hunters on his land and I can show you painted areas that have lived thru several owner changes. The first time you arrive early in the morning to one of your spots that you're pretty certain is open land and find a big gob of orange spray paint you'll hate this law. If you're like most of us, you'll stay off until you can make certain it is open land and meanwhile the painter will have a free day to hunt at his leisure. Believe me, it has happened and will happen-just to tempting and easy for some sleaze balls to do.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 19, 2015, 07:05:20 AM
:yeah: too easy for someone to come along and put up orange tape on an area in hopes to keep out people.Orange corner marker, NO HUNTING sign, NO TRESPASSING sign. ............is there really any other excuse needed to not knowing you're trespassing?? Pretty sad
Turn the bino's around and look at the issue from the other way around, it could keep people from utilizing public lands, feel free to hunt or timber lands that's OK to hunt because there's a line of paint on the trees.
Like BT said, there's paint and ribbons and crap hung all over the place; heck I don't even know what it all is.
Also, it would be almost impossible to convict anyone from this.
If it's private property, you should be requesting permission for access anyway. If it's public, the records are available so you should know ahead of time where you can go. Private landowner rights trump losing your hunting spot rights.
Private landowner rights are very important. If someone's favorite spot is on private property and they haven't asked for permission - their proboblem.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2015, 08:29:30 AM
Trespassing isn't a ticket. In order for someone to be prosecuted the county prosecutors office must take action. All the officer does is sent the prosecutor a report.bingo, try getting LE to come to a trespasser call,if tickets were written and every call responded to soon the trespassing would really slow down,,we have tresspassers daily on clearly marked property.Illegals hunting and searching for metals a constant,,,Make it a harsher penalty for trespassing and help land owner's protect their rights. Know before you go!The penalty isn't the problem. It's the lack of prosecution that is the problem.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2015, 08:31:19 AM
:yeah: Also like to add that prosecuters should prosecute more of these anti hunters that are claiming public property with no hunting no trespassing signs,Even putting cable across roads that are not private and marking them private.Huge problem in Goldendale.The problem is identifying the person(s) who did it. The offense you are talking about isn't actually a criminal offense anymore. WDFW in 2012 asked the legislature to make it an infraction. So now if officers know who did it they can simply write the person a ticket, don't need to involve the prosecutor.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 19, 2015, 08:46:28 AM
I like how the law is written where I live now. In Arizona there must be a contiguous fence AND orange signs written no greater than every 1/4 mile written "No Tresspassing" in order for prosecution to be sought against a trespasser, hunter or not. I support the law this way. IDK what the ticketing/infraction penalties are if one is caught trespassing on an unfenced, unposted land.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on January 19, 2015, 08:55:16 AM
Post by: fireweed on January 19, 2015, 09:12:10 AM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on January 19, 2015, 09:17:27 AM
I would be in favor of it if the words "No Tresspassing" needed to be written.
I like how the law is written where I live now. In Arizona there must be a contiguous fence AND orange signs written no greater than every 1/4 mile written "No Tresspassing" in order for prosecution to be sought against a trespasser, hunter or not. I support the law this way. IDK what the ticketing/infraction penalties are if one is caught trespassing on an unfenced, unposted land.
:yeah:
Post by: Bean Counter on January 19, 2015, 09:22:22 AM
I could careless either way . I know for a fact that some land owners take it upon themselves to illegally post state land with their signs ..Can not count how many times I have ran into this situation .. The state usually paints there trees with BLUE PAINT So next time you see trees painted with Blue Paint please hunt away :twocents: Trespassing is trespassing and they can deal with it anyway they like ...their money not mine ...
THOSE a-holes need to be prosecuted far more than trespassing hunters :twocents:
Post by: bowbuild on January 19, 2015, 10:45:05 AM
I don't like it. Is that mark a timber sale mark? A mark made by a utility company? Did someone just come up here and spray orange paint everywhere?
Yes, and although trespass is a issue......How many people post property that is NOT theirs and receives citations?? Several times in King county I had landowners post timber lands that were not theirs, and even had law enforcement show up. How about law enforcement enforce the law equally??? Seems law enforcement likes to side with non-hunters when applying the law. :bash:
Post by: csaaphill on January 20, 2015, 11:54:31 PM
:yeah: Also like to add that prosecuters should prosecute more of these anti hunters that are claiming public property with no hunting no trespassing signs,Even putting cable across roads that are not private and marking them private.Huge problem in Goldendale.:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2015, 12:13:52 AM
The law is like this in Idaho and it seems to work for them.
