U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Rural and Small Town Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Where would you rather live (see thread)?
#1 24 58.54%
#2 17 41.46%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2012, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Northern MN
3,869 posts, read 13,332,685 times
Reputation: 3581

Advertisements

You need to go and reread my post and sources.
It does pertain to my land a business and AG.
??? post up something to back up your position.
Post some law or belief that does.
Get that brain working.

If you want to get into the fie print of posting.
Lets say yesterday I made sure my land was in compliance. Posted no trespassing, T's crossed I's doted. every 500ft can see the next sign etc etc and 3 in the field(center line)
signed, dated, address, Phone number so you could call for permission.

Now you come along and say Wtf this wasn't posted last week, Sob@#$ and rip those signs down.
No one owns the land.


I don't have to re-post it for one year and my land is still considered "posted" by the LAW.
You come along tomorrow, as I'm in the area and I catch you, as soon as you refuse to go back the way you came and refuse to stay out, we now have a problem.

I use my land and I don't want to be watching for out you. I'm not posting it to be a land hog.
I bought it because I need it.
With money I earned, so I could make more money.



PSSST ...A lot of AG land is privately owned.
Your Q was about all land it didn't exclude AG.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
That's for agricultural land, not forested land as makes up the majority of NE MN.

You need to post your property to keep people out of it, unless it's agricultural (or within the seven-county metropolitan area). Otherwise, they have no way of knowing that you do not want them on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2012, 08:29 PM
 
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
DNR: 95 structures have been destroyed by Mich. wildfire, including 34 homes or cabins | The Republic

We have 500 acres in Luce county.

From what I hear about 40% of it was in the fire.

I know they foamed the house.....friends went in the took the trophy mounts.

They can not be replaced......all eles is insured.

Hubby is leaving in the AM to look things over.
There is always more to shoot for the wall. Right?

Karma...

OD
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 10:50 PM
 
Location: CasaMo
15,594 posts, read 7,667,071 times
Reputation: 17168
I don't allow unauthorized entry. Any decent individual would either call or knock on my door and ask. If they don't have the common respect to do either of those, forget it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 11:28 AM
 
24,841 posts, read 32,894,325 times
Reputation: 11471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend View Post
There is always more to shoot for the wall. Right?

Karma...

OD
Yep......and and an insurance claim to top it off.

All those tress have value.

BTW....we eat what we kill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:23 PM
 
2,878 posts, read 3,927,056 times
Reputation: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
Yep......and and an insurance claim to top it off.

All those tress have value.

BTW....we eat what we kill.
Yeah, I saw how you do it too from that coon in the cage video you posted in that other thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:43 PM
 
24,841 posts, read 32,894,325 times
Reputation: 11471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend View Post
Yeah, I saw how you do it too from that coon in the cage video you posted in that other thread.
The coons we kill are still in the food chain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,779 posts, read 6,691,169 times
Reputation: 8313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
Neither is particularly appealing.

The problem I have with unrestricted access is that it's impossible to enforce "respectful" use of my land. And, since my livelihood is intertwined with the health of my land, one disrespectful user can cost me a significant amount of income and a significant increase in headaches.

It used to be much like #2 up here as well, but landowners had a lot of issues with people driving through pasture and ripping up grass, leaving gates open, harassing livestock, etc. Posting became a necessary precaution to protect your land from misuse.

While I generally have no issue with people being on my land, I don't feel bad for requiring some sort of reassurance that they're not going to wreck the place. Most landowners here are of the same mind as myself. There's a lot of "No hunting/access without permission signs". Generally, all it takes to gain access is a quick phone call. Even if land isn't posted, I usually call or visit anyway, as it's polite and appreciated. It's a good way to make friends, too.

Of course, there are also vast amounts of crown (public) land fairly nearby accessible to anyone, as well.
I have to agree with this - I prefer people to ask before they are on land. It's a courtesy thing, and there may be actual reasons that they don't know, why they shouldn't be on the land.

But I'm not going to shoot anyone or threaten to shoot anyone for stepping on my land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Petticoat Junction
930 posts, read 1,666,069 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
a minority claiming that land ownership is really theft.
Most of this minority can be found in socialist/former socialist/Communist countries. Funny that now they are over here, telling us how our system aint so hot. Your opinion is noted.

Quote:

What I want to ask now, is would you rather live in a rural environment where:

1) ALL land is posted and NOBODY trespasses, even when trails cross various property lines. There is a very ingrained custom of respecting absolutely the owner's sole right of access to his land.
so ingrained, you might almost call it 'the law.'

Quote:

2) Although land is owned by private individuals, NO land is posted, and neighbors "trespass" respectfully by mutual custom - for example, without littering, cutting down trees, going (avoidably) within view of houses, etc. People use common sense in their use of others' property. The only time when trespassing is not accepted is during deer hunting season in November. Putting up "no trespassing" signs would mark you as an unwelcome newcomer.

Invalid premise. You just assume that trespassers all tread lightly and cause no damage as they go. Often a false assumption.

Assuming all trespassers are 'neighbors.' - doubtful. My 'neighbors' would ask first.

You address no legal/liability issues here, either.

You guys always like to couch things in the 'what would you RATHER like to see?' 'What if EVERYONE used common sense?' Those are utopian scenarios best suited for the student-lounge of any university liberal-arts department. Most of us live in reality.

Quote:

It used to be #2 up here in Northern Minnesota until about ten years ago. Most land surrounding my house was owned by the power company or the county, and despite being in constant use, with evidence (well-worn trails), by four-wheelers, dirt bikes, horses, they did nothing to stop it. Even individual owners did little to prevent trespassers. For example, we drove our four-wheelers and dirt bikes all the time in an awesome large gravel excavation pit. We did nothing to interfere with those who were actually excavating - and riders often chatted with the owner.

