Idaho Bill HO536 - Changing Trespass Law

[TheTone]

we need way higher fines in idaho. i let kids hunt on my place. my place is posted but people still tresspass

Go talk to your judge or magistrate then. Current trespass law already gives them a range for sentencing. I also hope you're actually following through on those that do trespass and have them cited. Its amazing how the word gets out.

 

[Josh Kuntz]

Are there any provisions to address my concerns about traveling on roads and trails though private land? If so, less people will use them and the landowner will have a much stronger case that they have been abandoned.

If I recall correctly, criminal trespass in Idaho can lead to your hunting privileges being revoked even if you weren't hunting at the time. Also, to be convicted of criminal trespass in Montana it has to be intentional. It sounds like Idaho effectively does away with this requirement. If so, that is a pretty big loss to your freedoms.

I'd appreciate any corrections to my understanding. There is nothing worse than writing the legislature with opposition based on erroneous information.

rg

Rob and others, I am not an attorney, so please don't take my advise as gospel, this is just what I have picked up from meeting with other sportsmen's groups and watching 3 attorneys testify at the hearing.

To the best of my knowledge there are no provisions for people traveling on roads and trails through private land, so you have an excellent point. We all know that trails and roads often get slightly re-routed by users to avoid deep puddles, downed trees, etc. If the trail or road wanders out of the legal easement for any reason, boom, you have trespassed.

Regarding losing your hunting privileges, that law already exists if you are trespassing while hunting. The confusing thing is we have 3 codes dealing with trespass, (Civil, Criminal, Fish & Game). The Fish & Game trespass laws are currently the most aggressive, so what is happening is that even if people are cited for Fish & Game trespass, they negotiate to receive the lesser Criminal or Civil penalties. This is what the bill sponsor says the bill aims to address and I am fully supportive of making these codes consistent for the most part.

You are correct that this law removes the requirement that the trespass be intentional to receive the criminal charges. It has language saying something to the effect that "a reasonable person would understand they were on private property".

I had not thought about the domino effect of fewer people traveling through a private trail/road to access public land and that road/trail then being deemed abandoned . While I think this would be a rare case, it would still be a real shame if we lost access to any public land.

And I agree that you don't want to contact legislators with bad info. However, in Idaho these days it doesn't seem to matter what info is presented as long as the Farm Bureau and the wealthiest landowners support something it will likely pass.

 

[RobG]

I had not thought about the domino effect of fewer people traveling through a private trail/road to access public land and that road/trail then being deemed abandoned . While I think this would be a rare case, it would still be a real shame if we lost access to any public land.

This is a reason why we are having so many issues with the trails on the east and west side of the Crazy Mountains - the landowners are claiming the trails are abandoned by the public, thus they have lost the right to claim a prescriptive easement. Of course the reason people abandoned the trails is because they weren't sure if they were public or not and didn't want to be ticketed.

And I agree that you don't want to contact legislators with bad info. However, in Idaho these days it doesn't seem to matter what info is presented as long as the Farm Bureau and the wealthiest landowners support something it will likely pass.

Actually, it sounds like things haven't changed since I left there in 2002. In spite of all the griping, MT is a lot more progressive than Idaho.

 

[RobG]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the felony conviction on the third offense would prevent you from owning firearms, right?

 

[smarandr]

That's how I understand it.

 

[onpoint]

Not a fan of this legislation for various reasons, however....

1st trespass citation, "meh".
2nd trespass citation, may want to figure out how to learn from your mistakes.
3'rd trespass citation, might be considered too dense to be allowed to own a firearm.....

We do have "some" types of gun control on the books......

It's a white out here - not much going on............................

 

[Firedude]

The current law is that private property owners need to post property that isn't cultivated. I think where idaho is different is the amount of land than is public but rangeland, mixed parcels of public and private with literally no visible markers, and severely missmarked acreage. For example the sheep experiment station is marked on On X, BLM, Forrest service, and fish and game maps as public. It's not as many have found out. That's just one example. I can think of tons of properties where fencelines cross multiple private ans public lines with handshake agreements because it cut costs of the fence to put it there. How would you know? There are many others to me requiring land to be marked clearly is like posting speed limit signs. Currently relying on imperfect info to avoid a felony is like driving on roads with no speed limit signs hoping your avoiding a ticket. Just my 2c worth. I'm calling to say NO. Please do the same.

 

[smarandr]

Not a fan of this legislation for various reasons, however....

1st trespass citation, "meh".
2nd trespass citation, may want to figure out how to learn from your mistakes.
3'rd trespass citation, might be considered too dense to be allowed to own a firearm.....

We do have "some" types of gun control on the books......