Utah is about the same as Idaho and it works there too. I voted yes.
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2015, 09:59:30 PM
This is a common sense and low-cost solution to posting property. It will work better than signs for non-English speakers. These marks cannot be torn down easily like signs can be. Signs will still be needed at entry points to property. This is working well in other states. The issues that caused this idea to fail last session can be fixed
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 22, 2015, 10:08:38 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on January 22, 2015, 10:08:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2015, 10:45:44 PM
This may shock you but I wasn't.The bill had a hearing today. Nobody spoke in opposition. Below is the summarized testimony:Were you there yourself?
This is a common sense and low-cost solution to posting property. It will work better than signs for non-English speakers. These marks cannot be torn down easily like signs can be. Signs will still be needed at entry points to property. This is working well in other states. The issues that caused this idea to fail last session can be fixed
You can get the summarized testimony from the legislature website.
Post by: Curly on January 22, 2015, 11:41:21 PM
I like the idea and support the concept but I can't tell you how many times I have been out and seen flag lines that would easily satisfy this requirement on public lands creating confusion. I have never figured why some people flag the trails they do but I have seen flagging across clearings tied to grass and along obvious trails that offer no chance of getting lost. I would be more in support if I stipulates a flagging tape marked with "No Trespassing". Worded tape is barely more than the cost of regular tape.The way I read the bill the markings are to be paint lines not flagging/tape.
Post by: huntnphool on January 23, 2015, 12:03:46 AM
too many laws now too many big land owners taking peoples favorite hunt spots now as it is so heck no!
Don't like it then purchase the land yourself!
Post by: Curly on January 23, 2015, 12:09:26 AM
The bill had a hearing today. Nobody spoke in opposition. Below is the summarized testimony:I agree with much of the bill like I said before, but in the summary, the part about the proposal being better for non English speaking people kind of irritates me. I don't think that is valid justification for thus bill.....but maybe that is just me.???
This is a common sense and low-cost solution to posting property. It will work better than signs for non-English speakers. These marks cannot be torn down easily like signs can be. Signs will still be needed at entry points to property. This is working well in other states. The issues that caused this idea to fail last session can be fixed
Post by: fireweed on January 23, 2015, 10:02:05 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 23, 2015, 10:26:11 AM
Where do these people come up with this crap..
Post by: headshot5 on January 23, 2015, 10:28:24 AM
Quote
I think all 'land posting' signs should bear the land owners name, address and phone number.
Why?
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2015, 10:30:12 AM
Very hard to undo miles of paint line, so once its posted its probably posted til it's logged.Oxy clean.
Where's Billy Mays when we need him?
Post by: headshot5 on January 23, 2015, 10:33:52 AM
Quote
Very hard to undo miles of paint line, so once its posted its probably posted til it's logged.
Not really. Just use some brown or olive drab paint over the top and walla. No more orange paint. :chuckle:
Post by: 509 on January 24, 2015, 09:21:46 PM
QuoteI think all 'land posting' signs should bear the land owners name, address and phone number.
Why?
As a professional Forester that has worked for both public and private the amount of public land that is posted as private is very high. Requiring the landowners name and address or phone number would eliminate almost all the illegal posting of public land.
Couple of comments. There are no standards for paint colors across agencies or private landowners. So they vary. Both private and public Foresters use blue paint for cut tree marking. In Idaho we did use ORANGE to make timber sale boundaries rather than property lines.
I do not have a problem with orange paint as a no trespass symbol. It is very easy to remove the mark. On a Forest Service timber sale in Idaho the Ranger District was waiting on brown paint to paint out the orange sale boundary. I pointed out the one part orange and four??( it has been 40 years) blue makes brown. We stuck that mix in our paint guns and the boundary was gone fairly quickly.
I think people need to support the orange paint proposal IF it is coupled with the requirement for a name on the no trespassing sign.
On a related issue....is DNR moving to allowing permit holders to post DNR land?? That needs to be stopped right now. Any closures that are necessary need to be posted and identified as DNR.
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2015, 09:34:03 PM
On a related issue....is DNR moving to allowing permit holders to post DNR land?? That needs to be stopped right now. Any closures that are necessary need to be posted and identified as DNR.No they are not
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 27, 2015, 03:35:40 PM
What happens if you don't have a tree to spray paint ?
