New house bill for Idaho

[mfllood3800]

Texan though we may not see this in the same light you're welcome to come and share my campfire anytime I appreciate your opinion and I would share that campfire with you though I would never share my tent or sleeping bag sorry LOL

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Lol, ya I agree tents and sleeping bags don’t have to be marked as private property, it’s inferred

Y’all have a great night.

 

[Randle]

Gotta love a thread that stays the course, and doesn't get locked. Way to go guys and gals.

 

[dotman]

Why are there so many on here claiming some kind of moral high ground by saying "know your boundaries! and nothing else matters!"
I find it strange that many here are making the huge leap that if:
You support some type mandatory private land postings you somehow support willful trespassing on un-marked private property on a the technicality of "well it isn't posted, so I can hunt there." That is just as ridiculous as someone who subscribes to that practice.

We can all agree that:
Un-Posted/ Marked Private ground DOES NOT make it public or give anyone the right to go there.
Each individual should do his/hers best a knowing where the boundaries are. And should have a means of reference (GPS, maps, etc) to ensure compliance.

I sympathize with you landowners that have or have had issues with trespassing in the past. However I would caution you, that if this passes I could make a strong argument that those problems would get worse before they would ever get better. And yes, marking property is a huge pain in the ass and yes some bad apples will still choose to ignore it no matter what you do. But I feel the whole intent of the law as its currently written is to make a very clear border of whats legal and what isn't. Thus making potential violations very clear. If you decide to forgo that, suddenly there is even more gray area. Which will cause more confusion and more frustration and less hunter involvement. This law was written for the convenience of the public at large at the inconvenience of the private property holder. Now a large enough private property holder is trying to legislate their way out of that inconvenience and put it on the public. Which is their right to do so.

To those worried about the "fringe" areas of the boundary lines. Keep your GPS tracks on and keep it handy. If you are confronted by law enforcement, show them your GPS tracks, show them the border lines. Show him you are doing your best to stay on public. I've heard several cases where an individual was accused of trespassing by a landowner and was confronted by law enforcement. He showed his is tracks for the day and the officer said "thank you very much" and went on his way. This way you have evidence and all the other party has is a story. This doesn't cover all circumstances, but it at least show you didn't have malicious intent.

My take is purely from the experience of people purposely trespassing and having to deal with that crap, they always have the dumbest excuses. I get most are honest and simple mistakes happen but it’s easy to get a sour taste in your mouth from the 1%.

Being honest goes along way. I have gained access for packing animals out but not hunting by asking first and showing the LO where I’ll be, while many others just trespass and try to buy their way out, that pisses landowners off big time.

I haven’t hunted the crazy checker board areas but maybe a quick call to explain you have zero intentions of hunting or receiving permission to hunt but will be hunting the public next to it can go a long way. Or maybe ID landowners are all a-holes .

 

[mfllood3800]

I haven’t hunted the crazy checker board areas but maybe a quick call to explain you have zero intentions of hunting or receiving permission to hunt but will be hunting the public next to it can go a long way. Or maybe ID landowners are all a-holes .

From Ryan A...
"AND remember my wife's family are landowners and I have posted the shit out of it and caught trespassers that lie through there teeth. So I get both sides but this law is BS! "

Dude, again with calling out the owner of Rokslide, you're gonna get a time out if you keep it up.....

 

[mtnwrunner]

You sound like a cop

Shit, you'll be the first to call.............

Randy

 

[dotman]

From Ryan A...
"AND remember my wife's family are landowners and I have posted the shit out of it and caught trespassers that lie through there teeth. So I get both sides but this law is BS! "

Dude, again with calling out the owner of Rokslide, you're gonna get a time out if you keep it up.....

Seriously, you need to relax, I know Ryan pretty well and you need to maybe reread some of Ryan’s posts and not cherry pick from them.

 

[mfllood3800]

Seriously, you need to relax, I know Ryan pretty well and you need to maybe reread some of Ryan’s posts and not cherry pick from them.

Its just all in good humor Dotman
Nothing serious About it

I'm pretty relaxed all the time

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[pacoalcracker]

Lets face it, its all about large private land owners wanting to control it all...theirs and the public lands. Scare tactics at its best. Meant to keep as many people off public adjoining lands as possible. Its not about righteousness...its about control. Its right there...in the written proposed law. BS all the way. This is nothing new here..been constantly attempted for years.

