Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010

Bill Starks · Jan 28, 2014

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5048.pdf

(6) "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 the placement of identifying fluorescent orange paint marks on trees or posts on property. Identifying fluorescent orange marks must be

a) Vertical lines not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width; (b) Placed so that the bottom of the mark is between three and five feet from the ground; and (c) 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.

Freedom1Man · Jan 28, 2014

Bill Starks said:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5048.pdf

(6) "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 the placement of identifying fluorescent orange paint marks on trees or posts on property. Identifying fluorescent orange marks must bea) Vertical lines not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width; (b) Placed so that the bottom of the mark is between three and five feet from the ground; and (c) 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.

And your opinion is?

Bill Starks · Jan 28, 2014

I see this as an introduction to signs holding weight of law in Washington.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 28, 2014

Yea I see that too. This needs to be defeated or it will be used to entrap people.

davidmcbeth · Jan 28, 2014

Bill Starks said:
I see this as an introduction to signs holding weight of law in Washington.

Who are you trying to keep out? Girl Scouts?

Freedom1Man · Jan 28, 2014

I, as an optimist, read this as an all or nothing sort of trespassing notice. Everyone or no-one kind of thing.

The part about marking trees is relevant for those who have land up against public lands and don't want to have to run a fence everywhere.

deanf · Jan 29, 2014

A boogie man under every sheet of paper . . . .

Batousaii · Jan 29, 2014

deanf said:
A boogie man under every sheet of paper . . . .

- It's the government, so ya - there is. The government is about control, and
restrictions, and incarcerations as a method of levying your freedom. Anything
they can do to turn a commoner in to a criminal in order to effect an amount of
control over that persons life is acceptable to them. So boogie man might even
be an understatement since I actually beat the hell out of the boogie man when
I was like 8 years old (long story -lol).

sudden valley gunner · Jan 29, 2014

Batousaii said:
- It's the government, so ya - there is. The government is about control, and
restrictions, and incarcerations as a method of levying your freedom. Anything
they can do to turn a commoner in to a criminal in order to effect an amount of
control over that persons life is acceptable to them. So boogie man might even
be an understatement since I actually beat the hell out of the boogie man when
I was like 8 years old (long story -lol).

+1 Some don't realize we are figuratively dying here by a thousand paper cuts.

MrGray · Jan 29, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Yea I see that too. This needs to be defeated or it will be used to entrap people.

How do you see this being used to entrap people?

You own some property. You want to give notice to people that it is not open to the public.

Right now, you go around putting up signs that say "No trespassing, no hunting, closed to public, etc." How many signs must you put up? Unknown. How far apart may they be? Also unclear. So you come home, and some bozo is roaming around on your property in an ATV, trashing things badly. You call the sheriff, and the deputy comes out, and the guy claims "I didn't know, I thought it was public land." Now, you've got signs every 50 feet on the property line, there's no way he didn't know. But now there's an argument about it, because the law is unclear.

Under the proposed law, we know the required spacing. And, to my delight, like most other states, you can post your property with paint marks instead of (relatively) expensive signs. So I'd be able to go down my property line with a can of orange paint, and paint a stripe on a tree every 100 feet, and now no one can claim they didn't know. When the deputy shows up, perhaps there will be a better (from my point of view) outcome than the deputy telling the bozo "Now you know. Don't come back." for the sixth time.

If it were up to me, they'd make tearing down a no trespassing sign or removing the blaze a criminal offense, too. I'm damn sick of replacing signs that bozos tear down.

This law appears to be closely modeled after posting requirements in other states, where it seems to be working and I've never heard anything about it being used to entrap people.

OC for ME · Jan 29, 2014

Purple is the color in MO, wish it were orange.

Paint closer together where folks usually cross over the property line.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 30, 2014

MrGray said:
How do you see this being used to entrap people?

You own some property. You want to give notice to people that it is not open to the public.

