# Purple paint "no trespassing" posting option introduced in Senate: SB499



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

What do you think?

Senate Bill 499:
Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on May 12, 2005, Add new "no trespassing" posting option to establish that a property owner can "post" his property to indicate that trespassing is prohibited by placing purple paint marks on trees or posts not more than 100 feet apart and readily visible to a person approaching the property. Each paint mark must be a vertical line at least 8 inches long, between 3 feet and 5 feet above the ground.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

This one sounds like a winner to me!!!


----------



## Rondevous (Mar 14, 2005)

I think it will make it easier for people to post land illegally.

Have paint brush will travel.

Too much of our open state lands are currently closed off by illegal posting.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

It will also make it more difficult for the trespasser to tear down these posted "signs" on private property.


----------



## SmallGameStalker (Mar 5, 2005)

Personally, I think this idea is rather ill-conceived.

Previous posts have already pointed out that while this will make it easier for land-owners to mark their property, it will also make it easier to illegally mark state land. As for making it harder to vandalize, I'm not so sure about that. All it would take is a sharp knife to scrape the paint off of the tree's bark. Presto, no sign.

The main reason, however, that I'm against this is that I think the purple line will be harder to see in the woods than a "No Trespassing" sign especially after the mosses and lichens start growing on that bark. A plastic sign doesn't provide the habitat that these organisms are looking for. When I see a white, or black and orange "No Trespassing" sign, the message is clear. However, the purple line might be possibly, and legitimately, missed due to age/flaking of paint, the natural cracking of the tree bark as the tree grows, and shadows falling across the purple band on a bright sunny day.


----------



## Avidhunter (Feb 23, 2004)

As a property owner, I'd be for it- except the color should be highly visible.

The comment about scraping bark shouldn't really be an issue since it would be painlessly obvious to a CO. The paint would last much longer than you may think. Just look at the blue trail markings for some of the trails that have been there for years.

As for the idiots marking state land: that also applies to the property owners that extend their boundaries by 100 or so feet, I ALWAYS research an area before I hunt it and try to leave a few hundred feet between myself and the line. A GPS, plat book and topo maps are great for this. Just don't want the hassles I guess. Jody


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

*PURPLE MEANS NO TRESPASSING*

Purple paint can now serve as a warning to stay off someone's property. It's a new state law. Judon Fambrough (JEW-don FAM-broh), a lawyer with the Texas Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University says Texans will soon be seeing a lot more of the color purple because Texas has joined several other states in recognizing a purple paint mark as a trespassing warning. The new law requires landowners to make a vertical purple mark eight inches long and one inch wide and place it either on a post or a tree. The marks must be three to five feet off the ground and at a frequency of every one thousand feet except in timber cutting areas -- it must be every 100 feet. Fambrough says the new law resolves problems in two geographical areas of Texas. In South Texas, there was a problem in how many languages you had to post "no trespassing" in and also how often you had to place signs. In East Texas, there was a problem of marking property lines where a timber company should start and stop cutting timber. To make sure everyone understands what the purple paint means, until September you must also have a no trespassing sign posted at the entrance of the property.

*CONTACT: Judon Fambrough , (409) 693-6470*



http://www.maine.gov/ifw/aboutus/landowner_relations/landownerslandusersbrochure.htm


----------



## deputy (Feb 2, 2002)

I say how about introducing law to the effect of jail and harsh fines and loss of weapons.

or claymores


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

too!

Thanks for the info Airoh


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

Rondevous said:


> I think it will make it easier for people to post land illegally.


There is a lot of this already.

And, there is enough junk along the sides of the roads. The next thing to add to the clutter will be empty "purple paint" spray cans.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

deputy said:


> I say how about introducing law to the effect of jail and harsh fines and loss of weapons.
> or claymores



AMEN TO THAT!!!! :woohoo1: :woohoo1: :woohoo1: 

If I hear one more tresspasser/poacher/violator say "Oh, I didnt see any signs", I think I'm gonna ..........

Just a great idea. In some states, a FL. Orange painted post, tree line etc means the same thing, esp Out West.

Natty B.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Does anybody know if the proposed legislation would also include purple posts, purple plastic tape (like crime scene or work area tape that you can get in the big yellow rolls)---I guess what I am getting as is does the purple have to actually be painted on or just clearly visible?

Brilliant orange written signs work but orange fades in no time at all. I suspect purple would do the same thing and not be nearly as visible from greater distances like the hunter orange ones are.

I gotta agree with the guys that state that there will be an incease in unauthorized posting of land. If the DNR doesn't even have enough money to hire a sufficient quantity of CO's do you really think that they are gonna spend precious time and resources painting over purple lines on State land? I suspect that private land owners are not going to bother either. So, what is the effective deterrent to illegally posting (painting) gonna be? They oughtta work some language into the law (eg possession of purple paint on state ground or land of another without permission --- Penalty: Full and complete insertion of rattle can or paint brush where sun don't shine).


