Post by: bigtex on May 03, 2015, 10:57:58 PM
Now the interesting thing is that on May 1st Senator Sheldon introduced Senate Bill 6117 which is the exact same bill as 5233! So you now have two bills with the exact same language, sponsored by the same senator, introduced in the same year, both active in the senate. There really is no reason for Sheldon to do this other then to show he really wants this concept to pass.
Post by: whacker1 on May 04, 2015, 05:29:30 AM
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 04, 2015, 06:11:14 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2015, 06:26:16 AM
Post by: jackmaster on May 04, 2015, 06:33:19 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 04, 2015, 07:17:02 AM
bigtex - isn't this a common system in other states?. Marking the corner posts and some in between?There's a few states with a similar law. Seems to be most popular in the SE.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 04, 2015, 08:19:46 AM
I think if WE are FORCED to flag/mark our property, so should the state. Every piece they own, everything.
And how would you fund it? It could run tens of millions.
And I don't think anyone is really being forced to mark their property in either bill.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 04, 2015, 08:29:09 AM
Cut social services.I think if WE are FORCED to flag/mark our property, so should the state. Every piece they own, everything.
And how would you fund it?
Cut L&I benefits for illegal immigrants.
Should I keep going?
Post by: Colville on May 04, 2015, 09:03:09 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 04, 2015, 09:21:09 AM
Cut L&I benefits for illegal immigrants.
Really?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 04, 2015, 09:31:32 AM
Cut L&I benefits for illegal immigrants.
Really?
Really
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 04, 2015, 09:40:04 AM
Cut L&I benefits for illegal immigrants.
Really?
Really
You'll just cut the injured worker loose? What happens if his employer has been in fact paying into L&I, or if he has been led to believe that his employer has? What in your mind are the financial obligations of the employers? Or is it just use up the people till they are broken and then ship them back south of the border?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 04, 2015, 09:48:30 AM
The L&I illegal worker scam went out early 90's in WA. Didnt it?Before mid 90's if I remember correctly this state didnt have a clear understanding of the then federal law on illegal migrant and industrial workers and were actually helping them get employed through vocational training and such.Then when they got hurt on the job L&I insurance would kick in,Now isnt all of that behind us now or is it still ongoing?
Still ongoing
Post by: Colville on May 04, 2015, 09:53:03 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 04, 2015, 09:53:40 AM
How is this?It is still illegal to work an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant would be undocumented no green,temp,anything right?
Feel free to contact me via pm
Post by: Curly on May 04, 2015, 10:19:32 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 04, 2015, 11:02:42 AM
Quote
If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing. Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.
:yeah: This would be a big win for private landowners. If you as a hunter know you are on public property etc, then it wouldn't be trespassing. Putting up signs sucks, and trying to keep people from stealing/removing signs is a pain. Along with the fact that signs cost more than a stripe of orange paint.
Post by: NoBark on May 04, 2015, 11:09:47 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 04, 2015, 04:13:58 PM
I think if WE are FORCED to flag/mark our property, so should the state. Every piece they own, everything.
And how would you fund it? It could run tens of millions.
And I don't think anyone is really being forced to mark their property in either bill.
Jail inmates, welfare recipients to start with. They're not being forced, but once anything gets into law, it's hard to get rid of it.
Post by: bobcat on May 04, 2015, 06:08:37 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 04, 2015, 06:22:43 PM
You won't be charged with trespassing without a complaint by the landowner. So just having some orange paint on some trees doesn't automatically mean a person hunting on that land will be cited for trespassing.:yeah:
Or there is an agreement with the landowner and law enforcement agencies to cite those they find trespassing. It's a common misconception that an officer can basically see someone behind a no trespassing sign and cite/arrest them. There must be some direction from the landowner for the officer to pursue charges.
Post by: bigtex on May 04, 2015, 06:32:46 PM
Bigtex, what's the deal? Is it that paint lasts where signs rot or get stolen and so paint is more efficient or is there some other angle here? If it just allows an orange block to represent no trespass that seems unobjectionable since the vote isn't close to unanimous I figure there's more to it?Sheldon comes from an area with a lot of timberland so I think you can see the connection there.