 

[OG DramaLlama]

Interesting response from my representative here in Boise.

Phyliss King

From a judge; The proposed new trespassing bill is likewise unnecessary and seriously flawed. This is far more than a “repeat offender” bill. It seems to provide criminal and civil penalties for the same defined conduct. One of the things it defines as both criminal and civil trespass is if one crosses a fence that a reasonable person would conclude is delineating private property. One, that turns every case into a jury question, because no one knows which fences those are. Many fences exist to keep animals away from highways or roadways, or to keep them on or off of public (BLM?) property. If you mistakenly cross a fence and hunt uncultivated and unmarked property you are supposed to know that it “delineates private property.” That will just put the sheriff in the middle of all disputes, with no idea of who is right.

Two, fences exist all over the place on BLM ground, and there is nothing to tell a hunter what is and is not private property. Are you going onto BLM property or off it when you cross that fence, and there is nothing to tell you which fences delineate private property and which do not. This will just keep hunters from even trying to guess, which is wrong.

Three, the bill proposes to say that “innocent mistakes” are eliminated. The legislature cannot, generally, turn innocent mistakes into criminal conduct. If you shoot someone completely by accident you generally cannot be criminally responsible.

Four, making it a crime to drive “through” any private land that is actively devoted to cultivated crops could be read to mean driving on a roadway between two cultivated crops. It would be ne thing to criminalize driving onto or over actively growing crops, but it doesn’t say that.

Five, “Cultivated land” is defined as “land used for the raising of crops.” That, apparently means land used for raising crops last year, this year, or 10 years ago, or ever? This is horribly written and defined. The language of proposed IC 18-7008(1)(e)(1) defines criminal trespass as entering onto property that is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating a private property boundary; this language is meaningless. The public needs to KNOW when they are committing a crime. This makes everyone guess, which makes it unconstitutionally vague.

Six, proposed IC 18-7008(1)(e)(4) also makes it a crime to trespass on “property that is reasonably associated with a residence or place of business.” This is horribly vague, and no one will know when one commits a crime. You cannot tell, frequently, just by looking at a house, whether it goes with particular property. And what defines a “residence”? any old building? Occupied residence? Owner’s residence? Lessee’s residence? Associated with any of several nearby? This language is awfully written, and the definitions are useless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheTone]

Glad you got a response and it seems common sense. I've sent multiple emails and calls to my rep with no response, which is not surprising to me as she is on the ag committee and gets a bunch of contributions from the farm bureau, private timber companies and other ag intrerests.

 

[bigdesert10]

I've been emailing my rep, and she says to the best of her knowledge, a fix is coming in the next few days that would address some of these issues. I hope that's the case...

 

[dotman]

Oh wow, yeah this is sounding more and more crazy.

 

[idelkslayer]

I'll share an experience. I was pronghorn hunting in southern Idaho in an area that was unfamiliar to me. I had researched the public land boundaries and had maps but I do not own a GPS or a smart phone. During the course of the hunt I drove up a road that on my maps was marked public and had a public street name sign on the corner. The road passes through private land on both sides (for those of you not familiar, it is very common for USFS and BLM roads to pass through private land) and the road ends right at the public land boundary. I parked on the road shoulder, got out, passed through a fence and went hunting. After a couple hours the land owner who also leases the adjacent BLM for grazing came out to check on his cows and saw my truck and since him driving around had scattered the nearby antelope I was on my way back to my truck and we came together for a conversation.

He told me that the road was his private road. I apologized and explained why I didn't realize that and said I would go move my truck. He said not to worry about it and to just move it when I was done hunting for the day and to not use the road in the future. I assured him I wouldn't and we both went our separate ways.

In the case I just told, if the landowner had placed no trespassing signs at the road entrance or on his fence, I would have known it was a private road despite what my maps had shown to be a public road. As it was we had a pleasant conversation and nobody was the worse for it.

If landowners want to have harsher penalties for trespassing then that's fine. I don't think anybody is disagreeing with that, although I think a felony is pretty steep. However, I also believe that removing the requirement for landowners to mark their property will not help them solve the problem of criminal trespass and civil damages it will only lead to more confrontations and problems.

Again, every landowner knows their boundaries better than anyone else. Even government GIS map services have disclaimers removing them from liability for mistakes and errors in the locations of property boundaries. So the sources that a sportsman would use to research boundaries are often unreliable. The landowners know their boundaries.