Who's going to pay non-english speaking people to learn what the paint color means ?
How much of a tax is the gubmint going to charge landowners, to teach non-english people, what certain paint colors mean ?
Post by: NWBREW on January 27, 2015, 03:56:39 PM
It's already illegal to trespass. This really wouldn't change much. Like Bob33 said, with GPS technology, people should always know whose land they are on anyway.
Agreed. 100%
Post by: Jingles on January 27, 2015, 04:04:16 PM
IN MY OPINION if a hunter doesn't know if he is or is not trespassing he/ she DOES NOT deserve to be in the woods and I mean without the So called GPS devices.
If you haven't got brains enough to figure out where you are hunting, without a machine telling you where you are at, STAY the hell at home because you are probably not only a safety problem to yourself but others as well.
As far as the dirt bags posting and chaining off open ground that needs to be addressed not the trespassing
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 04, 2015, 08:59:56 AM
Post by: bowbuild on February 04, 2015, 09:38:32 AM
The reason for saying this is this leaves it to the officer to determine if you are trespassing, or in a closed area.......on his opinion, and this can differ between officers. I would like these marks to have GPS CORDINATES to back up what they are posting or marking......the reason is to assure those that mark are within their right to mark it. Is a officer going to cite someone because they mark it with paint?? Easy for the officer (also stupid) as they have NO proof other than a mark.
Does a officer need to phyisically see someone trespass, or can he just take the word of a owner?? This could be very problimatic for someone who skirts the line. :dunno:
Bowbuild
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 04, 2015, 09:45:49 AM
Post by: Curly on February 04, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2016, 07:55:01 PM
Last may Senator Sheldon introduced a very similar bill with a small technical change. So basically SB 5233 is now SB 6117.
Yesterday the Law & Justice Committee passed 6117, it now goes to the Rules Committee to decide if the full Senate will vote on the bill.
Post by: Special T on January 26, 2016, 08:26:07 PM
Make it a harsher penalty for trespassing and help land owner's protect their rights. Know before you go!The penalty isn't the problem. It's the lack of prosecution that is the problem.
In Texas Trespass is a shoot-able offense. Perhaps there wouldnt be a need for all this nonsence if crackheads and other knuckle drag-er knew there was some teeth to screwing with peoples property.
Post by: eldplanko on January 28, 2016, 10:22:23 PM
It replaces posting by sign with posting by paint stripe. And only when not on a road. Really no big deal. Look at it from a landowner perspective. There's no requirement for signs anyways... This just establishes orange paint stripes as something meaningful (like blue means culvert).
Bottom line, if your trespassing (blaze paint, sign, or nothing); if property owner wants to make a big deal about it; you're in the wrong.
This bill seems to be in everyone's benefit.... Plus... No fiscal note!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: eldplanko on January 28, 2016, 10:29:51 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on January 28, 2016, 10:31:27 PM
By the way... Shouldn't this be SB 6117?That's what bigtex said a few days ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 29, 2016, 08:15:50 AM
Do you own either bigtex ? :chuckle:
Post by: Landowner on January 31, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
I think all 'land posting' signs should bear the land owners name, address and phone number.
I don't want to put my name, address or phone on a sign.
So there.
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on January 31, 2016, 06:33:15 PM
I'm sick of replacing torn down signs, shot up signs, and the price of good quality signs.
My devices and maps confirm to me what's public or private in the planning stage of my hunts, so the idea that someone will start painting up public lands won't stop me.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 02, 2016, 10:22:22 AM
I think all 'land posting' signs should bear the land owners name, address and phone number.
I don't want to put my name, address or phone on a sign.
So there.
Neither do I. With technology today, there is no possible excuse for being somewhere you shouldn't be. Good grief, freaking common sense. If you don't have permission and if you don't know for sure it's not private because you're too lazy to research it, stay the heck off it. Simple. It's the person's responsibilty to know where he is, not the landowners.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 02, 2016, 05:45:10 PM
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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 08:41:12 AM
I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
3. If you know who owns it and don't have permission
Simple, unless you know or have permission if you do, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2016, 08:43:22 AM
It's so simple. The only explanation for people not following that is also simple: they have no respect for private landowners.I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
Simple, unless you know, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 08:44:33 AM
It's so simple. The only explanation for people not following that is also simple: they have no respect for private landowners.I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
Simple, unless you know, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Exactly.............
