Caribou Gear Tarp

MT Trespass Laws Seriously Altered Today

The bill was passed on consideration because leadership is working on amendments to fix the bill and remove the committee amendment.

Nice work on this Kat. Speaker Pro Tempore told me that there was a massive outpouring of opposition to the bill.
 
Thanks for the updates Kat and Ben. Been following along on the legislative website and was hopeful it was given that status because enough representative were opposed to the bill and the route it was taking with the amendment.
 
Thanks Ben. I was hoping there was a strong enough outpouring against it to shift the direction back, based on people calls, emailing or carboning their comments to me.
 
The bill was passed on consideration because leadership is working on amendments to fix the bill and remove the committee amendment.
You need to speak redneck to us Ben, and a tad slower ;). By "passed on consideration" do you mean they delayed voting on the bill until the fix the amendments?
 
You need to speak redneck to us Ben, and a tad slower ;). By "passed on consideration" do you mean they delayed voting on the bill until the fix the amendments?

Passed for consideration means they didn't do anything with it, and skipped over it. Yes.

I expect the amendments to be placed on the bill during floor action tomorrow. We're not giving up bird dogging this, but the conversation with the Speaker Pro Tempore was very heartening.

Kat - it was YYYYUUUUUUUGGGGGGE! :)
 
Looking at the new amendment for HB 231, going to it's 2nd reading tomorrow after 1:00 pm, it looks like she is going to request those orange paint and sign posting portions be added back in.

Select the Amendment Number to view the text of that Amendment


Amendment No HB0231001CW
Sponsor Webb, Peggy
Status No Action Taken



Mr. Chairman:

I move to amend House Bill 231 (second reading copy -- yellow).

Signed: ____________________________

Representative Peggy Webb

And, that such amendments to House Bill 231 (second reading copy -- yellow) read as follows:

1. Title, page 1, line 7 through line 8.

Strike: "REMOVING" on line 7 through "LAND;" on line 8

2. Page 2, line 10.

Following: line 10

Insert: "(2) To provide for effective posting of private land through which the public has no right-of-way, the notice provided for in subsection (1) must satisfy the following requirements:

(a) notice must be placed on a post, structure, or natural object by marking it with written notice or with not less than 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint, except that when metal fenceposts are used, the entire post must be painted; and

(b) the notice described in subsection (2)(a) must be placed at each outer gate and normal point of access to the property, including both sides of a water body crossing the property wherever the water body intersects an outer boundary line.

(3) To provide for effective posting of private land through which or along which the public has an unfenced right-of-way by means of a public road, a landowner shall:

(a) place a conspicuous sign no closer than 30 feet of the centerline of the roadway where it enters the private land, stating words substantially similar to "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING OFF ROAD NEXT ___ MILES"; or

(b) place notice, as described in subsection (2)(a), no closer than 30 feet of the centerline of the roadway at regular intervals of not less than one-fourth mile along the roadway where it borders unfenced private land, except that orange markings may not be placed on posts where the public roadway enters the private land.

(4) If property has been posted in substantial compliance with subsection (2) or (3), it is considered closed to public access unless explicit permission to enter is given by the landowner or the landowner's authorized agent."

Renumber: subsequent subsections

3. Page 2, line 27.

Strike: "(5)"

Insert: "(8)"
 
Rep. Webb opened her bill statement with apologizing to the members for the thousands of emails they received on this issue.

The amendment, adding back in the struck orange paint and signage requirements, passed the House 90 aye votes. HB 231 passed 63 to 37.

Webb did add at the end, that she gave permission for Knudsen's amendment.

Thank you to those of you that contributed to the "1000s" of emails and phone calls, quickly opposing the gutting of the trespassing laws on short notice.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Kat! As always I feel we have a difficult time showing how much your efforts are appreciated.
 
Thank you guys.

This was very much a quick, responsive team effort, that makes me smile because it shows how strong our concerted actions can affect our legislators, even with short notice. ;)

Here are the votes for the MCA to be restored. There is an interesting trend in the 10 that voted against the amendment.
 
Last edited:
kat, for being a "hippie chick" :) you are a political powerhouse. Thanks for all you do with so few resources. Thanks for keeping us informed.
 
lol, I sent a thank you to the House earlier and just got a reply email from Rep Scott Staffanson, one of the ten that voted "nay".

If your fence isn't orange, can I hunt on your lawn?

Unfortunate for Rep. Staffanson, in Montana "Magpies are protected as migratory nongame birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which decreed that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. The Act is the domestic law that establishes and implements the United States commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource."
 
This came together nice Kat. Good you can use your network to get the word out.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,579
Messages
2,025,733
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top