MT Trespass Laws Seriously Altered Today

tjones said:

Its really simple to stay 150 feet off the GPS shown property line.

Click to expand...

Greenhorn said:

Why should anybody have to stay off 150ft of their own property?

I carry sat messaging device not just for safety, but for an electronic alibi.

Click to expand...

tjones said:

Because I know my GPS with ONX could be off by that much.

Click to expand...

Greenhorn said:

Turn your "tracks" on your gps, spot, or inreach. There's really no reason for you not to be on ANY of YOUR property.

Click to expand...

RobG said:

Also, a friend got detained by Turner's manager for allegedly trespassing on some property above the beartrap while hunting. It wasn't posted, or fenced in that particular section. He was let go only because there were several hunters up there and it wasn't clear who was over the invisible line.

Click to expand...

Greenhorn said:

Turn your "tracks" on your gps, spot, or inreach. There's really no reason for you not to be on ANY of YOUR property.

Click to expand...

A bill was passed out of committee on Thursday, January 26th that has huge ramifications for recreationists and the Montana public at large. HB 231 (Webb, Billings) was introduced as a modification of the state criminal trespass law (45-6-201 MCA.) The initial intent was to address issues regarding people staying in a residence such as squatters or problems between landlords and tenants. In executive session, the House Judiciary Committee heard and adopted an amendment by Rep. Casey Knudsen (Malta) that went on to entirety strike that part of the criminal trespass statute that sets standards and requirements for legally posting private lands (sections 2-4) --the “Orange Paint Law”.

The portion of the law amended (in this case stricken) sets the standards for how landowners must legally post their property, where that posting to be located as well as standards for private property posting along public roads. There is a long history as to why the Orange Paint Law was put in place, one that involved primarily recreationists and landowners putting it together for the their mutual benefit. It was passed in the mid-1980’s as is generally seen as a fair and reasonable sharing of the responsibilities for respecting and defining private property by all parties.

An audio version of the proceedings of the committee is available online at the Montana Legislature site:

(http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=21&clip_id=21043).

But in a nutshell, the amendment (removal) of the orange paint law was proposed in Executive Session, the part of a committee meeting where legislators discuss a bill and then decide to amend it, pass it onto the floor for vote, or kill it. Generally speaking, public comments or participation (other than observation) is not solicited at this point as it is the opportunity for legislators to hash bills out among themselves. In this case, the amendment by Knudsen came out of the blue as it had absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of Webb’s bill. There was a once-over lightly discussion of the amendment in which some legislators questioned why this was even being considered and, given the major change in focus, that interested parties would have no opportunity to offer testimony. Comments by the amendment’s sponsor and by Rep. Bill Harris (Roundup) regarding trespass law and how this particular law relates to recreation (specifically hunting) were inaccurate and reflected either a lack of knowledge of the other laws regarding recreation or were, by omission, left to the imagination. The sponsor’s rationale for the change was essentially that private property owners should not have to be burdened with posting their land. “Private property is private property…” Interpretations of how Fish, Wildlife and Parks wardens approach potential trespass issues were off base or reliant on unsubstantiated anecdotal information. There was no mention that the criminal trespass statute was not usually used for hunting trespass situations or that currently by state law, all hunting on private land (from gophers to moose) required permission of the landowner. But perhaps the overarching issue here is that changing the posting law would affect everyone, not just recreationists. It would take away a fundamental, clear and immediate means by which any person can determine property ownership on site whether hiking, bird watching or simply taking a short cut to walk home.

Aside from making an immediate general distinction of private land boundaries more difficult, the bill as it stands it creates other problems. It would further complicate situations in places where public roads or lands are adjacent to unfenced or vague private property boundaries. This is a common issue, particularly in eastern Montana and the posting provision aids somewhat in keeping people out of trouble. Land ownership changes occur with greater frequency nowadays and the status of land that could be crossed in the past can change almost overnight. Posting helps guide people away from problems, saving them and landowners both time and grief.

Inasmuch as people’s understanding and compliance with this part of the trespassing statute has been in effect for over 30 years and is generally accepted, a radical departure and change would certainly present a myriad of problems as well as misunderstandings. It would be as if everyone in Montana would have to speak only in French beginning promptly tomorrow at 12:01 pm. This, along with substantial cost of staff time and money by agencies (FWP in particular) to “re-educate” the public are certainly within the realm of consequences of this sojourn “back to the future.”

It is troubling that a major revision in the trespass law is being proposed and proceeding piggy-backed to a bill which originally was totally unrelated by intent and title. It was initiated in a legislative committee that was far and afield of regular recreation-focused bills without any opportunity for public testimony either pro or con.