Post by: AntlerHound on February 05, 2016, 09:03:38 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 09:47:41 AM
I disagree. There are many instances where you could be on public land in the middle of nowhere and and cross onto private and not even know that there was a property line. Timberland can be very hard to tell. You can go from federal lands to state lands to private lands and have it look exactly the same. I bet if you were on Weyerhaeuser land and you crossed onto my property you would have no clue whatsoever that you did.I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
3. If you know who owns it and don't have permission
Simple, unless you know or have permission if you do, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2016, 09:52:08 AM
but it is not always that easy or clear cut.
But it actually IS that easy nimrod.........easy for honest people that is, not so easy for those that are simply looking for a excuse.
The "default" position honest people have is UNLESS it's "clear cut", that means you know for a fact either way, the answer is NO!!!!
In a nutshell, those seeking the truth will obey the law, those seeking excuses break the law.
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2016, 09:56:38 AM
I believe that I would. Regardless, I think your situation is slightly different when someone inadvertently crosses onto private they do not have permission to be on. The more obvious one is where someone deliberately accesses property that he doesn't have permission to be on, simply because it's not posted.I disagree. There are many instances where you could be on public land in the middle of nowhere and and cross onto private and not even know that there was a property line. Timberland can be very hard to tell. You can go from federal lands to state lands to private lands and have it look exactly the same. I bet if you were on Weyerhaeuser land and you crossed onto my property you would have no clue whatsoever that you did.I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
3. If you know who owns it and don't have permission
Simple, unless you know or have permission if you do, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 10:02:26 AM
Without a GPS you wouldn't know. Our timber is the same age as the Weyerhaeuser timber on the other side of the property line so it looks like one stand of timber. I know many other examples similar to mine. As well as checker board ownership that most are not aware of because there is no signage and the owners don't care. Basically my thought is if you don't want people on your land then post it.I believe that I would. Regardless, I think your situation is slightly different when someone inadvertently crosses onto private they do not have permission to be on. The more obvious one is where someone deliberately accesses property that he doesn't have permission to be on, simply because it's not posted.I disagree. There are many instances where you could be on public land in the middle of nowhere and and cross onto private and not even know that there was a property line. Timberland can be very hard to tell. You can go from federal lands to state lands to private lands and have it look exactly the same. I bet if you were on Weyerhaeuser land and you crossed onto my property you would have no clue whatsoever that you did.I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
3. If you know who owns it and don't have permission
Simple, unless you know or have permission if you do, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on February 05, 2016, 10:03:53 AM
Good fences make good neighbors. Making it easier to post (while not even necessary) seems like a no brainer. If you don't know the details of the land you walk on, you shouldn't be out walking on it.
Post by: headshot5 on February 05, 2016, 10:05:45 AM
Quote
Good fences make good neighbors. Making it easier to post (while not even necessary) seems like a no brainer. If you don't know the details of the land you walk on, you shouldn't be out walking on it.
:yeah:
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2016, 10:05:56 AM
Posting is good, but I still expect that hunters should know where they are. Get a GPS if you're not sure.Without a GPS you wouldn't know. Our timber is the same age as the Weyerhaeuser timber on the other side of the property line so it looks like one stand of timber. I know many other examples similar to mine. As well as checker board ownership that most are not aware of because there is no signage and the owners don't care. Basically my thought is if you don't want people on your land then post it.I believe that I would. Regardless, I think your situation is slightly different when someone inadvertently crosses onto private they do not have permission to be on. The more obvious one is where someone deliberately accesses property that he doesn't have permission to be on, simply because it's not posted.I disagree. There are many instances where you could be on public land in the middle of nowhere and and cross onto private and not even know that there was a property line. Timberland can be very hard to tell. You can go from federal lands to state lands to private lands and have it look exactly the same. I bet if you were on Weyerhaeuser land and you crossed onto my property you would have no clue whatsoever that you did.I agree that I would not want to put my name and contact info on a posting sign, but I disagree with much of Wacenturion's statement. 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
I Don't disagree that people should take ample care to hunt on land they have permission to do so, but it is not always that easy or clear cut. I have been in areas where the land is all cut up with public and private properties and few clear boundaries, but some great public lan mixed in. I have been in areas where a good bit of cover is on an edge, that according to my GPS with a small error factor, is public though the fence or posted signs are on the wrong side. I have also been in areas with no marking or boundary between land ownership. I feel that, as a land owner, there should be a reasonable posting or boundary expectation if you expect the general public to respect "your" property.
