Posting Land/Handling Trespassers and Neighbors

[walleye365]

Like I said if its not yours if you don't have permission to be there stay out. Its not about any state statue or laws its about respect of others property.

[aanderud]

^^^that's very open minded of you.

I look at my property in a similar manner as my living room. If I came home to find a stranger sitting on my couch I wouldn't be happy...if I'm walking my land and find a trespasser, I'm just as unhappy.

That's great that you look at your property as similar to your living room, just that the law doesn't agree with you. Simple solution is to put a sign up, and now fair warning has been given that it's not allowed on your land. Since it makes you that unhappy, I'll assume you must have it posted by now, since that will probably discourage a good 99% of folks from trespassing on it. The rest, you can prosecute to your heart's content.

I'm not saying I'll be out hunting on non-posted land without permission -- but I am saying that I have no problem with other folks doing it, since it's within the law. It's pretty easy to solve the 'problem' that you have by putting up a sign that says no trespassing. Should reduce your frequency of unhappiness greatly.

[smsmith]

That's great that you look at your property as similar to your living room, just that the law doesn't agree with you. Simple solution is to put a sign up, and now fair warning has been given that it's not allowed on your land. Since it makes you that unhappy, I'll assume you must have it posted by now, since that will probably discourage a good 99% of folks from trespassing on it. The rest, you can prosecute to your heart's content.

I'm not saying I'll be out hunting on non-posted land without permission -- but I am saying that I have no problem with other folks doing it, since it's within the law. It's pretty easy to solve the 'problem' that you have by putting up a sign that says no trespassing. Should reduce your frequency of unhappiness greatly.

Yup...if noticed earlier in the thread I've stated a few times that I've posted my place. I struggle mightily with the concept of walking on another person's land without permission, just as I'd struggle with walking into another person's home who left the door open or unlocked...but as you stated...we all have opinions/feelings on various subjects.

[brittman]

The laws for the MN woods are designed to allow access to lands that are not posted to trespass or hunting. While many of you are focusing on land owned by individuals ... remember that banks and other companies own land up north too. Potlach, Blandin, EXCEL, assorted banks (investments and foreclosure) own land. Many of these companies do not care if hunters use property not being logged or actively used for other purposes (well unless leased aka Potlach).

Add in county (often tax forfeited), state and US own land often inter-dispersed in a patch work basis.

If you are a private land owner and do not want unauthorized access on your land ... POST IT. You most post it once per year. Take a photo or two. If the signs disappear - your land remains legally posted for that year.

The new law on a trespasser having to wait one full year before returning was created to empower the land owner to prosecute the trespasser.

Follow the laws as written or go to your congressman and ask them to introduce a bill for change.

Every state is different and MN, ND, SD, IA, and WI all have vastly different laws on posting, hunting and trespass. You should know the laws for the state you are hunting.

[BLACKJACK]

You most post it once per year. Take a photo or two. If the signs disappear - your land remains legally posted for that year.

I don't understand that part, if you put out good signs on good posts they should last for years. Are they 'assuming' that they're going to get ripped down or taken down every year??

[not_nuf_time]

I don't think it's ridiculous at all that the default for non-agricultural land is 'open' to recreation unless posted.

Your funny Mr. Aanderud. What makes you think you could or should possibly have the right to hunt on private property that isn't posted? The taxes are likely still being paid by the owner, the property upkeep may also be getting done at another expense of the owner. OMG, the entitlement never ends. Come on jsut stop by for a swim in my pool whenever you feel. (I really don't have a pool, just making a point).

[Vikings_59]

I agree BlackJack, having to re-post signs is a pain. I keep the same signs up but change the date each year. Make sure they are "presentable" so people can clearly see them.

I busted a trespasser 2 years ago via trail camera and turned the guy into the DNR. I kicked him out of our woods 2 years in a row and had enough after he was hunting with no blaze orange during the 3rd year. The DNR came out, took the picture and went to his house and cited him. MN trespass laws are written to "favor" the trespasser as there are MANY loop-holes. Post each corner of the land parcel, sign, date and take a picture of the Sign with the date on it. According to the CO that came to our house, Farm land (agricultural use) is an immediate trespass offense if you do not have permission, even if its not posted but they have to be caught on the farm land. Wooded land needs to be fully posted for the person to be cited. The one caveat to that is if the person says " I was looking for my lost dog" then they can legally be on your land until you tell them to leave.

One thing that sucks: "No trespass signs only keep the honest people honest"

[aanderud]

Your funny Mr. Aanderud. What makes you think you could or should possibly have the right to hunt on private property that isn't posted?