Realistically, this will be very difficult to enforce because of the public education aspect. Lets say this bill becomes law, most likely WDFW will do a press release and include it in the hunting/fishing regs. But what about the other users of timberlands such as hikers and bikers? How will they be educated that an orange stripe is equivalent to a "no trespassing" sign.
In public safety you used to have agencies use codes (radio talk such as 10-4, code 7, etc) but after some terrible massive events such as 9/11 agencies learned that each jurisdiction has different codes and they had a hard time talking to eachother, even if they are all law enforcement. So you saw a big push to go towards "plain language/English" so no more radio codes. Well for me the orange stripe is like a radio code and a "no trespassing" sign is obviously plain language/English. Only those "in the know" will know what an orange stripe is code for, it's pretty obvious what a "no trespassing" sign means...
Post by: smalldog on May 04, 2015, 06:44:46 PM
Post by: luckyman on May 05, 2015, 05:35:25 AM
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 05, 2015, 06:02:12 AM
Post by: bobcat on May 05, 2015, 06:14:20 AM
I wonder would some be more in favor of this if along with its passage they required landowners to post/paint, in order to be able to prosecute for trespass
It already is like that. Our law is basically the same as Idaho- if it's not posted, fenced, or cultivated, it's not trespassing.
Post by: Curly on May 05, 2015, 08:05:09 AM
Your not listening bigtex or bob.Your season is over just because some jack wagon paints some orange stripes on some trees and says your trespassing,Thats that,seen it in Goldendale dog gone it.Had to leave the property,told the LEO it was public land but didnt want an argument and was told I had to leave or was gonna be charged with trespass,Then about 2 weeks later finally got it all cleared up I was on public land the caller was a defender of wildlife acting on behalf of someone in California that owned property adjacent to the land I was on.No orange paint mind you but all the same turned out exactly how I am saying it did.
And see, that is my point. Orange paint or signs makes no difference if someone is going to illegally post something. I just can't really find anything wrong with allowing property owners to use paint instead of signs. I know that people tear down signs and simply trespass; it would be much harder for them to do that with paint.
Post by: fireweed on May 05, 2015, 08:20:42 AM
Post by: Curly on May 05, 2015, 08:24:08 AM
Your not listening bigtex or bob.Your season is over just because some jack wagon paints some orange stripes on some trees and says your trespassing,Thats that,seen it in Goldendale dog gone it.Had to leave the property,told the LEO it was public land but didnt want an argument and was told I had to leave or was gonna be charged with trespass,Then about 2 weeks later finally got it all cleared up I was on public land the caller was a defender of wildlife acting on behalf of someone in California that owned property adjacent to the land I was on.No orange paint mind you but all the same turned out exactly how I am saying it did.
That's an instance where it would be nice if you had a map or GPS to prove to the officer why you are sure it is public and the other guy is wrong.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 05, 2015, 08:35:05 AM
But with land sales/trades happening often enough, the map/GPS might not be updated. What if the officer responds on a Friday afternoon and is trying to get to the bottom of it---would have to wait until Monday and however long the various phone tags take to get an answer. By then you could have lost four days in that area.Your not listening bigtex or bob.Your season is over just because some jack wagon paints some orange stripes on some trees and says your trespassing,Thats that,seen it in Goldendale dog gone it.Had to leave the property,told the LEO it was public land but didnt want an argument and was told I had to leave or was gonna be charged with trespass,Then about 2 weeks later finally got it all cleared up I was on public land the caller was a defender of wildlife acting on behalf of someone in California that owned property adjacent to the land I was on.No orange paint mind you but all the same turned out exactly how I am saying it did.
That's an instance where it would be nice if you had a map or GPS to prove to the officer why you are sure it is public and the other guy is wrong.
Post by: Bob33 on May 05, 2015, 08:51:25 AM
Post by: bowbuild on May 05, 2015, 09:11:29 AM
If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing. Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.
Tell that to the officer when they show up.... :tup: Officers carry GPS and keep track of who's property is who's....or do they write you and let the courts figure it out?? :bash:
Post by: Curly on May 05, 2015, 09:16:54 AM
If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing. Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.