Ok.....lets say you are standing in front of some property.
1. Do you own it.....no
2. Do you know who owns it...no
3. If you know who owns it and don't have permission
Simple, unless you know or have permission if you do, don't trespass. How basic is that. Can't believe how people think or reason in these situations. The problem with landowners and the lack of access allowed by them, comes right out of this mindset. :o
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2016, 10:09:49 AM
Well, it's back!
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.
The bill is sponsored by Senators Sheldon, Dansel, Dammeier, Becker, Schoesler, and Honeyford. All are Republicans except Sheldon, however he caucus' with Republicans.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5233.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5233.pdf)
This works very well in Idaho and Utah. It makes it easier for landowners to post property, the paint can't be removed as easily as signs by trespassers, and the paint is very easy to see. I actually use orange/red paint on posts and trees around some private property we lease in WA and it's far more effective than just signs.
If property in ID or UT isn't legally posted, or fenced, or cultivated, that means it's open to hunt, some landowners want to allow hunting to the public. It's a great system!
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 10:14:13 AM
Well, it's back!
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.
The bill is sponsored by Senators Sheldon, Dansel, Dammeier, Becker, Schoesler, and Honeyford. All are Republicans except Sheldon, however he caucus' with Republicans.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5233.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5233.pdf)
This works very well in Idaho and Utah. It makes it easier for landowners to post property, the paint can't be removed as easily as signs by trespassers, and the paint is very easy to see. I actually use orange/red paint on posts and trees around some private property we lease in WA and it's far more effective than just signs.
If property in ID or UT isn't legally posted, or fenced, or cultivated, that means it's open to hunt, some landowners want to allow hunting to the public. It's a great system!
:yeah: I hunt Idaho and I really like how they do it.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 10:33:42 AM
Thios visual should make it easy to understand why........
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2016, 10:37:05 AM
Comparing Idaho to Washington is like comparing apples to oranges. Washington is the smallest state west of the Mississippi with the 2nd largest population. Idaho has fewer people and far more federal land as well.
Thios visual should make it easy to understand why........
I wasn't trying to say Idaho was more or less populated or had more or less public land, I was simply comparing their system of marking private lands to WA's system, it's really a much better system that serves landowners and hunters better.
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 10:40:02 AM
:yeah:Comparing Idaho to Washington is like comparing apples to oranges. Washington is the smallest state west of the Mississippi with the 2nd largest population. Idaho has fewer people and far more federal land as well.
Thios visual should make it easy to understand why........
I wasn't trying to say Idaho was more or less populated or had more or less public land, I was simply comparing their system of marking private lands to WA's system, it's really a much better system that serves landowners and hunters better.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2016, 10:43:25 AM
If you wish to hunt in an area that is in close proximity to private land, then you have an obligation to either (a) stay far enough away from the boundary that the odds of trespass are negligible, or (b) take advantage of technology that will allow you to have more precise knowledge of your location and the boundaries.
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 10:45:05 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F02%2F05%2Fad11315a5e22152a6d95506bd7b513b2.jpg&hash=6e1bd655dda0490d3709beb6e2968f39b9c80b0f)
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
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2016, 10:47:36 AM
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?I haven't, but I'm not sure what your point is. It sounds like you're saying it's OK to trespass.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F02%2F05%2Fad11315a5e22152a6d95506bd7b513b2.jpg&hash=6e1bd655dda0490d3709beb6e2968f39b9c80b0f)
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
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 10:51:18 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 11:05:13 AM
It's already a fact that individuals post public land with no trespassing signs for their own benefit. Putting up orange markers, painting things, etc is just another way to have these same individuals do the same thing, just using a different method.
I worked with landowners and the hunting public my entire career. Nothing has changed except the excuse making evolves from one generation to the next. It comes down to people flat out ignoring the obvious, with a few rare exceptions. Changes in posting techniques is nothing more than a bandaid on a serious wound.
I hunted for most of my life and for the life of me I still cannot understand how it is relaxing or fun to not know where you are for sure and be constantly looking over your shoulder. No thanks, that's not quality recreational time in my opinion. Have I driven by easy opportunities over the years on land I didn't have permission on with deer and other things just standing there waiting to be killed? The kind of things many can't resist. Lots of times. It was the right thing to do. It's my ethical standard. If I'm not absolutely sure, I don't even think about it Then again, killing something to prove my success is not my thing.