Directions to go now include to seeking to kill the bill altogether on the House floor, get it “un-amended” on the floor (unlikely considering legislative workload) or have it sent back to committee to have the Orange Paint Law portion returned to it. Should it pass the House, it would go to the Senate, go through the committee process there and if passed, go to the floor for Senate vote. Were it to be passed, it would go to the governor for signature or veto. It would be good to stop this train before it gets much further down the tracks. An important avenue is for citizens to contact their House legislators directly. Representative Webb also needs know that the amendment is inappropriate, not to mention that this big step towards a third rail risks her bill and its stated original intent all together. The committee vote to adopt the amendment was 11-8 on party lines. The membership of the House Committee that passed this bill includes:
(H)Judiciary -- Standing Committee
Rep.*SETH BERGLEE (R)--Vice Chair
Rep.*LAURIE BISHOP (D)
Rep.*BOB BROWN (R)
Rep.*VIRGINIA COURT (D)--Vice Chair
Rep.*ALAN DOANE (R)--Chair
Rep.*JENNY ECK (D)
Rep.*BILL HARRIS (R)
Rep.*ELLIE HILL SMITH (D)
Rep.*KATHY KELKER (D)
Rep.*CASEY KNUDSEN (R)
Rep.*THERESA MANZELLA (R)
Rep.*NATE MCCONNELL (D)
Rep.*SHANE MORIGEAU (D)
Rep.*DALE MORTENSEN (R)
Rep.*ZAC PERRY (D)
Rep.*MATT REGIER (R)
Rep.*LOLA SHELDON-GALLOWAY (R)
Rep.*BARRY USHER (R)
Rep.*KIRK WAGONER (R)


Phones numbers and email addresses can be found for legislators at http://leg.mt.gov/css/default.asp. Legislators generally tend to respond to constituent’s calls and concerns over bills they are considering. The direct contact that Montana’s legislative system allows for can make a big difference in the success or failure of a bill.

Click to expand...

antlerradar said:

As a landowner I get the privilege to deal with trespassers every year. If some one makes an honest mistake and admits to it I would not press charges. If I think I am not getting the true story (far to often) I have zero tolerance.
I would bet that dealing trespassing has caused more landowners to lease their land or restrict access than getting payed money. If sportsman every want to make real progress on access trespassing needs to be addressed. This bill may not be the correct bill to do so but it would benefit sportsman to find a bill that does.
There was a time you could bird hunt on unmarked private but it didn't make it right. One landowner I know had a bird hunter access a neighbors property through his. That hunter almost cost sportsman one of the most popular BM ranches in Eastern Montana.

Click to expand...

The Montana Stockgrowers Association supports passage of House Bill 911. House Bill 911 is the result of the interim study which considered impacts of the stream access problem upon private landowners. The testimony given given during the hearings of the interim committee revealed the trespass laws of the State of Montana were not working to protect private property rights...

Hose Bill 911 corrects both problems. The bill is essentially a minimum posting law... House Bill 911 also broadens the powers of the fish and game wardens to enforce the trespass laws. This is needed in light of the stream access decisions since the potential for conflict between private property rights and public recreational rights will increase.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association urges passage of House Bill 911.

Click to expand...

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, H.B. 911 contains some real improvements to the trespass law, from both the landowner's and sportsmen's viewpoints... Giving the Landowner flourescent orange paint as an alternative to printed "no trespassing" signs solves one of the mechanical problems involving posting notice... It (HB 911) represents a necessary improvement to the law.

Click to expand...

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee for the record my name is Lorna Frank, representing Montana Farm Bureau.

Farm Bureau delegates at the 65th Annual meeting last December were very concerned about getting stronger trespass legislation passed which would insure that private property will be free from public use except with permission from the landowner.

Farm Bureau supports HB 911 because we feel it protects private property and urges this committee to give HB 911 a do pass recommendation.

Click to expand...

Ben Lamb said:

The bill should be up for second reading on Monday or Tuesday. Get your comments in, quickly.

Click to expand...

Sytes said:

Rob, as for your concern over the fine and convicted loss of hunting privilegeseason for 2 years, this is the motions of due process. To be judged by a jury of your peers or by the judge is the defendant's decision. Not guilty or dismissal removes the penalty. I disagree with your sentiment. This is our judicial system at work. My support of your defense is based on your knowledge this route you chose held a contested issue. You chose to challenge it. Good on you though you must not enter waters w/o understanding the water you enter. You knew this. You made the decision... you own your challenge. So own it and follow through w/ it. Though again, this holds a different bearing than your issue.

Click to expand...

Sytes said:

Thanks Ben.

Would such usually be up for public comment?

Click to expand...