Right now, you go around putting up signs that say "No trespassing, no hunting, closed to public, etc." How many signs must you put up? Unknown. How far apart may they be? Also unclear. So you come home, and some bozo is roaming around on your property in an ATV, trashing things badly. You call the sheriff, and the deputy comes out, and the guy claims "I didn't know, I thought it was public land." Now, you've got signs every 50 feet on the property line, there's no way he didn't know. But now there's an argument about it, because the law is unclear.

Under the proposed law, we know the required spacing. And, to my delight, like most other states, you can post your property with paint marks instead of (relatively) expensive signs. So I'd be able to go down my property line with a can of orange paint, and paint a stripe on a tree every 100 feet, and now no one can claim they didn't know. When the deputy shows up, perhaps there will be a better (from my point of view) outcome than the deputy telling the bozo "Now you know. Don't come back." for the sixth time.

If it were up to me, they'd make tearing down a no trespassing sign or removing the blaze a criminal offense, too. I'm damn sick of replacing signs that bozos tear down.

This law appears to be closely modeled after posting requirements in other states, where it seems to be working and I've never heard anything about it being used to entrap people.

I understand what you are saying and fully agree with your private property rights.

The way I see it is they should be protecting your rights as a property owner.

We have cases that open driveways and easements into property are an implied invitation.

So an gun owner doesn't notice a sign (because lets face it in our world of signs and advertisements everywhere people ignore them) banning guns, instead of a pleasant "I don't allow guns here may you leave" and a reply of "sure sorry I didn't realize that", you may have a situation were there is a long legal ride and battle that could not end well for an honest mistake.

Whitney · Jan 31, 2014

Prosocution Purple

OC for ME said:
Purple is the color in MO, wish it were orange.

Paint closer together where folks usually cross over the property line.

My parents sold the farm several years ago and bought some property on a mountain in Arkansas. Purple paint marks the boundries and they claim it holds the weight of law. It is affectionately reffered to as prosocution purple as it has been upheld in a court of law regarding trespass.
YMMV

~Whitney

Dave_pro2a · Jan 31, 2014

Anyone supporting this law is... supporting MORE laws.

How many new laws are enough?

sudden valley gunner · Jan 31, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
Anyone supporting this law is... supporting MORE laws.

How many new laws are enough?

+1 For much of our history there were few laws, everything was pretty much a civil matter, we need to get back to that history.

Freedom1Man · Jan 31, 2014

AS for trespass, it used to be people would own vast stretches of land and you could not get anywhere without crossing someone's land.

So, I agree and disagree with some of the no-trespass laws. I can see both sides and would have to take everything on a case by case basis.

davidmcbeth · Jan 31, 2014

When you get trees to grow exactly 50' from each other then you let me know. Otherwise the law is not needed.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 1, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
AS for trespass, it used to be people would own vast stretches of land and you could not get anywhere without crossing someone's land.

So, I agree and disagree with some of the no-trespass laws. I can see both sides and would have to take everything on a case by case basis.

The word is escaping me right now, but there is one that was used to allow that.

Those who want more laws and more coercive force from the government are part of the problem of the growing police state and overbearing government.

MrGray · Feb 1, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Those who want more laws and more coercive force from the government are part of the problem of the growing police state and overbearing government.

You do understand that all this does is add paint marking as a way to post property, right? That the existing trespassing provisions remain unaltered? That there are ALREADY trespassing provisions in the law?

This isn't some rosicrucian/masonic conspiracy to establish one world government and grind the face of the common man in the mud under the bootheel of oppressive government, for pity's sake. It's about inexpensively and clearly notifying people that the person who owns some piece of land doesn't want people coming onto it without permission.

You want to worry about the growing police state? Work to get the existing handgun registry abolished. That's a much bigger threat to your freedom than some rural property owner walking down his property line with a can of orange paint making foot long stripes on tree trunks.

Dave_pro2a · Feb 1, 2014

MrGray said:
there are ALREADY trespassing provisions in the law?

So, there's already a law about it and we need more --rusrs? Gun grabbers use that logic too.

Not a fan of small government apparently.

Liberal=loves big gov

Conservative=claims to hate big gov until they want it to do something they approve of

Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member