Simple fact is, if you want to educate the hunting public whether young or old, educate them and make sure they follow the laws. Also make sure they know there is a penalty if you choose otherwise. Trespassers like poachers steal from you. In the case of trepass it reduces your opportunity to access private land.
Post by: bobcat on February 05, 2016, 11:09:48 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 11:15:52 AM
The Weyerhaeuser land shown on the map Grundy posted, if someone were to unknowingly walk across from the public land onto the private, would most likely not be considered trespass, since the property lines are probably not posted, and much like Idaho, if property is not posted, fenced, or cultivated, you cannot be charged with tresspassing.
Exactly. I guess that's what I've been trying to say. It isn't trespassing unless it's posted, fenced, or cultivated. In other words, there is a a definitive boundary.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on February 05, 2016, 11:21:12 AM
Legally it may not be, but I would not do it intentionally and wouldn't encourage anyone else to. :twocents:The Weyerhaeuser land shown on the map Grundy posted, if someone were to unknowingly walk across from the public land onto the private, would most likely not be considered trespass, since the property lines are probably not posted, and much like Idaho, if property is not posted, fenced, or cultivated, you cannot be charged with tresspassing.
Exactly. I guess that's what I've been trying to say. It isn't trespassing unless it's posted, fenced, or cultivated. In other words, there is a a definitive boundary.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 11:23:09 AM
Sorry, but that just seems outdated and back******** to me. I can tell you that would not work in Washington. Remove a couple signs before light, enter and hunt, get stopped by the warden who has to now prove it was unlawful because it isn't posted after getting a irate landowner call about someone trespassing. :bdid:
Might add that it happens all the time now, except the law in Washington is different and allows enforcement to addrss the issue at the time.
This should be inscribed on every hunting or fishing license sold right above your signature block with a small notation that you understand and adhere to the above.
Does private property need to be posted in Washington State in order for trespass rules to be enforced?
No. If the land has indications of private ownership, such as buildings, fences, or signs, you cannot go onto the land without the landowner’s or tenant’s permission, if you go onto land despite seeing or being aware of No Trespassing signs, you can be cited for trespassing. If you trespass on private property that is not posted with signs or fenced, or is only sparsely posted with signs or fenced, and you refuse to leave the property when asked to do so by the property owner, you can be cited for trespass.
.
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 11:25:38 AM
I think intentionally is the key word. That's why I like how the law is written up. To be charged with trespassing you would pretty much guarantee it was intentional.Legally it may not be, but I would not do it intentionally and wouldn't encourage anyone else to. :twocents:The Weyerhaeuser land shown on the map Grundy posted, if someone were to unknowingly walk across from the public land onto the private, would most likely not be considered trespass, since the property lines are probably not posted, and much like Idaho, if property is not posted, fenced, or cultivated, you cannot be charged with tresspassing.
Exactly. I guess that's what I've been trying to say. It isn't trespassing unless it's posted, fenced, or cultivated. In other words, there is a a definitive boundary.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
The Weyerhaeuser land shown on the map Grundy posted, if someone were to unknowingly walk across from the public land onto the private, would most likely not be considered trespass, since the property lines are probably not posted, and much like Idaho, if property is not posted, fenced, or cultivated, you cannot be charged with tresspassing.
Right in one respect, but I'm sure Weyerhauser probably marks it. I may be wrong though.
Does private property need to be posted in Washington State in order for trespass rules to be enforced?
No. If the land has indications of private ownership, such as buildings, fences, or signs, you cannot go onto the land without the landowner’s or tenant’s permission, if you go onto land despite seeing or being aware of No Trespassing signs, you can be cited for trespassing. If you trespass on private property that is not posted with signs or fenced, or is only sparsely posted with signs or fenced, and you refuse to leave the property when asked to do so by the property owner, you can be cited for trespass.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 11:29:57 AM
The Weyerhaeuser land shown on the map Grundy posted, if someone were to unknowingly walk across from the public land onto the private, would most likely not be considered trespass, since the property lines are probably not posted, and much like Idaho, if property is not posted, fenced, or cultivated, you cannot be charged with tresspassing.
Exactly. I guess that's what I've been trying to say. It isn't trespassing unless it's posted, fenced, or cultivated. In other words, there is a a definitive boundary.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
It's still technically trespassing in the example cited, but one can be cited if he or she refuses to leave.
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 11:32:11 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 11:55:27 AM
If you unknowingly/accidentally "trespasses" why would you refuse to leave?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I was referring to a specific portion.....
