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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2011, 11:45 PM
 
77 posts, read 72,268 times
Reputation: 174

Advertisements

I respect the rights of property owners and understand there might be a need for NO TRESPASSING signs for some places, but I still hate those damned signs. I hate what has happened to the countryside in the past 40 years. I hate to think what it will be like in another 40.

We'd be able to meander widely.

When faced with no trespassing signs, we'd ask permission (to explore, shoot our 22's)... I don't remember being denied.

This doesn't represent my beliefs, but I always got a kick from this verse in Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land".


"As I went walking I saw a sign there

And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."

But on the other side nothing was written,


That side was made for you and me."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Location: North Western NJ
6,591 posts, read 21,265,128 times
Reputation: 9608
i just bought 4 1/2 acres in the middle of nowhere and WILL be putting basic no trespassing signs up at the advice of the local law and my insurance agent..
NOT becausei dont like people (i realy dont but thats anothe rmatter lol)
but for liability reasons...
1: somoene walks onto my property and injures themselves, no sign = im liable for personal injury...with a sign though all responsibility on my part is removed!
2: i plan on adding livstock and have pets, i dont want any stray hunters shooting one of my animals, nor do i want to get sued because someone jumped the fence and got bitten by an LGD...no signs = im liable...even 1 sign removes responsibility should something happen to someone on my propertly without permission.

or me personally its not a case of keeping people out...
its a case of protecting myself, my home and my land...
should someone fall on my land and hurt themselves they have the legal ability to sue and take EVERYTHING i have from me...its insanity but it happens, regularly...
by putting up a couple of no tresspassing signs im simply protecting myself from the idiots who ruin it for everyone...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Northern MN
3,869 posts, read 13,328,434 times
Reputation: 3581
Premises liability law is different than land liability.


Q. Is posting no trespassing signs required to protect landowners from liability?

A. No. Whether the property is posted or not, the General Obligations Law protects landowners from liability for non-paying recreationalists on their property. Because of this protection, recreational liability lawsuits against rural landowners are uncommon. Recreational activities covered include: hunting; fishing; organized gleaning (picking); canoeing; boating; trapping; hiking; cross-country skiing; tobogganing; sledding; speleological (caving) activities; horseback riding; bicycle riding; hang gliding; motorized vehicle operation for recreation; snowmobiling; non-commercial wood cutting or gathering; and dog training. This protection does not apply in cases of willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against dangers.
Trespassing: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

in Mississippi a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser except to not willfully or wantonly injure him. In other words, don=t shoot or assault a trespasser. If he
is trespassing, he has no right to be there and you don't owe him a duty to look out for his well-being.


The Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957 was the first law created that held the landowner responsible for the injuries. The act determined that for the landowner to be held responsible for the injury there had to be a defective or dangerous condition of the property that was the cause of the injury. In other words, the landowner must be neglectful and leave their property in a dangerous condition in order to be held accountable for occupiers’ liability. This act also made the distinction between a visitor and a trespasser and only gave the right to compensation to the visitors. They defined a visitor as someone who had been granted, expressed or implied, permission to be on the property.
After much debate this law was decided that it did not go far enough to protect the injured person so the Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1984 was enacted. This act was designed to now include trespassers to be able to receive compensation if injured. This act also added more detail to how neglectful the occupier must be in order to be held responsible. It states that in order to be held accountable under occupiers’ liability, the occupier must know, or should have known, that the danger existed before the person was injured, and that they must also know that the person is near the danger and does not warn them of the risk. This act determined that a person expects a certain level of protection when they are on someone else’s property.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: CS/HB 553 Trespass
This bill provides that posting may be
accomplished by conspicuous purple paint marks that are:
• Vertical lines at least 1 inch in width and at least 8 inches in length.
• Placed so that the bottom of the mark is between 3 and 5 feet from the ground.
• Readily visible and no more than 1,000 feet apart.
Between October 1, 2007, and October 1, 2009, a landowner using purple paint markings for posting of
land must also place signs wherever entry to the land would normally be expected. The signs must
explain that the purple markings mean "no trespassing."

http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/ses...h0553c.PBC.pdf



In the Unites States, a landowner can sometimes be held liable for certain occurrences on the owner land.
One should not presume that the property owner is liable for anything and everything that might occur on the property.