It's a white out here - not much going on............................

Hell, let's go all out and change trespass to speeding or parking violations while we're at it.

 

[huntid73]

As an Idaho hunter to has access to private land, I somewhat like the three strikes in ten years rule. Now here's my background on why I like it so I'm not grilled over it: the private land I have permission to hunt is family ground that borders a whole mess of public ground with a county road that goes right through it. We always help the landowners by spray painting and posting the ground, yet we still see people hop out and take pot shots at game before then moving on before people notice. So if there are stiffer punishments, I can see that helping the problem. THAT BEING SAID, here's some issues I have with the bill: Why do they want to eliminate the marking clause? If hunters/fisherman are supposed to have the due diligence to know where they are, shouldn't the landowners have some responsibility as well? Also, from what I understand of trespass in my own state of Idaho, only the landowner can make a trespass violation official. What I mean is that even if I worked for the family members I have permission from, if I know that someone is not supposed to be there, and they even admit that they aren't supposed to be there, only the landowner can make the charge stick. Why don't they make this a black and white offense like speeding? If the land is marked or cultivated and the landowner hasn't given them permission, or someone catches them, why don't they automatically get a ticket? I asked Fish and Game about this a few years ago, also I have other family who works in LE, so this is where I got my info about the current law!

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

unfortunately money talks and this will more than likely pass so hope everybody has an Onx chip and can prove they were on public ground.

 

[huntid73]

If the Farm Bureau backs it, yes, I agree it will probably go through. The non-marked property scares the hell out of me, so I'm glad I have OnX!

 

[smarandr]

It's out of committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation.

 

[Elkmagnet]

unfortunately money talks and this will more than likely pass so hope everybody has an Onx chip and can prove they were on public ground.

To EVERYONE saying this.

This is a soft, lazy excuse giving you a reason not to put forth the effort. If you don't like the bill get your ass moving do your best to stop it and let the cards fall where they may.

 

[roknHS]

My place is enclosed by 3 miles of 4 strand barbed wire fence and there is either a no trespassing sign or an orange painted post every 300 ft. on the entire perimeter. Every year I have wires cut, gates left open, wires taken down, vandalism to equipment and buildings.............every year. You can't tell me that any of my issues are accidental trespass so my sense of humor about some town fool or college kid saying that they just didn't know where they were at are lame, boring excuses for slob hunters. I hope the bill passes and my only disappointment is that it doesn't allow hanging on the spot. For you folks crying fowl...........how would you like it if a guys hops the fence into your backyard in town, shits in the middle of your yard, smiles on his way out and tells you he just made a mistake about where he was. You have to go clean up the shit and he walks off down the block till he finds another fence he wants to climb over.
And before the usual torch carriers decide I need to be burned at the stake for my politically incorrect position.......I do allow hunting by permission (without charge) and always have............ however, I'm sick and tired of trespassers.

 

[WapitiBob]

I've had to know where I'm at for all of my 62 years here in oregon and every year when I hunt Wyoming.

It's been a non issue.

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

To EVERYONE saying this.

This is a soft, lazy excuse giving you a reason not to put forth the effort. If you don't like the bill get your ass moving do your best to stop it and let the cards fall where they may.

I have done my part by sending various emails/letters so no it's not a lazy excuse you're a fool if you don't think money talks and that's why this bill is moving.

 

[RobG]

I got this message back:

Thank you for contacting me on this issue.
I have decided to support HB536 as it is heard on the House Floor today. After careful consideration of the Bill and the information at hand, I came to this conclusion.
H536 ensures that posting requirements are clear to both landowners and those who want to recreate, using standards that have worked well for years from surrounding states. H536 does not remove the posting requirement, but makes it more common-sense to ensure that the recreating public is aware of private land. It is a common-sense approach to ensure that there continues to be access to private lands by making the trespass code more consistent and enforceable for all parties.
I thank you again for your concern on this issue.

Representative John Vander Woude – Majority Caucus Chairman

 

[Elkmagnet]

I have done my part by sending various emails/letters so no it's not a lazy excuse you're a fool if you don't think money talks and that's why this bill is moving.

I didn't say I disagree with you just that it's a cop-out sort of mentality. I'm glad to hear you are doing what you can.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I got this message back:

H536 does not remove the posting requirement, but makes it more common-sense to ensure that the recreating public is aware of private land. It is a common-sense approach to ensure that there continues to be access to private lands by making the trespass code more consistent and enforceable for all parties.

Well he has confused me. One of us is getting bad/out dated info

 

[Elkmagnet]

http://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2018/legislation/H0536.pdf

I'm pretty sure h536 removes all language requiring posting of property.