Does private property need to be posted in Washington State in order for trespass rules to be enforced?
No. If the land has indications of private ownership, such as buildings, fences, or signs, you cannot go onto the land without the landowner’s or tenant’s permission, if you go onto land despite seeing or being aware of No Trespassing signs, you can be cited for trespassing. If you trespass on private property that is not posted with signs or fenced, or is only sparsely posted with signs or fenced, and you refuse to leave the property when asked to do so by the property owner, you can be cited for trespass.
Over the years I have seen several examples of people refusing to leave if approached by those who have permission and point out to the ones without, that they are trespassing. Some get pretty obnoxious. If you're not the landowner, some personality types take advantage by for lack of a better word bullying.
I'll give you kind of an example of what I'm referring to. Years ago when I was out hunting ducks in a cornfield covered in snow with a friend who also worked for the old Dept. of Game, there was an individual that was a couple hundred yards away hunting as well. Might note that the field was open under Feel Free To Hunt. However it became quite obvious that his shotgun was unplugged.
Like so many of my personal outings back then, I had to now put on my work cap so to speak and address the issue. When I approached him and identified myself as a Dept. of Game employee and showed him my commission card, he became beligerant and almost threatened to take it out on me if I didn't leave him the **** alone. Show me your freaking badge of go you know what to yourself.
I hollowered at my friend who I knew carried a badge wallet to come over. Once he flipped out the badge the guy nearly melted, almost on the brink of tears and apologies. Funny, he was on the verge of spending the night in the Grant County jail. Lucky for him he quickly changed his attitude. I ticketed him and we parted. So, people can and do strange things. It happens a lot on trespass disputes.
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
I really don't see how this pertains to the discussion. I clearly stated it is trespassing if there is a fence, it's cultivated, or there is signs or you refuse to leave after being asked to.If you unknowingly/accidentally "trespasses" why would you refuse to leave?
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I was referring to a specific portion.....
Does private property need to be posted in Washington State in order for trespass rules to be enforced?
No. If the land has indications of private ownership, such as buildings, fences, or signs, you cannot go onto the land without the landowner’s or tenant’s permission, if you go onto land despite seeing or being aware of No Trespassing signs, you can be cited for trespassing. If you trespass on private property that is not posted with signs or fenced, or is only sparsely posted with signs or fenced, and you refuse to leave the property when asked to do so by the property owner, you can be cited for trespass.
Over the years I have seen several examples of people refusing to leave if approached by those who have permission and point out to the ones without, that they are trespassing. Some get pretty obnoxious. If you're not the landowner, some personality types take advantage by for lack of a better word bullying.
I'll give you kind of an example of what I'm referring to. Years ago when I was out hunting ducks in a cornfield covered in snow with a friend who also worked for the old Dept. of Game, there was an individual that was a couple hundred yards away hunting as well. Might note that the field was open under Feel Free To Hunt. However it became quite obvious that his shotgun was unplugged.
Like so many of my personal outings back then, I had to now put on my work cap so to speak and address the issue. When I approached him and identified myself as a Dept. of Game employee and showed him my commission card, he became beligerant and almost threatened to take it out on me if I didn't leave him the **** alone. Show me your freaking badge of go you know what to yourself.
I hollowered at my friend who I knew carried a badge wallet to come over. Once he flipped out the badge the guy nearly melted, almost on the brink of tears and apologies. Funny, he was on the verge of spending the night in the Grant County jail. Lucky for him he quickly changed his attitude. I ticketed him and we parted. So, people can and do strange things. It happens a lot on trespass disputes.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 12:13:05 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 12:24:19 PM
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
Post by: bearpaw on February 05, 2016, 12:31:01 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 05, 2016, 12:39:39 PM
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
Post by: Curly on February 05, 2016, 12:41:54 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on February 05, 2016, 01:53:36 PM
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.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 05, 2016, 11:13:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 06, 2016, 06:14:29 AM
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:
Quote
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? :dunno:
Post by: Wacenturion on February 06, 2016, 09:25:34 AM
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
Post by: fireweed on February 06, 2016, 10:01:12 AM
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?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F16%2F02%2F05%2Fad11315a5e22152a6d95506bd7b513b2.jpg&hash=6e1bd655dda0490d3709beb6e2968f39b9c80b0f)
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.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on February 06, 2016, 10:28:11 AM
Post by: Landowner on February 08, 2016, 09:38:54 AM
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.
