# Tresspassing



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Can per person be prosecuted for Tresspassing if your private land in NOT posted????

ferg.....


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

My understanding is that a person HUNTING has to have a warning first before they can be prosecuted for trespassing. Now if the violator shoots a deer, then it changes things. 

I could be wrong.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

No tresspassing sign posted on your property considered 'a warning' ? Like racking a round into a shotgun is a warning shot....

ferg....


----------



## The Mutt (Jan 6, 2002)

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)


Act 451 of 1994

324.73102 Entering or remaining on property of another; consent; exceptions. 
Sec. 73102. 

(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon the property of another person, other than farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property, to engage in any recreational activity or trapping on that property without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, if either of the following circumstances exists: 

(a) The property is fenced or enclosed and is maintained in such a manner as to exclude intruders. 

(b) The property is posted in a conspicuous manner against entry. The minimum letter height on the posting signs shall be 1 inch. Each posting sign shall be not less than 50 square inches, and the signs shall be spaced to enable a person to observe not less than 1 sign at any point of entry upon the property. 


(2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property for any recreational activity or trapping without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, whether or not the farm property or wooded area connected to farm property is fenced, enclosed, or posted. 

(3) On fenced or posted property or farm property, a fisherman wading or floating a navigable public stream may, without written or oral consent, enter upon property within the clearly defined banks of the stream or, without damaging farm products, walk a route as closely proximate to the clearly defined bank as possible when necessary to avoid a natural or artificial hazard or obstruction, including, but not limited to, a dam, deep hole, or a fence or other exercise of ownership by the riparian owner. 

(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively. 

(5) Consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person pursuant to this section may be given orally or in writing. The consent may establish conditions for entering or remaining upon that property. Unless prohibited in the written consent, a written consent may be amended or revoked orally. If the owner or his or her lessee or agent requires all persons entering or remaining upon the property to have written consent, the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry. 


History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;--Am. 1998, Act 546, Eff. Mar. 23, 1999 .

Popular Name: Act 451

Popular Name: Recreational Trespass Act


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Thanks Mutt - I suppose that I have to define 'farm' now - I have an 'old farm' - that has been in sucsession for a great many years - it is not fenced or posted, however, I'm not sure that it would be 'classified' as a farm - there ARE old farm implements rusting about - 

So from reading this - it would be legal for someone to be on my property without permission? OR without me spacificaly telling them that they were not allowed? 

I think I'm 

 

ferg....


----------



## The Mutt (Jan 6, 2002)

Not sure Ferg but it seems to me that this line *the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry* would mean that unless a person has written permission then they are tresspassing.

Hopefully Ray will stop by and clarify it for you.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

that - but at the very begining of the sentance there is the word 'If' - which, i suppose, you could say - 'I didn't know that written permission was required' - and get off the hook for the first time - 

I think I'll get some signs up - just to CYA.


ferg....


----------



## flinch (Aug 10, 2003)

I think the signs are a good idea. It is my understanding that without them, someone could only be prosecuted after you have given them a warning to stay out. I read the rules and the only exceptions seem to be to retrieve a dog. Whether or not written permission is needed is a mute point since they would be trespassing and would never have been given permission verbally or otherwise anyway. Although it doesn't specifically say it, I believe subsection 5 probably helps with prosecution. It ends those "you gave me permission", "no I didn't" arguments if you require everyone to carry written permission on your land.


----------



## flinch (Aug 10, 2003)

I'd like to add that I don't believe the one warning rule is the law, its simply how these things tend to work out. Kick them out but document as best you can. A video camera would be ideal, or at least a camera, and try to get other info like a license plate. Then if they come back you basically have built a case against them.


----------



## Robert W. McCoy Jr (Jan 18, 2002)

The racking a round in the chamber would probably not be the best thing to do even though I know it is frustrating.


You need to do as you say CYA. Let the LEO handle those guys.


----------



## wild bill (Apr 20, 2001)

i wish michigan would go with the painting of trees,fence posts or markers as a sign of property boundries. that way people would not be able to remove the signs.


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

I had these same problems, ... I had gone to some detail in another thread here about what happened. But the short of it is this....

My neighbor tore down all of my rear property line fencing so I rectified the problem with a complete New one!!










The county sheriff knows the whole story and if you check out the signs you will notice that they are U-Bolted on. If they do come off someones in BIG trouble!!


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

I agree with you on the tree painting. I hunted Virginia a couple times for turkeys. The silver paint on the trees was visable for a long distance even thru the thick woods. Left no doubt where the property lines were.
The painted trees sure looked a lot better along the roads than all the signs on the trees here in Michigan. Most of the popular orange signs [5x7 inches] aren't legal signs in Michigan.


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

7MM Mag,


It's a darn shame that you have to go to so much effort to keep trespassers off your property.

Gary


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

Yes, ... I know I had to redo the whole rear end of 80 acres


----------



## wild bill (Apr 20, 2001)

when we hunted missouri last year they use purple paint and it stands out great. theres no second guessing where the property lines are.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Paint does have it's faults too.

Basically for Rereational Trespass, property must be posted or fenced or the person told to stay out unless it farmland or adjacent wood lots (farmland means an active farm).

I agree that it is a shame that one has to do so much work to keep others off their property, I've complained about it for 23 years.


----------