Limited duty. An owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant of premises does not have a duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational or harvesting activities or to give warning of any hazardous condition, use, structure or activity on these premises to persons entering for those purposes. This subsection applies regardless of whether the owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant has given permission to another to pursue recreational or harvesting activities on the premises. Permissive use. An owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant who gives permission to another to pursue recreational or harvesting activities on the premises does not thereby:


A. Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for those purposes;

B. Make the person to whom permission is granted an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or

C. Assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of persons to whom the permission is granted.

4. Limitations on section. This section does not limit the liability that would otherwise exist:

A. For a willful or malicious failure to guard or to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity;

B. For an injury suffered in any case where permission to pursue any recreational or harvesting activities was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to the following: Landowner Liability Law
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 01:56 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 37,767,031 times
Reputation: 12782
Check the local laws.

My preference are two I've seen online:

"Warning, dog has gun and refuses to take his meds."

"You are not lost, you are trespassing, leave immedately, NOW!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Over the Rainbow...
5,963 posts, read 10,869,710 times
Reputation: 3151
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxywench View Post
i just bought 4 1/2 acres in the middle of nowhere and WILL be putting basic no trespassing signs up at the advice of the local law and my insurance agent..
NOT becausei dont like people (i realy dont but thats anothe rmatter lol)
but for liability reasons...
1: somoene walks onto my property and injures themselves, no sign = im liable for personal injury...with a sign though all responsibility on my part is removed!
2: i plan on adding livstock and have pets, i dont want any stray hunters shooting one of my animals, nor do i want to get sued because someone jumped the fence and got bitten by an LGD...no signs = im liable...even 1 sign removes responsibility should something happen to someone on my propertly without permission.

or me personally its not a case of keeping people out...
its a case of protecting myself, my home and my land...
should someone fall on my land and hurt themselves they have the legal ability to sue and take EVERYTHING i have from me...its insanity but it happens, regularly...
by putting up a couple of no tresspassing signs im simply protecting myself from the idiots who ruin it for everyone...

I like that house...cozy. Is that another house right next door? Or maybe a garage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 12:44 PM
 
1 posts, read 5,818 times
Reputation: 10
Each state has different requirements. In Washington state you can find out the exact requirements at the same place you get a hunting or fishing license.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2015, 07:30 AM
 
769 posts, read 653,992 times
Reputation: 1492
Heres a thought for everyone who hates signs in a rural area.

I own 13 acres in a rural area.

I don't have any signs up.

Last saturday, I went up to my property with my 2 year old daughter.

went walking towards the middle of the land, we have a trail we chainsawed there, and guess what I see ?

I Deer hunter's bright orange chair, rifle rack, and other stuff. No deer hunter in sight though.

really ? I would hate to see what happens to a deer hunter if I heard a bullet fly on my land with my daughter there.


I guess, now the signs have to come up ... otherwise I'll have 10 deer hunters ravaging through MY property that I paid $38,000 for, and pay $600 a year in taxes for walking around everywhere .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Western Colorado
11,288 posts, read 12,819,784 times
Reputation: 27010
I live on 10 acres next to national forest land. I HAVE to have private property keep out signs. Even with those, I stumble on hunters and others wandering on MY property. "Oh I didn't know this was private property" even though you had to climb over barbed wire to get inside. On my gate I have an old US Government Property Keep Out sign with a fake camera on a pole. Now that has turned a few heads.

I just use the standard signs found at Home Depot and Walmart along the fence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Virginia
4,303 posts, read 2,246,371 times
Reputation: 12332
I have a small lakefront property in a subdivision; it just has a cabin-style shed on it (I live about half an hour away). The lot is at the end of a cul de sac that has only one full-time property owner directly across from it - the other two homes at the end of the street are owned by "summer people". When I had the shed installed I put "No Trespassing" signs on both the structure and the trees, because it is a custom structure and because I maintain my property, unlike my full-time neighbors. Yet I routinely find beer bottles and other debris on my property when I go there, which ticks me off big time. I'm sure it's people in the development who want to fish from the banks, but hey - they can buy their own waterfront lot! I'm planning to install a trail camera in the shed to catch trespassers, and I WILL prosecute them for breaking the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,689 posts, read 8,141,621 times
Reputation: 13617
Some things I have learned living in Montana and Wyoming:
The two states are VERY different regarding streams; in Montana, you can walk the stream and fish within the high water marks. In Wyoming, the land owner owns the stream bed. ALL of the stream bed.
In both states, so I have been told, if you want to hunt on YOUR land, do not post it "No hunting allowed". Post it "No Hunting Without Permission". If it is posted "No Hunting", a game warden just might give you a ticket even though you own the land! If it is posted "No Hunting Without Permission", you can give or withhold permission to/from anybody at your own whim.
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 12:03 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