However, property changed hands and now one who obeys no trespassing signs is confined to their own property.
I'm sorry you lost your riding-pit but that is their right. They paid for it.

Did you know that many public lands include ATV-riding trails? It's a fact.
Quote:



So, what would you rather have, #1 or #2?

(In the State of Minnesota, just because a plot of rural, non-agricultural land is privately owned does not mean it is assumed that access is prohibited; rather, the owner has to explicitly restrict access by posting "NO TRESPASSING" signs, and according to strict state regulations. Even with the "NO TRESPASSING" signs up, one has to have had prior contact with the trespasser/s to be able to press trespassing charges on them, as far as I know)
I agree that it is incumbent on the landowner to properly post his/her land. But that takes the excuses away from the day-trippers.

By the way, still haven't seen an answer to the 'can I walk through your house?' question that many have posed. Guess that isn't forthcoming, is it?

But to your point, when you personally guarantee that every trespasser who may cross my land in the future forever more will never damage anything and will always treat my land with the utmost respect, then I will agree to remove my signs. Deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,779 posts, read 6,691,169 times
Reputation: 8313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
A simple question I asked about individuals posting their property devolved into a war between the majority, who said that THEY paid for the land, therefore NOBODY should be on it uninvited, and a minority claiming that land ownership is really theft.

Enough with that.

What I want to ask now, is would you rather live in a rural environment where:

1) ALL land is posted and NOBODY trespasses, even when trails cross various property lines. There is a very ingrained custom of respecting absolutely the owner's sole right of access to his land.

or

2) Although land is owned by private individuals, NO land is posted, and neighbors "trespass" respectfully by mutual custom - for example, without littering, cutting down trees, going (avoidably) within view of houses, etc. People use common sense in their use of others' property. The only time when trespassing is not accepted is during deer hunting season in November. Putting up "no trespassing" signs would mark you as an unwelcome newcomer.

It used to be #2 up here in Northern Minnesota until about ten years ago. Most land surrounding my house was owned by the power company or the county, and despite being in constant use, with evidence (well-worn trails), by four-wheelers, dirt bikes, horses, they did nothing to stop it. Even individual owners did little to prevent trespassers. For example, we drove our four-wheelers and dirt bikes all the time in an awesome large gravel excavation pit. We did nothing to interfere with those who were actually excavating - and riders often chatted with the owner.

However, property changed hands and now one who obeys no trespassing signs is confined to their own property.

So, what would you rather have, #1 or #2?

(In the State of Minnesota, just because a plot of rural, non-agricultural land is privately owned does not mean it is assumed that access is prohibited; rather, the owner has to explicitly restrict access by posting "NO TRESPASSING" signs, and according to strict state regulations. Even with the "NO TRESPASSING" signs up, one has to have had prior contact with the trespasser/s to be able to press trespassing charges on them, as far as I know)
After mucking out the barn, I decided I wanted to add something else to this thread - I think what you're missing is that the point in scenario number 1 was "by mutual consent." Mutual consent doesn't have to mean that a person has to ask each and every time they cross someone's land in a non-invasive way if it is mutually consented to in a prior conversation that you'd like to cross land in a certain way, at various times.

If I trust a person, I'd have no problem with giving permission.

But what you're missing in both scenarios is that the owner of the land is entitled to be illogical by virtue of the fact that he is the one who owns the land. He can be a complete a-hole about his land. It's generally his right. Generally, though, in these parts, being a complete jerk about one's land is not being a good neighbour. There is a fine line here between property rights and not being known as the jerk who won't let anyone snowmobile ever on land that won't be hurt by it.

The jerks are usually the new people who are brand new to landownership, own a teeny bit of land, and seem to think everyone else wants it without realizing they look like a chihuahua against the real farmers here.

Funny true story - my dad is a big chicken farmer who farms here - some city guy managed to buy a very small chicken farm and was always asking my dad for advice. My dad discovered that this guy had actually been living in the entrance to his chicken barn, complete with a rifle, he was so convinced that the minute he went off the property (he lived in the city) that someone would steal his chickens? Burn his barn? Not sure what he thought. But I digress...

That's why permission to cross or use land is a courtesy that should be asked for.

In your example of the power company - in this day and age, if I were the power company, I too would allow absolutely no trespassing, no exceptions because if I didn't, and someone got hurt, guess who would be sued? People especially threaten to sue where they think there is money.

The snotty little kid (around 10ish at the time) from town who had walked his way into the quarter section middle of our land where one of our dogs was hunting mice on the newly harvested field to pet her and was snapped at - not bitten, not scratched, but snapped at - told my husband who had made his way over there to see who was on the land, that he would shoot the dog next time he saw him out on our field.

My husband threatened to whip his ass and then told his father about the incident, and he was equally a jerk. It only takes one of those to spoil it for everyone.

Conversely, I've given permission to people to ride their horses on our land when the harvesting is done, and not on the alfalfa fields. They don't have to ask each and every time. I sometimes see kids from the trailer court at the edge of our land walking on our land. I stop and make small talk with them, and tell them not to walk on it until after it is harvested.

But it would be nice - courteous - if their parents asked us if it was okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2012, 03:32 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,853 posts, read 30,807,731 times
Reputation: 22404
I'm a #1 kinda gal, through and through.

What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. I will respect YOUR property and all I ask is that you do the same.

20yrsinbranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Rural and Small Town Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top