MT Trespass Laws Seriously Altered Today

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Its really simple to stay 150 feet off the GPS shown property line.

Why should anybody have to stay off 150ft of their own property?

I carry sat messaging device not just for safety, but for an electronic alibi.

 

[tjones]

Why should anybody have to stay off 150ft of their own property?

I carry sat messaging device not just for safety, but for an electronic alibi.

Because I know my GPS with ONX could be off by that much.

 

[katqanna]

I just ordered from the Law Library the Legislative History for 1985 HB 911, that created those trespass laws of signage and orange paint, to see the testimony and the stakeholders involved. Thankfully, it is not 601 pages, like some of my other histories I have requested for research, so I should get though this fairly quickly to share the reasoning behind those aspects of 45-6-201.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The bill should be up for second reading on Monday or Tuesday. Get your comments in, quickly.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Because I know my GPS with ONX could be off by that much.

Turn your "tracks" on your gps, spot, or inreach. There's really no reason for you not to be on ANY of YOUR property.

 

[tjones]

Turn your "tracks" on your gps, spot, or inreach. There's really no reason for you not to be on ANY of YOUR property.

Yep. The only reason is I have stood directly on various corner pins and the ONX map has shown it to be off a bit. That's the only reason, well that I don't want to end up like Rob.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Also, a friend got detained by Turner's manager for allegedly trespassing on some property above the beartrap while hunting. It wasn't posted, or fenced in that particular section. He was let go only because there were several hunters up there and it wasn't clear who was over the invisible line.

Elaborate on "detained".. just for fun. I'm anxiously awaiting the day for a db to try and detain me for being on public.

 

[BuzzH]

Turn your "tracks" on your gps, spot, or inreach. There's really no reason for you not to be on ANY of YOUR property.

My GPS tracks function is always on...for that very reason. My buddy and I shot elk this year on a 1/4 mile wide piece of BLM...and the track function was on.

I want to hunt my public lands, and have record of exactly where I went.

 

[1_pointer]

If I could abscond with either/both of Buzz or Greenhorn's GPS units, I wonder how much I could get on an auction for them?

 

[antlerradar]

As a landowner I get the privilege to deal with trespassers every year. If some one makes an honest mistake and admits to it I would not press charges. If I think I am not getting the true story (far to often) I have zero tolerance.
I would bet that dealing trespassing has caused more landowners to lease their land or restrict access than getting payed money. If sportsman every want to make real progress on access trespassing needs to be addressed. This bill may not be the correct bill to do so but it would benefit sportsman to find a bill that does.
There was a time you could bird hunt on unmarked private but it didn't make it right. One landowner I know had a bird hunter access a neighbors property through his. That hunter almost cost sportsman one of the most popular BM ranches in Eastern Montana.

 

[katqanna]

Here is Mike's perspective,retired FWP Enforcement...

A bill was passed out of committee on Thursday, January 26th that has huge ramifications for recreationists and the Montana public at large. HB 231 (Webb, Billings) was introduced as a modification of the state criminal trespass law (45-6-201 MCA.) The initial intent was to address issues regarding people staying in a residence such as squatters or problems between landlords and tenants. In executive session, the House Judiciary Committee heard and adopted an amendment by Rep. Casey Knudsen (Malta) that went on to entirety strike that part of the criminal trespass statute that sets standards and requirements for legally posting private lands (sections 2-4) --the “Orange Paint Law”.

The portion of the law amended (in this case stricken) sets the standards for how landowners must legally post their property, where that posting to be located as well as standards for private property posting along public roads. There is a long history as to why the Orange Paint Law was put in place, one that involved primarily recreationists and landowners putting it together for the their mutual benefit. It was passed in the mid-1980’s as is generally seen as a fair and reasonable sharing of the responsibilities for respecting and defining private property by all parties.

An audio version of the proceedings of the committee is available online at the Montana Legislature site:

(http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=21&clip_id=21043).

But in a nutshell, the amendment (removal) of the orange paint law was proposed in Executive Session, the part of a committee meeting where legislators discuss a bill and then decide to amend it, pass it onto the floor for vote, or kill it. Generally speaking, public comments or participation (other than observation) is not solicited at this point as it is the opportunity for legislators to hash bills out among themselves. In this case, the amendment by Knudsen came out of the blue as it had absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of Webb’s bill. There was a once-over lightly discussion of the amendment in which some legislators questioned why this was even being considered and, given the major change in focus, that interested parties would have no opportunity to offer testimony. Comments by the amendment’s sponsor and by Rep. Bill Harris (Roundup) regarding trespass law and how this particular law relates to recreation (specifically hunting) were inaccurate and reflected either a lack of knowledge of the other laws regarding recreation or were, by omission, left to the imagination. The sponsor’s rationale for the change was essentially that private property owners should not have to be burdened with posting their land. “Private property is private property…” Interpretations of how Fish, Wildlife and Parks wardens approach potential trespass issues were off base or reliant on unsubstantiated anecdotal information. There was no mention that the criminal trespass statute was not usually used for hunting trespass situations or that currently by state law, all hunting on private land (from gophers to moose) required permission of the landowner. But perhaps the overarching issue here is that changing the posting law would affect everyone, not just recreationists. It would take away a fundamental, clear and immediate means by which any person can determine property ownership on site whether hiking, bird watching or simply taking a short cut to walk home.

