katqanna
Well-known member
So under the thread about HB 231, with the hijacked trespass bill, I have been trying to keeping an eye on judiciary with trespass and this bill to make sure that it doesn't get changed back.
Rep. Alan Redfield put forth HB 566, which had it's first reading on the 23rd, is scheduled for a hearing on the 8th of March.
In HB 231, they tried to pass the hijacked changes off as a mistake by a junior legislator, I didn't buy it, I felt it was intentional.
Redfield has added the following section to his bill, affecting the same bloody MCA on trespass - 45-6-201.
I wanted to wait until I called FWP legal this morning, to be sure I was reading this correctly and my concerns were warranted. They had not seen this, but Becky Dockter and I talked about this one, and the attempts on HB 231.
There is no fiscal note link, and again, like HB 231, a fiscal note would involve FWP, the DNRC and the counties with the changing of the law involving trespass.
This passage could legislate corner crossing, which does not currently exist. On page 22 of the Montana Access Guide, it talks about the checkerboard situation.
There are no laws that prohibit corner crossing.
This bill, once again removes effective posting requirements from the landowner, stating, "In cases where it is not practicable to provide effective posting of private land as required by subsections (1) through (3)", discussing checkerboard ownership pattern. While it states private land and public land in various places, it has no such designation when stating, "privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended only by the explicit permission of the landowner."
Then it goes on to state that entry to private land from public land, without landowner permission is an offense, a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $50 or more than $500 or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than 6 months or both. Yet, Redfield doesn't want the landowners responsible for designating what is private. Again, just as with HB 231, removing the requirement to post would cause a speed trap scenario and would also bring about a suspension of hunting and angling license privileges.
Once again, with the fiscal note, this bill would cause a tremendous cost to FWP, DNRC and others for changing all these publications.
Legislative services stated the fiscal note may not be up for a week.
Rep. Alan Redfield put forth HB 566, which had it's first reading on the 23rd, is scheduled for a hearing on the 8th of March.
In HB 231, they tried to pass the hijacked changes off as a mistake by a junior legislator, I didn't buy it, I felt it was intentional.
Redfield has added the following section to his bill, affecting the same bloody MCA on trespass - 45-6-201.
I wanted to wait until I called FWP legal this morning, to be sure I was reading this correctly and my concerns were warranted. They had not seen this, but Becky Dockter and I talked about this one, and the attempts on HB 231.
There is no fiscal note link, and again, like HB 231, a fiscal note would involve FWP, the DNRC and the counties with the changing of the law involving trespass.
This passage could legislate corner crossing, which does not currently exist. On page 22 of the Montana Access Guide, it talks about the checkerboard situation.
There are no laws that prohibit corner crossing.
This bill, once again removes effective posting requirements from the landowner, stating, "In cases where it is not practicable to provide effective posting of private land as required by subsections (1) through (3)", discussing checkerboard ownership pattern. While it states private land and public land in various places, it has no such designation when stating, "privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended only by the explicit permission of the landowner."
Then it goes on to state that entry to private land from public land, without landowner permission is an offense, a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $50 or more than $500 or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than 6 months or both. Yet, Redfield doesn't want the landowners responsible for designating what is private. Again, just as with HB 231, removing the requirement to post would cause a speed trap scenario and would also bring about a suspension of hunting and angling license privileges.
Once again, with the fiscal note, this bill would cause a tremendous cost to FWP, DNRC and others for changing all these publications.
Legislative services stated the fiscal note may not be up for a week.