----------



## SNAPPY (Feb 13, 2004)

I think there will be a sudden surge of "color-blind" trespassers :coolgleam if we rely on a paint stripe painted on a tree. If signs dont work why would paint? And like posted earlier, cans would litter the woods and roadside from the lazy ones.  Just my .02.


----------



## Moron (Dec 31, 2001)

SNAPPY said:


> I think there will be a sudden surge of "color-blind" trespassers :coolgleam if we rely on a paint stripe painted on a tree. If signs dont work why would paint? And like posted earlier, cans would litter the woods and roadside from the lazy ones.  Just my .02.


I doubt you'll see cans littering the woods and roadside, not many land owners are going to trash their own land.  I have to clean up the 1/4 mile road frontage I have every year, and it doesn't come from me.  

I like the idea, but not real hiped about the color.  I'd prefer painting to stapling or nailing signs up.

As mentioned in other posts in regard to posting of state land, you should research the area your hunting before even going out or have a map with you to verify ownership.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

How about just making it the responsibility of the hunter to know where they are at all times. Just like knowing the target and what's beyond. No signs, no wire, no fence or paint.

Everyone makes mistakes so make the first offense minor fine such as $75.00, a court date and make it mandatory to have a compass, gps/ batteries, plat book, topo maps in their possesion while in the field. Make the second offense much stiffer such as loss of weapon, large fine $1,000, 80 hours of community sevice, and loss of hunting privledges for three years. 3rd offense charge them as an habitual offender, felonly charge, loss of weapon, hunting related items including vehicle, 40 hour per week community service of improving stateland and/or jail for one year, $5,000 fine and five year loss of hunting privledges and wear a gps tether during the 5 years of probation. Any offenses after that get serious with them by doubling the previous conviction.

Chances of getting caught trespassing are slim so I'm sure anyone who does get caught probably has knowingly done it before.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

Virginia has the same law except they use silver or white paint. I was impressed with that way of marking no tresspassing boundries when I hunted turkeys in Va.

It sure cleans up the road sides. No signs littering the trees. Just a stripe of paint.

I would also question as to whether there would be a problem with the color blind being able to see the purple paint. Look at how dificult it is for the color blind to figure out the trout booklet.


----------



## 2tundras (Jan 11, 2005)

I just posted the same question before I read yours. My step dad is pretty darn color blind and I KNOW he could not see purple on a pine, cedar, oak, those types of barks. Maybe he could on a maple or birch. 

(When he wires a house someone has to pick out the wires for him. Really.)

Wonder if that would get you out of a trepass?


----------



## lostyooper (Jan 31, 2005)

How many people are really gonna know that a spot of paint means no tresspassing? loggers have been markin trees for years now with differant color paints, i think she is just a little off her rocker.stick to what people know and are used to seeing,less confusing and less arguments in the woods or in court. 

Dave


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

lostyooper said:


> How many people are really gonna know that a spot of paint means no tresspassing? loggers have been markin trees for years now with differant color paints, i think she is just a little off her rocker.stick to what people know and are used to seeing,less confusing and less arguments in the woods or in court.
> 
> Dave


The same way every new law is communicated to the public. You do know you can turn right on a red now don't you?  

Why would a Senator be off her rocker for introducing legislation that has been successful in many other states.? Senator McManus is probably the best friend we sportsmen have in Lansing.

Neal


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Its a lto easier than replacing expensive signs every year just to have another jerk tear them down and say he didn't know it was private. I think it is a good idea but maybe with a brighter color paint as purple may not stand out as mush especially in low light hours. Great idea and simple too  

AW


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

answerguy8 said:


> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10919_11747-31412--,00.html
> 
> Thsi should cover it:
> 
> ...



That is a quote from DNR - and that's cool - I'm looking for a reference to a michigan law that: *says if the property isn't posted or fenced or a field obviously being used for agriculture it's legal to enter*

If the above quote from DNR is a direct quote from the law - then what the other guy was 'assumeing' is that because the land is NOT a farmland, connected wood lot or not fenced or posted that its "LEGAL" to enter and hunt - I perport that No it's not legal - maybe you wont be ticketed or sited but you can be asked to leave and must depart. You do not have a 'legal right' to be on private property simply because it lacks the critera for tresspass in the above clause.

ferg....


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

I'm not sure about purple, but in other states, orange on a post or tree means no trespassing-so do a lot of other things, like tires over a fence post. In a lot of other states, landowners tell me the law isn't so forgiving as to simply slap your hand for claiming not to understand what these symbols mean. You're supposed to know. 

In Michigan, just because it's not posted doesn't mean you can enter that property....you can't. It used to be that way in some of the other states, but I don't remember it ever being that way in Michigan, and in other states, it's changing rapidly. If it looks private, even if it just looks like the "woods", DON'T.