Aside from making an immediate general distinction of private land boundaries more difficult, the bill as it stands it creates other problems. It would further complicate situations in places where public roads or lands are adjacent to unfenced or vague private property boundaries. This is a common issue, particularly in eastern Montana and the posting provision aids somewhat in keeping people out of trouble. Land ownership changes occur with greater frequency nowadays and the status of land that could be crossed in the past can change almost overnight. Posting helps guide people away from problems, saving them and landowners both time and grief.

Inasmuch as people’s understanding and compliance with this part of the trespassing statute has been in effect for over 30 years and is generally accepted, a radical departure and change would certainly present a myriad of problems as well as misunderstandings. It would be as if everyone in Montana would have to speak only in French beginning promptly tomorrow at 12:01 pm. This, along with substantial cost of staff time and money by agencies (FWP in particular) to “re-educate” the public are certainly within the realm of consequences of this sojourn “back to the future.”

It is troubling that a major revision in the trespass law is being proposed and proceeding piggy-backed to a bill which originally was totally unrelated by intent and title. It was initiated in a legislative committee that was far and afield of regular recreation-focused bills without any opportunity for public testimony either pro or con.

Directions to go now include to seeking to kill the bill altogether on the House floor, get it “un-amended” on the floor (unlikely considering legislative workload) or have it sent back to committee to have the Orange Paint Law portion returned to it. Should it pass the House, it would go to the Senate, go through the committee process there and if passed, go to the floor for Senate vote. Were it to be passed, it would go to the governor for signature or veto. It would be good to stop this train before it gets much further down the tracks. An important avenue is for citizens to contact their House legislators directly. Representative Webb also needs know that the amendment is inappropriate, not to mention that this big step towards a third rail risks her bill and its stated original intent all together. The committee vote to adopt the amendment was 11-8 on party lines. The membership of the House Committee that passed this bill includes:
(H)Judiciary -- Standing Committee
Rep.*SETH BERGLEE (R)--Vice Chair
Rep.*LAURIE BISHOP (D)
Rep.*BOB BROWN (R)
Rep.*VIRGINIA COURT (D)--Vice Chair
Rep.*ALAN DOANE (R)--Chair
Rep.*JENNY ECK (D)
Rep.*BILL HARRIS (R)
Rep.*ELLIE HILL SMITH (D)
Rep.*KATHY KELKER (D)
Rep.*CASEY KNUDSEN (R)
Rep.*THERESA MANZELLA (R)
Rep.*NATE MCCONNELL (D)
Rep.*SHANE MORIGEAU (D)
Rep.*DALE MORTENSEN (R)
Rep.*ZAC PERRY (D)
Rep.*MATT REGIER (R)
Rep.*LOLA SHELDON-GALLOWAY (R)
Rep.*BARRY USHER (R)
Rep.*KIRK WAGONER (R)


Phones numbers and email addresses can be found for legislators at http://leg.mt.gov/css/default.asp. Legislators generally tend to respond to constituent’s calls and concerns over bills they are considering. The direct contact that Montana’s legislative system allows for can make a big difference in the success or failure of a bill.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

As a landowner I get the privilege to deal with trespassers every year. If some one makes an honest mistake and admits to it I would not press charges. If I think I am not getting the true story (far to often) I have zero tolerance.
I would bet that dealing trespassing has caused more landowners to lease their land or restrict access than getting payed money. If sportsman every want to make real progress on access trespassing needs to be addressed. This bill may not be the correct bill to do so but it would benefit sportsman to find a bill that does.
There was a time you could bird hunt on unmarked private but it didn't make it right. One landowner I know had a bird hunter access a neighbors property through his. That hunter almost cost sportsman one of the most popular BM ranches in Eastern Montana.

I've no doubt you deal with some real gems every fall. But help me understand how a change in the status of a property from open, closed, leased, outfitted, etc., will change how much trespassing takes place? Or is it, landowners are just passing the hassle of dealing with it to somebody else? I'd almost bet that places that offer zero access, have the most trespassing problems.

 

[katqanna]

From my perspective, preventing trespassing is far better than the conflicts created by and then the judicial aspects of the aftermath of trespassing. I feel that Knudsen's amendment will return Montana to the older days of increased conflicts and strained relationships before HB 911 became law.


I have read through the legislative history. Not only did hunting/angling organizations support HB 911, such as Montana Wildlife Federation and Trout Unlimited, but ag/ranching organizations.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association:

The Montana Stockgrowers Association supports passage of House Bill 911. House Bill 911 is the result of the interim study which considered impacts of the stream access problem upon private landowners. The testimony given given during the hearings of the interim committee revealed the trespass laws of the State of Montana were not working to protect private property rights...