The law, I guess, is what makes me think that I have the right (I don't actually hunt, but if I did I'd have the right). Apparently some outdoors enthusiasts have thought about this and the lawmakers agreed that there's more benefit to leaving it open by default, with the OPTION for the landowner to close it with a simple signage.

My guess is that this was chosen so that the millions of acres tied up in corporate or trust holdings can be used by sportsmen like yourself unless/until someone explicitly posts them as closed to hunting and trespassing. I'd say for that reason alone, I think the law as it's written now is better than the other way. There's a net benefit to sportsmen here, but you seem to be quite insulted by the idea that it's a good thing.

With the current wording of the law, it's easy for you to get what you want -- post signs up and presto, nobody can hunt your land without your permission.

As to viking, who talks of there being too many "loopholes" -- to me it doesn't seem that complicated. Not sure what exactly you're calling a 'loophole'. If you need help simply ask any 4th grader to read you the definition of legally posted land, and follow those instructions and you'll have a pretty airtight trespassing case against anyone who ignores those signs. Once posted legally, your land is now off limits. Sounds like you've done this, so I don't know what other loopholes exist. Can you expand on that?

Does the lost dog thing bother you that much? Or is it the ability to retrieve downed game (again without a gun)? Do you think there are hunters lined up all over your property line waiting to get onto your property WITHOUT a gun to retrieve either injured game or dogs? And even if there are folks lined up trying to get their dogs, why would it benefit you to tell them no? Do you want their dogs running on your property? Or, if your dog ran off onto private land, would you prefer that the law is on your side and you can go get the mutt, or would you rather have to track down the lawyer in charge of the trust that owns the land, who may reside in a different time zone or even a different country, just so you can get your dog?

No law will every have 100% of folks following it. You're going to have some fraction of folks who ignore the law and come on your property whether it's off limits by default or whether it's off limits because of your signage. People break laws all the time -- and ignoring a no-trespassing sign IS breaking a law. That's not a 'loophole', that's just life.

[delcecchi]

Just imagine back in the day, driving around Pine County maybe east of Askov. Mile after mile of woods, few to no houses, maybe a few shacks. No GPS had been invented. The land is a mix of private property, county tax forfeit land, and maybe some state land.

Unless each private parcel is posted with the name of the property owner and signed by them, how is a guy supposed to know which land can be used for hunting or hiking or berry picking? Plat map? pretty tough to know which parcel you are looking at. So make it all open unless the owner cares enough to put up a few signs. If the owner doesn't care enough to put up the signs, it must not matter to them very much if you go on their property.

Ag land with fences or cultivation and farmhouses etc is pretty easy to tell. Signs not necessary.

That's my take on it.

[Vikings_59]

aanderud,

I agree, for people who “get it” it's not hard to understand.

But it really comes down to; Stay off land that isn't yours and respect peoples property and land.

By loop holes, I mean that the trespasser can get away with it pretty easily. I had a trail camera get stolen off my private “posted” land in 2011 by a 29 year old “adult”. Because my signs weren’t signed and dated, though I had all 4 corners posted the CO said we wouldn’t have enough for misdemeanor trespass because of no names and dates on the sign. He could not be cited by the DNR. The following year, I got the kids dad on trail camera. No Orange, gun in his hand, signs fully posted, signed and dated. He was cited.

"Leaving land open by default" is done in North Dakota. You can hunt anywhere that isn't posted. Most hunters seem to comply and respect those rules out there. I believe the majority of the trespass issue is with HUNTERS who enter posted land. I have no issue with someone who enters land to find their dog.

I think I covered your last comment by my previous post

"No trespass signs only keep the honest people honest"

[BLACKJACK]

The dated each year part is throwing me for a loop. I copy/pasted some of the above regs for my own future reference:

( The owner, occupant, or lessee of private land, or an authorized manager of public land may prohibit outdoor recreation on the land by posting signs once each year that:

(1) state "no trespassing" or similar terms;

(2) display letters at least two inches high;

(3) either:

(i) are signed by the owner, occupant, lessee, or authorized manager; or

(ii) include the legible name and telephone number of the owner, occupant, lessee, or authorized manager; and

Now my takeaway was that you:

a) have to have 2 inch high letters

have to have your name and phone number

c) it must state 'no trespassing'

yes it does say 'each year' yet it doesn't specifically say that the date has to be on the sign.

Confusing. Can someone clarify the date thing, does it have to be on the sign??

[smsmith]

My guess is that the posting each year deal is due to antiquated language. Back when signs were mainly made out of paper, you'd have to post each year or there'd be nothing left of the signs.

[aanderud]

My guess is that the posting each year deal is due to antiquated language. Back when signs were mainly made out of paper, you'd have to post each year or there'd be nothing left of the signs.