Ed may have that confused with some areas of Ontario, where, if I remember correctly, you may enter unposted land because it's probably crown land. 

I would be concerned about the color issue of purple-it's darker than orange, and some people are color-blind. Orange is pretty effective, color-blind people tell me that even they can see how it marks the tree. But then, it's pretty easy to tell MOST private land-you can see nails or remnants of old signs, piles of rocks near fields, etc. 

Our trespassing laws are in serious need of more enforcement...CO's tell me that unless it's posted every 10 feet or so, judges just throw the case out of court. Sad...but painting posts, etc., with some sort of color would make it easier to post every few feet, so maybe we'd have more enforcement that would stick.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

2tundras said:


> I just posted the same question before I read yours. My step dad is pretty darn color blind and I KNOW he could not see purple on a pine, cedar, oak, those types of barks. Maybe he could on a maple or birch.
> 
> (When he wires a house someone has to pick out the wires for him. Really.)
> 
> Wonder if that would get you out of a trepass?


2tundras and multibeard make a very good point. Color blindness is more common in males and a good many are afflicted. For this reason I see some draw backs. Signs might be ugly but they leave no doubt.


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

Ferg said:


> That is a quote from DNR - and that's cool - I'm looking for a reference to a michigan law that: *says if the property isn't posted or fenced or a field obviously being used for agriculture it's legal to enter*
> 
> If the above quote from DNR is a direct quote from the law - then what the other guy was 'assumeing' is that because the land is NOT a farmland, connected wood lot or not fenced or posted that its "LEGAL" to enter and hunt - I perport that No it's not legal - maybe you wont be ticketed or sited but you can be asked to leave and must depart. You do not have a 'legal right' to be on private property simply because it lacks the critera for tresspass in the above clause.
> 
> ferg....


Now you're asking for me to prove a negative.
You're not going to find a law that says it's ok to enter un-posted private land.
But you are correct if you did enter my un-posted, non-farm woodlot and I asked you to leave and not come back that would make any re-entry by you a criminal trespass. (possibly tough to prove unless witnesses heard me tell you though)


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

eino said:


> MI. law says if the property isn't posted or fenced or a field obviously being used for agriculture it's legal to enter.


Completely and utterly false. When remarks like this one are made, there will always be a few impressionable souls, as well as those who are optimistically looking for a way to trespass, who may believe it, which leads to more lawlessness.

MI's Recreational Trespass Law has probably been posted here, about what, 600+ times? "Farms" include not just obvious crop fields, but pasture land, CRP ground, orchards, pumpkin patches, barnyards, etc. _as well as any woodlots adjacent to farm land_; in other words, practically everywhere in rural southern Michigan that is not public land.


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

> MI. law says if the property isn't posted or fenced or a field obviously being used for agriculture it's legal to enter. There might be a little more to it but that's it in a nut shell.


I'm sure this is like adding gas to a fire but someone (rhymes with 'dead toast') has made the above assertion on TV. So if anyone needs an attorney?


----------



## eino (Jun 19, 2003)

I did hear "rhymes with dead toast" say that. But it was a DNR rep. who told me if it isn't posted I'm safe until asked to leave. BTW I am not quoeting anyone. I said that was it in a nut shell. I don't have a transcript of the phone call. As far as wood lots joining feilds or orchards or whatever else is being grown(wich I thought saying agriculture would cover all of it), I hunt Dansville SGA. There are alot of fields that have crops being raised in them that are state owned and leagle to hunt. If I'm walking through state land and approach a field that is not posted I assume it to be state land. There is a spot near Heuges lake that is a good example. There are several small plots of corn being grown that is state land. Up near Dexter trail there is a posted field rite next to a state owned field. When your comming through the woods you can see it's posted. If the land owner didn't post it how would I know to stay off it?

Ed


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

answerguy8 said:


> Now you're asking for me to prove a negative.
> You're not going to find a law that says it's ok to enter un-posted private land.
> But you are correct if you did enter my un-posted, non-farm woodlot and I asked you to leave and not come back that would make any re-entry by you a criminal trespass. (possibly tough to prove unless witnesses heard me tell you though)


Then you and I are both on the same page - 

ferg....


----------



## rfwood (Jan 8, 2004)

Missouri has this law and it seems to work for my property,there has been
no defacing of my painted trees or fence post.
Regardless how your land is posted, if law enforcement does not take
trespass as a serious violation then nothing will be effective.
I still find it hard to believe that people do not know when they are
on land they know is PRIVATE PROPERTY, if you do not pay the taxes, stay
off or get WRITTEN permission to be there !!!!!!!!!!!!

dick


----------



## Moron (Dec 31, 2001)

rfwood said:


> Missouri has this law and it seems to work for my property,there has been
> no defacing of my painted trees or fence post.
> Regardless how your land is posted, if law enforcement does not take
> trespass as a serious violation then nothing will be effective.
> ...