Tell that to the officer when they show up.... :tup: Officers carry GPS and keep track of who's property is who's....or do they write you and let the courts figure it out?? :bash:
I thought it was already established that they won't write you up unless the property owner requests it?
Post by: headshot5 on May 05, 2015, 09:48:00 AM
As a property owner I am for this. I don't think this is going to get abused quite as much as many people think. It sucks having to go out and replace signs 2 or 3 times a year that get ripped down by those who don't want to ask permission. This would make it so anyone trespassing knowingly is doing so.
If someone called you in as trespassing on their property, and it public property I'm guessing the officer who responds to the call would read them the riot act for wasting time, and for improperly marking public property.
Post by: bowbuild on May 05, 2015, 02:26:08 PM
If you aren't trespassing, you're not trespassing. Doesn't matter if someone posted it illegally with signs or orange paint.
Tell that to the officer when they show up.... :tup: Officers carry GPS and keep track of who's property is who's....or do they write you and let the courts figure it out?? :bash:
I thought it was already established that they won't write you up unless the property owner requests it?
Ya, alright....2 times I have had guys call the cops, and claim I was on their land.....it was timber company, and the officer was going to write me for trespass, until the guard for the company showed up.....so those that think they won't, you are dead wrong.
Bigtex,
You have a property owner in front of you with a accused trespasser, do you check the owners statements, or do you take their word for it, write the guy, and let the courts figure it out? Is it required for officers to check the owners boundries before you write somone up?
Post by: Curly on May 05, 2015, 03:16:33 PM
Post by: bowbuild on May 05, 2015, 04:03:04 PM
That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing. You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy. The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs.... :dunno:
Ok, now does the officer need to see the trespasser, or can he take the owner at his word? To me, unless there are multiple witnesses, it is thrown out of court. Problem...any owner at any time can claim anything, there has to be more evidence than a owner saying he/she is trespassing. How would you like a anti claiming you are trespassing to ruin your day, and even worse the cost guilty, or not, of proving otherwise. :dunno: These laws can be turned against the most ethical hunter. :tup: :tup:
Post by: bigtex on May 05, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
Good question. Washington's misdemeanor presence rule (RCW 10.31.100) basically says an officer can only cite/arrest someone for a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor when the offense occurs in the presence of an officer. There then of course are several exceptions to that law, one of which is criminal trespass in the 2nd degree. So an officer does NOT need to see the individual trespassing in order to cite/arrest them.That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing. You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy. The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs.... :dunno:Ok, now does the officer need to see the trespasser, or can he take the owner at his word? To me, unless there are multiple witnesses, it is thrown out of court. Problem...any owner at any time can claim anything, there has to be more evidence than a owner saying he/she is trespassing. How would you like a anti claiming you are trespassing to ruin your day, and even worse the cost guilty, or not, of proving otherwise. :dunno: These laws can be turned against the most ethical hunter. :tup: :tup:
Now obviously there still needs to be probable cause, evidence, etc. But to answer your question, no an officer does not need to see the actual act in progress.
Post by: bigtex on May 05, 2015, 05:24:00 PM
Bigtex,I would hope the officer would verify statements and boundary lines.
You have a property owner in front of you with a accused trespasser, do you check the owners statements, or do you take their word for it, write the guy, and let the courts figure it out? Is it required for officers to check the owners boundries before you write somone up?
The prosecutor has one year to file misdemeanor charges on someone (criminal trespass 2nd degree is a misdemeanor.) So it's not like if the officer doesn't cite the guy on the spot the case is over with. Most counties now actually don't want officers to cite offenders with misdemeanors/gross misdemeanors, they want the officer to send the prosecutor the report and at that time the prosecutor will decide to file charges, however some smaller counties still leave it up to the officer.