It remains the responsibility of sportsmen to research and avoid trespassing but I think landowners are also responsible for posting their property if they want to press criminal charges. The way the current law is written if a person trespasses on unmarked property they cannot be prosecuted for criminal trespass. However, they can be prosecuted for civil trespass for any damage they may have caused to the property, fences, crops etc. This new bill would make prosecution for criminal trespass possible even on unmarked property.

This bill smells of ulterior motives being pushed a select few.

 

[Randle]

Interesting response from my representative here in Boise.

Phyliss King

From a judge; The proposed new trespassing bill is likewise unnecessary and seriously flawed. This is far more than a “repeat offender” bill. It seems to provide criminal and civil penalties for the same defined conduct. One of the things it defines as both criminal and civil trespass is if one crosses a fence that a reasonable person would conclude is delineating private property. One, that turns every case into a jury question, because no one knows which fences those are. Many fences exist to keep animals away from highways or roadways, or to keep them on or off of public (BLM?) property. If you mistakenly cross a fence and hunt uncultivated and unmarked property you are supposed to know that it “delineates private property.” That will just put the sheriff in the middle of all disputes, with no idea of who is right.

Two, fences exist all over the place on BLM ground, and there is nothing to tell a hunter what is and is not private property. Are you going onto BLM property or off it when you cross that fence, and there is nothing to tell you which fences delineate private property and which do not. This will just keep hunters from even trying to guess, which is wrong.

Three, the bill proposes to say that “innocent mistakes” are eliminated. The legislature cannot, generally, turn innocent mistakes into criminal conduct. If you shoot someone completely by accident you generally cannot be criminally responsible.

Four, making it a crime to drive “through” any private land that is actively devoted to cultivated crops could be read to mean driving on a roadway between two cultivated crops. It would be ne thing to criminalize driving onto or over actively growing crops, but it doesn’t say that.

Five, “Cultivated land” is defined as “land used for the raising of crops.” That, apparently means land used for raising crops last year, this year, or 10 years ago, or ever? This is horribly written and defined. The language of proposed IC 18-7008(1)(e)(1) defines criminal trespass as entering onto property that is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating a private property boundary; this language is meaningless. The public needs to KNOW when they are committing a crime. This makes everyone guess, which makes it unconstitutionally vague.

Six, proposed IC 18-7008(1)(e)(4) also makes it a crime to trespass on “property that is reasonably associated with a residence or place of business.” This is horribly vague, and no one will know when one commits a crime. You cannot tell, frequently, just by looking at a house, whether it goes with particular property. And what defines a “residence”? any old building? Occupied residence? Owner’s residence? Lessee’s residence? Associated with any of several nearby? This language is awfully written, and the definitions are useless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for sharing the response, this is refreshing to hear a common sense interpretation.

 

[5MilesBack]

The public needs to KNOW when they are committing a crime. This makes everyone guess, which makes it unconstitutionally vague.

That so-called "unconstitutional vagueness" has been used in many states for many decades without too many issues. The bottom line has always been that it's up to the individual to know where and what the property boundaries are, or risk a trespassing charge. How they do that......is up to them.

I'm not necessarily an advocate for making it a felony (depends on the case), just saying that it should always be up to every individual to know where they are, and what's private. If they don't have the confidence in "knowing", perhaps they shouldn't be in that spot. I don't see it as a detriment for people using those public lands, unless folks decide for themselves that it is indeed a detriment.......but that's up to them.

I'm an independent thinker and an independent kind of guy. I'm a DIY'er through and through. So this whole non-posting private thing just makes sense to me. Then I am 100% wholly responsible for my actions and where I am. And if that's a challenge because of this new proposal, even better.

 

[Randle]

Take hunting out of it, just for moment, Again the possiblity of going out for a HIKE, drive or whatever else you might do on a sunday afternoon. there is a possibility of crossing into the private ground without knowledge, think outside the box when on a whim you dare to be spontanious. It can and will happen eventually.

 

[mtwarden]

I think even more crazy is that driving up a landowner's "driveway" to simply ask permission, under this statute would constitute trespass

we had a very similar bill offered up in Montana some years ago, it was defeated- best of luck with your fight Idaho

 

[dotman]

What’s even more crazy, your kids ball lands in the neighbors yard and you wouldn’t be able to retrieve it. Man this could be a disaster for neighbors that don’t like each other.

 

[mtwarden]

don't like what the UPS guy brings you? turn his a$$ in