  
If my fading memory serves me right, it's seems like about 20 some years ago Michigan passed a law that one had to be in possession of writen permission to hunt anothers land whether it was posted or not.

Seems there was some controverary about the written permission part because so many landowners didn't like the chance of liabilty that went with written permission and it was waived. I was not aware that unless you posted your land it meant it was open to hunting and tresspassing. Common sense would make me think permission would be needed to use anything belonging to someone else.


----------



## eino (Jun 19, 2003)

Can you always be sure of where your at if it's not posted? Maybe I just don't have enough common sense to know. It is the land owners burden to let it be known the land is private property. In the example given above in the post about the Dansville area...How would I know to keep my butt off the private land that abuts public land if it were not posted in some way? The two fields beside it are public.
I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I'm curious as to why some think people can always know when land is private.

Ed


----------



## Biggamehunter73 (May 15, 2005)

Purple will such a great color for our woods Hope it works for people.....


----------



## Moron (Dec 31, 2001)

eino said:


> Can you always be sure of where your at if it's not posted? Maybe I just don't have enough common sense to know. It is the land owners burden to let it be known the land is private property. In the example given above in the post about the Dansville area...How would I know to keep my butt off the private land that abuts public land if it were not posted in some way? The two fields beside it are public.
> I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I'm curious as to why some think people can always know when land is private.
> 
> Ed


I understand your point, but when a landowner accepts this burden and posts his land, all slobs would have to do is tear down the signs on the way in to avoid prosecution. Bearing this in mind there has to be some responsibility of hunters to know the area they're hunting, otherwise the landowners can never succeed in fullfilling this burden.
With the availability of plot maps, it's not that hard to know where you are. Having them beforehand is also a great way to find areas that are public and who to go to for possible permission on land that isn't.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

eino said:


> Can you always be sure of where your at if it's not posted? It is the land owners burden to let it be known the land is private property. In the example given above in the post about the Dansville area...How would I know to keep my butt off the private land that abuts public land if it were not posted in some way? The two fields beside it are public.
> I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I'm curious as to why some think people can always know when land is private.


If you wonder why I worry about the future of hunting, look no further than this thread.

All of us hunters (less than 6% of the population) need to act as goodwill ambassadors for hunting in our actions that may be observed by the vast non-hunting majority. That means taking responsibility for knowing precisely where the property ownership boundaries lie in any area in which you choose to hunt. The old "I didn't know I wandered off of state land" excuse sounds pathetically self-serving to anyone that listens to it, particularly to a landowner who has heard it more than once.

In this day and age, it has never been easier to ascertain where those property boundaries lie. Plat books are abundantly available, and are now updated more frequently than they used to be. The DNR publishes maps of all SGA's (Dansville) and SRA's which are available for _free_. Combining a township plat with an aerial image (available for _free_ in numerous places on the web) and some rudimentary navigational skills allow the hunter to know property boundaries with a fair degree of confidence. 

As a hunter, you owe it to the rest of us in the hunting community to know where you happen to be plodding around, and not to traverse there unless you are reasonably certain you're either on public land or on property you have permission to be upon.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

farmlegend said:


> If you wonder why I worry about the future of hunting, look no further than this thread.
> 
> All of us hunters (less than 6% of the population) need to act as goodwill ambassadors for hunting in our actions that may be observed by the vast non-hunting majority. That means taking responsibility for knowing precisely where the property ownership boundaries lie in any area in which you choose to hunt. The old "I didn't know I wandered off of state land" excuse sounds pathetically self-serving to anyone that listens to it, particularly to a landowner who has heard it more than once.
> 
> ...


     

Somebody cast that in stone !!!!

ferg....


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

eino said:


> It is the land owners burden to let it be known the land is private property.
> Ed


That is just crazy..... It is YOUR responsibility to know where you are at all times. Is your yard posted ? No ? so if I come along and put up my tent to spent theweekend on your lawn and your not home to give me the boot, that's OK ? You are just trying to justify trespassing in your mind. Pirvate land is private. Stay off. If you don't know don't go. Ignorance is no excuse.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Oops, Lucky Dog used the yard analogy, no sense double posting the analogy.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I sure like the paint idea. I won't have to replace the signs that the public land guys tear down every year.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

DAMN how am I gonna get by the paint thing on Bobs property :lol: I agree with the If you don't know don't go idea as we pretty much know where we are and if it is private public or what. But I have learned more and more with fishing lately if it is non navigable you are tresspassing even by parking on the edge of the road to fish a culvert or bridge  You can get tresspass ticket as well as illegally parking ticket.

AW


----------



## Moron (Dec 31, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> I sure like the paint idea. I won't have to replace the signs that the public land guys tear down every year.


----------