Hose Bill 911 corrects both problems. The bill is essentially a minimum posting law... House Bill 911 also broadens the powers of the fish and game wardens to enforce the trespass laws. This is needed in light of the stream access decisions since the potential for conflict between private property rights and public recreational rights will increase.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association urges passage of House Bill 911.

Montana Cattlemen's Association

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, H.B. 911 contains some real improvements to the trespass law, from both the landowner's and sportsmen's viewpoints... Giving the Landowner flourescent orange paint as an alternative to printed "no trespassing" signs solves one of the mechanical problems involving posting notice... It (HB 911) represents a necessary improvement to the law.

Montana Farm Bureau Federation

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee for the record my name is Lorna Frank, representing Montana Farm Bureau.

Farm Bureau delegates at the 65th Annual meeting last December were very concerned about getting stronger trespass legislation passed which would insure that private property will be free from public use except with permission from the landowner.

Farm Bureau supports HB 911 because we feel it protects private property and urges this committee to give HB 911 a do pass recommendation.

In addition to written statements, the public comment sign in sheet shows support from MT FWP, Montana Cow Belles, Sweet Grass County Preservation Association, and individuals.

 

[Sytes]

The bill should be up for second reading on Monday or Tuesday. Get your comments in, quickly.

Ben, Kat or whomever,
Would you neatly package this so the layman, (myself inclusive) may understand what is troubling? Bills are often, if not most all the time, ripe with adapted info. Some call "hijacked" though this is not an added allocation of funds for hot tub construction... this appears to me as in the same field.

She'd <edit added: haha... nice auto mis-correct. Word intended: Shed.> light on the added info and what is not in the interest of the MT landowner, outdoor enthusiasts, commerce, etc

Rob, as for your concern over the fine and convicted loss of hunting privilege season for 2 years, this is the motions of due process. To be judged by a jury of your peers or by the judge is the defendant's decision. Not guilty or dismissal removes the penalty. I disagree with your sentiment. This is our judicial system at work. My support of your defense is based on your knowledge this route you chose held a contested issue. You chose to challenge it. Good on you though you must not enter waters w/o understanding the water you enter. You knew this. You made the decision... you own your challenge. So own it and follow through w/ it. Though again, this holds a different bearing than your issue.

 

[RobG]

Rob, as for your concern over the fine and convicted loss of hunting privilegeseason for 2 years, this is the motions of due process. To be judged by a jury of your peers or by the judge is the defendant's decision. Not guilty or dismissal removes the penalty. I disagree with your sentiment. This is our judicial system at work. My support of your defense is based on your knowledge this route you chose held a contested issue. You chose to challenge it. Good on you though you must not enter waters w/o understanding the water you enter. You knew this. You made the decision... you own your challenge. So own it and follow through w/ it. Though again, this holds a different bearing than your issue.

Sorry to sidetrack - I completely own what I did, even though it is proving to be more than I had bargained for and we haven't hit the fun part. I'm just saying you don't want to get into this situation by accident and if landowners don't have to post you have to be worried every time you use a trail or road across private land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

CHarles,

1.) The current law works well in letting both recreationists nd landowners know where boundaries are.

2.) Changing the law this significantly with no public input is not a good way of doing business.

3.) Sportsmen and Landowners crafted the current statute 30 years ago, and it was worked well.

4.) This change in statute would be confusing for sportsmen and landowners alike, and lead to worse relations between the two parties.

5.) Clearly marked boundaries help hunters who do not have GPS or rely on maps. Just like "good fences make for good neighbors," highly identifiable boundaries help sportsmen stay off of private property where they are not wanted, or do not have permission to go.

6.) The amendment was clearly outside of the intent of the sponsor of the bill. If Rep. Knudsen wants to change the statute about orange, then he should find an LC to use, and craft the bill, rather than attempt to insert such a sweeping change in code as a simple amendment.

 

[Sytes]

Thanks Ben.

Would such usually be up for public comment?

 

[katqanna]

It is now scheduled for 2nd Reading 01/30/2017

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben.

Would such usually be up for public comment?

A bill that would have changed the nature of the current statute would have generated interest from wildlife and hunting groups. Because this bill was about residential squatters, it wasn't on anyone's radar. Changing the bill that substantively, under the cover of executive action, is generally frowned upon because it changes the intent of the bill. Committee hearings are when legislators take comment on bills like this, and to alter the entirety like they did is not generally done unless there are ulterior motives at play.

I've been impressed with Knudsen's openness and honesty so far on the House FWP committee, so I'm likely to chalk this up as a mistake. I do plan on talking with him on Monday to let him know that he's turned hunters against a bill they weren't even watching. I'm hoping that we can fix this on the House floor, and if not, then the senate.

 

[katqanna]

Since so many are going to be at the Rally for Public Lands on that day, maybe some could show up at this hearing in person.

Unfortunately, my flu precludes me from going to the rally...