Trespass at it again - HB 566

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,695
Location
Bozeman, MT
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.

(5) In cases where it is not practicable to provide effective posting of private land as required by subsections (1) through (3), including private land that is unfenced and situated in a checkerboard ownership pattern with public lands, privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended only by the explicit permission of the landowner. Entry to private property as described in this subsection (5) from adjacent public lands without permission of the landowner or the landowner's agent is an absolute liability offense. A violator of this subsection is guilty of 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.

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.

What does the law say with regard to corner crossing? Corner crossing (such at at section corners) in checkerboard land patterns is not recommended. Recreationists are advised to obtain permission from the adjacent landowner to reduce conflict and ensure compliance with applicable access laws and rules.

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.
 
Thanks, Kat.

This one is bad. It is one of the "I own my land and I own your land" type of bills. Complete bullchit and they know it.
 
Sounds like it's time for us to introduce a corner-crossing bill and show the Legislature what we're about.

Anyone up for another access & public land rally?
 
Anyone else noticing a coordinated attack on sportsmen?? The Federal Lands Transfer folks are trying to minimize us! We need to fight back!
J
 
I don't think we need a bill for corner crossing, partisan politics would just shoot it down like they just did with HB 295, fining landowners that put up illegal encroachments on our public access roads. Which, btw, Redfield was one of those that voted against it.

I think we need a ballot initiative that all the public can vote on, you know, the majority of Montanans that advocate for public lands and outdoor recreation.
 
This has the same problem as the previous attempt: the status of trails without written easements going through checkerboard could change on the landowner's whim, without notice to users. Declaring it a "absolute liability offense" would mean you didn't even have to have intent to break the law to be convicted.
 
Any update on this?

HB 566 has a hearing on Wednesday morning, at 8 am in House Judiciary. This is the committee that the majority puts bills that they want to either kill or squirt through easily. In this case, they want the bill to move fast so as not to attract attention. It's also the committee that killed HB 295.

Do you see a pattern here? The Committee chairman has been antagonistic to sportsmen his entire tenure, and now enjoys a leadership role as a Whip and as a chair.

If folks have time, showing up to this hearing will be helpful in ensuring that the bill at least has a fair hearing and will help us get it killed. I am not hopeful that it will die in the House, so we will bird-dog it all the way to the Gov's office if we have too.
 
Sounds like it's time for us to introduce a corner-crossing bill and show the Legislature what we're about.

Anyone up for another access & public land rally?

My mind was going this direction as well. If messing with the status quo is the new status quo, then we may as well try to change it in our favor.
 
My mind was going this direction as well. If messing with the status quo is the new status quo, then we may as well try to change it in our favor.
The anti-crossing people have a lot bigger chance of passing something than the crossing people do. I don't think it is a pot that needs stirring.
 
Sent a note off to Ms Manzella my local representative asking her to vote against this bill. About my 20th note to her and I haven't even moved in yet. I'm going to request a meeting once I get there to make sure she has a face with the name that keeps popping up. Hopefully creating good relationships helps in Montana.
 
The fiscal note is bull$h*t. $0???

Like HB 231, a fiscal note would involve FWP (our license dollars), the DNRC (our state dollars) and the counties with the changing of the law involving trespass, the informational publications and presentations, which have had this trespass law published to educate the public at large, will have to be revised, published and distributed, at great taxpayer cost and time.

Montana Access Guide has a note on the back of the cover.
5,000 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $0.25 per copy, for a total cost of $1,250.00 which includes $1,250.00 for printing and $0.00 for distribution.

That is just printing, not distribution and revisions. This doesn't cover all the other publications!

Under the definitions of 45-6-201, (5) it states, "The department of fish, wildlife, and parks shall attempt to educate and inform all persons holding hunting, fishing, or trapping licenses or permits by including on any publication concerning the licenses or permits, in condensed form, the provisions of this section concerning entry on private land. The department shall use public media, as well as its own publications, in attempting to educate and inform other recreational users of the provisions of this section. In the interests of providing the public with clear information regarding the public nature of certain unfenced rural rights-of-way, the department may develop and distribute posting signs that satisfy the requirements of subsection (3)."

These publications and education efforts would affect not only FWP, but our DNRC with the State trust public lands and connecting Federal public lands agencies publications, and the counties at least, at great taxpayer cost and time.
 
Sorry, multitasking with this outfitter documentation bs for their board mtg on the 9th, made a mistake in how I worded it.

The hearing that was scheduled for the 8th, was updated today saying the hearing was cancelled, so they date it today for the update notification.
 
I just got off the phone with Alan Doane, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Good lord, I've always felt guilty calling them since they are so busy but we spent 20 minutes on the phone talking about hunting and corner crossing and other bills and only 30 seconds on 566! I'm like, dude, I have to get ready for a concert, let me go!

Anyway, in the first 30 seconds he said the sponsor is going to pull the bill (too much confusion of what it does) but noted we should "trust, but verify."
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,413
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top