Post by: Curly on May 05, 2015, 06:18:52 PM
Post by: bowbuild on May 06, 2015, 09:26:45 AM
Good question. Washington's misdemeanor presence rule (RCW 10.31.100) basically says an officer can only cite/arrest someone for a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor when the offense occurs in the presence of an officer. There then of course are several exceptions to that law, one of which is criminal trespass in the 2nd degree. So an officer does NOT need to see the individual trespassing in order to cite/arrest them.That's a good question and your instance is one that I really never thought about much............didn't really think it was possible for a LEO to simply believe a landowner that says you are trespassing. You'd think he would have to go take a look at any lines to show where the property line is before he writes up a guy. The trespassing laws are favorable when there is no fence or signs.... :dunno:Ok, now does the officer need to see the trespasser, or can he take the owner at his word? To me, unless there are multiple witnesses, it is thrown out of court. Problem...any owner at any time can claim anything, there has to be more evidence than a owner saying he/she is trespassing. How would you like a anti claiming you are trespassing to ruin your day, and even worse the cost guilty, or not, of proving otherwise. :dunno: These laws can be turned against the most ethical hunter. :tup: :tup:
Now obviously there still needs to be probable cause, evidence, etc. But to answer your question, no an officer does not need to see the actual act in progress.
The problem with that is there are some people that will go to any means to mess with hunters. A officer trying to be fair to the complaintant can be swayed by the emotional persistence of unrational people. I hope officers do their homework before citing a accused trespasser, as if the person is not guilty of the crime, the money spent to defend ones self is a harsh punishment for doing nothing. :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 06, 2015, 09:39:10 AM
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2015, 09:49:07 AM
:dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2015, 10:24:33 AM
Makes the land owner's job so much easier. Paint is durable, and can't be torn down or moved.
All this BS about anti's posting an area or getting cited for tresspassing is just that.
Too many people try to tip toe around the public access verbage. If you have permission to hunt a piece of land its no problem. Permission can be in the form of written permission to be on private property or something as simple as here is the map of state land, and my GPS position. When you decide to hunt without permission you get knotted up by law enforcement. If you cross a boundary by accident or on purpose you might get yourself in trouble.
I've always made it a policy that if I don't have written permission or specifc rights to hunt a piece of ground I stay off of it. No need for an "I thought I could" excuse when it is written down.
:yeah: spot on....
Post by: bowbuild on May 06, 2015, 01:20:34 PM
I'm wondering if the whole reason for this proposal is because of most timber companies now charging for access? It seems like now it would be beneficial for the timber companies to mark the boundaries of their land so that everyone knows where the lines are. Paint on the trees would be the most cost effective method..........
:dunno:
Curly,
You must be behind the curve....Don't you think it was ironic that they WDFW pushed for a RCW that is directed at hunters, infact if you are in the "act" of hunting the penalty is harsher for the hunter than your average "walker." It is also quite ironic that after this law was passed (a yr later) most timber companies went to charging?? Hmm, then they recruit retiring wardens that have close ties with active officers to patrol their lands....hmm, don't sound fishy to me. :bash: Now they want to make it easier for companies, and large land owners to post their lands.....this over the last couple of yrs is turning Wa. into Texas real fast. If you like that great, not for me... >:(
Post by: bowbuild on May 06, 2015, 01:28:11 PM
Makes the land owner's job so much easier. Paint is durable, and can't be torn down or moved.
All this BS about anti's posting an area or getting cited for tresspassing is just that.
Too many people try to tip toe around the public access verbage. If you have permission to hunt a piece of land its no problem. Permission can be in the form of written permission to be on private property or something as simple as here is the map of state land, and my GPS position. When you decide to hunt without permission you get knotted up by law enforcement. If you cross a boundary by accident or on purpose you might get yourself in trouble.
I've always made it a policy that if I don't have written permission or specifc rights to hunt a piece of ground I stay off of it. No need for an "I thought I could" excuse when it is written down.
I have a hard time thinking you know of no one that has not been through this hunting in areas of king or pierce county......people constantly post timber land, and the only BS is you not looking!
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2015, 06:48:59 PM
I still contend that if you have permission to be on said land, you can......it won't matter what method it is posted.
I think if I owned property that people were wanting to trespass on I would paint up the trees like this bill is proposing. Maybe paint some big no trespassing words on the trees too.
I don't doubt that some anti hunting types go out and place signs, but that still isn't a good reason to tell land owners that they cannot mark their land like this. Obviously some (or most) disagree and that's fine with me.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 07:38:19 PM
The discussion is all well and good but still doesn't explain to me what some find objectionable to the proposed bill (s).Well I've already said I don't like it because it would be hard to educate/enforce.