Post by: eldplanko on February 08, 2016, 11:39:12 AM
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
Post by: Gringo31 on February 08, 2016, 01:54:51 PM
:twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on February 08, 2016, 02:31:30 PM
Post by: Landowner on February 08, 2016, 05:29:49 PM
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. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: eldplanko on February 09, 2016, 12:18:17 PM
Post by: bigtex on March 17, 2016, 04:38:23 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on March 19, 2016, 04:14:25 PM
easier to tear down >:(
Also easier to put up if it's public and you want to make it look private. :twocents:
Post by: bear hunter on March 22, 2016, 12:05:51 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 23, 2016, 08:08:52 PM
SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
Post by: bobcat on March 23, 2016, 08:32:10 PM
SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
You could mark your property line with paint, regardless of the new law being in effect or not. Right? What do you need the law for?
Post by: Bango skank on March 23, 2016, 08:33:10 PM
SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
You could mark your property line with paint, regardless of the new law being in effect or not. Right? What do you need the law for?
So that the orange paint will stand up in court
Post by: Wacenturion on March 23, 2016, 09:09:09 PM
SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
You're assuming a light will go off in his head when he sees the paint and he won't trepass again. Orange paint and signs are not going to stop those types. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on March 23, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
I cant remember the exact number of days that a bill takes effect (I think 90 days). But in either way it will take effect this summer.SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on March 23, 2016, 09:16:44 PM
SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
You're assuming a light will go off in his head when he sees the paint and he won't trepass again. Orange paint and signs are not going to stop those types. :twocents:
No, but if they hold up in court he will be prosecuted for unlawful removal of wildlife. Ive made this very clear to him. I bought the place dec 2014 and didnt want to get off on the wrong foot, so since he has his property line marked with flagging i decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Well he claimed he didnt know the property line, b.s., and the warden said the flagging wouldnt hold up in court. This year the property will be heavily marked so if he does it again hes screwed. Funny thing is in my tcam pic of him dragging the dead buck through my property, and the pics before that, he had no hunter orange on. The warden did ticket him for that lol.
Post by: Bango skank on March 23, 2016, 09:33:38 PM
I cant remember the exact number of days that a bill takes effect (I think 90 days). But in either way it will take effect this summer.SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Excellent, ill be buying some orange paint here soon.
Post by: Whitpirate on March 23, 2016, 10:41:53 PM
Post by: headshot5 on March 24, 2016, 07:20:50 AM
I cant remember the exact number of days that a bill takes effect (I think 90 days). But in either way it will take effect this summer.SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Just looked at SB 6117, and in the file it says the following:
"This act takes effect July 1, 2017"
Post by: Wacenturion on March 24, 2016, 07:28:04 AM
How much public will be painted now by some moron. OnX Map chip engage.
Going to happen. :chuckle:
Post by: Humptulips on March 24, 2016, 06:08:47 PM
SB 6117 passed the legislature last week. It is now on the Governor's desk.
Do you think this will be in effect prior to the rifle deer opener? Jerk who hunts the property next to mine poached a buck on my property in november. Id like to put up signs at the most likely crossing spots, but paint every tree between. Would save me some trouble.
You could mark your property line with paint, regardless of the new law being in effect or not. Right? What do you need the law for?
So that the orange paint will stand up in court
When used in conjunction with signs or other means, any color paint on a tree to mark a boundary is a legal boundary to private property. Color, type, method is irrelevant as long as a reasonable argument can be made that the land owner performed his own due diligence in marking his boundary.
I hope you're not a lawyer because you give consistently bad advice.
Post by: Humptulips on March 26, 2016, 05:32:49 PM
If I'm walking out in the woods and I come to some pink paint what does that mean? Cutting line, road right of way, trail, blazes to whatever. Pink has no legal standing.
You should take the time to read the law.
Post by: pd on April 06, 2016, 10:17:07 PM
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Vetoes/Senate/6117-S.VTO.pdf
Good riddance.
Post by: Oh Mah on April 06, 2016, 11:07:23 PM
Post by: SCRUBS on April 07, 2016, 05:46:21 AM
To much against drug addicts stealing copper wire,Poachers,Burglars,Etc.It just wasn't in the states best interest. :bash: If it was more directed at us,The sportsman of this state it would have passed first time.You know like the trespass while hunting law.No problem. :twocents:
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: fireweed on April 13, 2016, 09:44:40 AM