But I also think it would be easier to mark land as closed that isn't supposed to be. Right now someone has to buy/make signs, get nails/staple gun, and attach it to a tree/pole. If this bill passed all you would need is orange paint and whammo the area is closed.
I can see even more land being posted as closed without the landowner's permission if this bill passed.
Some interesting info is that in 2012 the legislature decriminalized the unlawful posting of lands and made it a civil infraction (ticket with a fine, no possible jail time, can't be arrested for the offense). So it really weakened the penalty and in many ways reduced the "importance" of the law when it comes to investigations.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 07:43:14 PM
BigTex, do the officers carry regularly updated maps--paper or computer? Or do they have to call in coordinates/check assessor sites/call a surveyor/skynet drones?There really isn't any special LE only database. So we have to check maps, assessor databases, etc.
Like I said, an officer can make contact with the possible offender, plot the point and use it for what should be a quick investigation. If it turns out the guy was in fact trespassing then he can send the report to the prosecutor for charging. Most non-serious criminal contacts nowadays in WA don't end with the offender leaving with a criminal citation in their hands, but rather simply the officer saying they will be getting something in the mail.
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2015, 07:53:18 PM
The way bigtex has debated the topic has me now changing my mind.
Btw Steve, I've disagreed with many things bigtex has said on various issues over the years, but he is a valuable asset to this forum. I lot of issues I wouldn't even know about if it wasn't for bigtex posting about them. So I am glad he is here.
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2015, 08:00:47 PM
Thanks
Post by: Miles on May 06, 2015, 09:12:15 PM
The discussion is all well and good but still doesn't explain to me what some find objectionable to the proposed bill (s).Well I've already said I don't like it because it would be hard to educate/enforce.
But I also think it would be easier to mark land as closed that isn't supposed to be. Right now someone has to buy/make signs, get nails/staple gun, and attach it to a tree/pole. If this bill passed all you would need is orange paint and whammo the area is closed.
There are other states that use this method with success.
Buying signs/staples is just as easy as buying cans of spray paint. Most are for sale in the same stores, and it only takes a couple seconds to put either on a tree.
It's almost as though you are implying that more people are going to suddenly start posting land, simply because they can do it with paint. Is that the case? Do you really think if someone wants to post land now that buying a sign and staples is too much of a hassle?
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2015, 09:23:17 PM
We started using paint in WA years ago, it is much more economical and effective to us a gallon of paint to paint fence posts than to nail up expensive signs which are easily torn down every season by slob hunters. With the paint we throw another refresher coat on every 5 to 8 years and it doesn't get ripped down by trespassers. It seems to be way more effective.
Post by: bobcat on May 06, 2015, 09:23:46 PM
But I also think it would be easier to mark land as closed that isn't supposed to be. Right now someone has to buy/make signs, get nails/staple gun, and attach it to a tree/pole. If this bill passed all you would need is orange paint and whammo the area is closed.
That's not true. If someone other than the landowner sprays paint on a property line, it's not "closed." If it's private and you have permission to hunt it, you can still hunt it. Or if it's public land that is illegally painted/posted, you can still hunt it.
Orange paint on public land wouldn't keep me from hunting it, I guarantee you that.
Post by: bigtex on May 06, 2015, 09:26:26 PM
By closed I mean it gives the illusion that it is closed. Just like how there is land with illegally placed signs that give the illusion it is closed but in reality it is not.But I also think it would be easier to mark land as closed that isn't supposed to be. Right now someone has to buy/make signs, get nails/staple gun, and attach it to a tree/pole. If this bill passed all you would need is orange paint and whammo the area is closed.That's not true. If someone other than the landowner sprays paint on a property line, it's not "closed." If it's private and you have permission to hunt it, you can still hunt it. Or if it's public land that is illegally painted/posted, you can still hunt it.
Orange paint on public land wouldn't keep me from hunting it, I guarantee you that.
Post by: bobcat on May 06, 2015, 09:31:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2015, 09:35:29 PM
Well, I wonder if it causes problem in Idaho, because I believe they use paint to mark their property lines. I think Wyoming might be the same way as well.
I'm pretty sure paint is used in ID/MT/UT/WY
Post by: bobcat on May 06, 2015, 09:56:39 PM
Post by: headshot5 on May 08, 2015, 06:43:01 AM
Quote
I'm pretty sure paint is used in ID/MT/UT/WY
Anybody know of any instances where similar laws have been a tool exploited by anti-hunting groups in some of the above states? I have a hard time thinking that if this becomes a law, that it will be the straw that broke the camels back. I really don't feel this proposed law, would be the undoing of hunters.
Currently, landowners can post signs in the exact same manner as the proposed paint would be used. Nothing changes except that paint can be used in lieu of signs. If someone is improperly marking public land or is marking someone else's private land, either double check your permission or go check with your county's assessor to verify land ownership.
Post by: fireweed on May 08, 2015, 01:25:22 PM
Post by: fireweed on May 12, 2015, 09:59:37 AM
Maybe. :yeah. I know that you are just being scarcastic,But I do think of this :yeah: Wih all the land thievery that has taken place in the past through coruption and murder,Many of these huge land owners in America didnt buy the property as you and I have to today.So what you say,Well to an extent I agree with you but sometimes some end up with so much property and they make deals and such with the GOV. that they pay little to none in taxes for said land and then they go back on their word with the GOV. and we end up paying for the ability to hunt these lands.Is this ok with you Macs B?
I'd be happy if our legislatures just stopped forcing homeowners and businesses to subsidize them in property taxes when they charge! Other states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michagan) requires public access for the full tax "shift"
Post by: MHWASH on May 12, 2015, 10:03:51 AM
Violations
1. Do Not Trespass - The state of Washington has strict laws prohibiting trespass on private land. Per RCW 77.15.435, it is unlawful to hunt
or retrieve wildlife from the property of another. Owners are not required to post their land.
Post by: bobcat on May 12, 2015, 10:10:47 AM
It states right in the hunt regs that land owners are not required to post thier land. Why should the burden be on the property owners?
Violations
1. Do Not Trespass - The state of Washington has strict laws prohibiting trespass on private land. Per RCW 77.15.435, it is unlawful to hunt
or retrieve wildlife from the property of another. Owners are not required to post their land.
This always is mentioned when this discussion comes up, and it's true- there's no law that requires a landowner to post their land. However, if it's not fenced or cultivated then it must be posted, otherwise a person cannot be cited for trespassing on that land.
Post by: MHWASH on May 12, 2015, 10:23:43 AM
It states right in the hunt regs that land owners are not required to post thier land. Why should the burden be on the property owners?
Violations
1. Do Not Trespass - The state of Washington has strict laws prohibiting trespass on private land. Per RCW 77.15.435, it is unlawful to hunt
or retrieve wildlife from the property of another. Owners are not required to post their land.
This always is mentioned when this discussion comes up, and it's true- there's no law that requires a landowner to post their land. However, if it's not fenced or cultivated then it must be posted, otherwise a person cannot be cited for trespassing on that land.
Can you direct me to that particular RCW?
Post by: KopperBuck on May 12, 2015, 08:24:29 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on May 13, 2015, 01:20:55 PM
As for the timber workers the timber companies like WEYCO, Simpson, Rayonier employ, you'll have a hard time finding any of them any more. They've done their best to eliminate those jobs.
Post by: fireweed on May 13, 2015, 01:26:24 PM
Doesnt it state that in the same rcw as the trespass law as a defense to?Yes RCW 77.15.435Here's another similar:
RCW 9A.52.010 Definitions
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.
They new legislation, I suppose, adds a stripe of paints this definition for posting in a conspicuous manner
Post by: ibuyre on May 13, 2015, 08:08:30 PM
Reason 2 goes hand in glove. I own a bunch of land, I mark my lines and gates, so they are easy to see.... I always use orange paint. When guys are marking property lines, guess what they use..... orange ribbon and paint on trees. Easy to see in the woods. Will this now make it easy for you to get written up and then have to fight it after ward. Even when you have permission to be there and there by miss your season, and have to take time to fight your charge. I think this is a BAD deal. Was it common practice in those other states for everyone to mark there property lines with orange ribbon? And paint gates and cables that color so people could see them and not run into them.
This will close a ton of land and the land owners won't even know there land has been closed. Sounds like a mess to me.