It could also be to invalidate a permanent-ink non-faded posting from 20 years ago that a land's prior owner had put up. But blackjack is correct, nowhere in the PDF file do they mention the need to put a date on the posting itself. I wonder if a picture (with the EXIF data showing this year's date) would do if you had to prove to the judge that you still wanted the land posted this year. You could argue with the pics that you re-checked all of your signs this year, replacing only those that were necessary.

[harvey lee]

We have laminated paper and it is put on a board an attached to a gate or fence post with bolts and or screws. They last a long time. The paper ones are cheesy at best. If one is going to put up 10 signs, the cheesy will work but we put up close to 100 signs and it is very costly to do this every single year and then many are ripped down by trespassers.

I know everyone has their thoughts and mine probably differ from the majority.

Here is how I see it, if you do not own the land, do not enter and show some respect for the landowner.

I will never understand why any state would say the landowner has to post the land other than the fact the DNR wants more land to access so they force the landowners to post their land and then they have next to worthless laws and fines to get them if caught.

Why can't people simply ask to hunt??? Is it really that hard to do? It's not your land, so please respect the landowner. I do not hunt on anyone's land without asking and I typically treat the landowner very well with a gift at the end of the season for allowing us to access their land and enjoy what they own and have paid for and also pay taxes on that same property.

I have found that when you charge them with trespassing, they will remember at least in North Dakota as the fine there will hit you in the pocket pretty hard. MN, trespassing fines are a joke. May as well not even have any.

I will have them all charged from here on out, please ask, don't, it will hit your pocketbook very hard. One would be surprised at how many will trespass, not just a simple few.

Some leave gates open, cattle get out. Others leave garbage and then some simply do what ever they please, this is what ruins it for all the others in regards to accessing land. One will ask if they can hunt, then you find they have 5 of their buddy's with, they say, you gave me permission, I just brought a few friends with.

I had a few one night coon hunting, they would not leave after I asked them too, so I called the Sheriff's office, the deputy came and yes, they left with a ticket. What a bunch of fools.

[SpitnArgueDuckClub*]

Post the land and call the local sheriffs office and ask if there are two or three deputies that would like a local deer hunting spot, leave your number. When they contact you, and they will, meet them out there and show them the boundaries. Be sure to tell them they may run into an occasional friend that is hunting with a permission slip from you and that's ok; at the same time ask them to ticket any trespassers (hunters without permission slips) they come across while hunting or on patrol.

[aanderud]

I will never understand why any state would say the landowner has to post the land

As Del and I have mentioned, there are literally millions of acres of unposted land (especially true in northern Minnesota), where folks can legally hunt, pick berries, hike, bike, etc. today because of the landowner posting requirement. These lands are owned by trusts, corporations, and other landowners who are indifferent to letting these activities happen on their land. That's precisely why the state would make the law as they have, which is what you asked above. Should be fairly easy to understand, really -- millions of acres open to sportsmen, which would otherwise cost the state billions of dollars to procure. Its' a WIN for sportsmen statewide.

Hypotetical: Law changes to make unposted land illegal to access

To illustrate the point further, let's go on a hypothetical land where the law is how YOU wanted it -- the landowner does NOT have to post the land to prosecute trespassers. In this land ANY uninvited access onto private land is illegal. In the hypothetical land, those millions of unposted acres that would otherwise be open to sportsmen are now closed by default. Of those millions, a large number are never accessible, because it's literally impossible to get ahold of an owner willing or able to grant access it in many cases, even if you know who the owner is (think trusts and corporations). Other times it's just sort of de-facto off limits because you can't get ahold of the owner at the time that you're looking to gain access or you can't even easily ascertain who the owner is in some cases. So, naturally there's a cost to changing the law, and that cost is lost access to millions of acres. Maybe it's not a cost to you, because you don't use those lands -- and I don't either. But it's a cost to the residents of the state as a whole.

COST: Lost access to millions of acres for sportsmen

Now we've analyzed the cost, let's analyze the benefits and see if those outweigh the cost. What is that benefit exactly? Do you think that you'd have better luck with trespassers in hypothetical-land? I assume that in hypothetical-land, your land isn't posted. The law is written as you wanted it and doesn't require you to post it. Anyone who sets foot on it is illegally trespassing, and you have all the right to prosecute. So let's think about the consequences. First, those who would break the law in MN by hunting POSTED land will most certainly also break the law in hypothetical-land and trespass on your unposted land illegally. They're breaking the law, they don't care about the semantics and wording of it. In addition to those folks who are intentionally breaking the law, you now also have to deal with a bunch of uninformed nimwits who actually think that it's legal to hunt on your land (since it isn't posted).

So, you're stuck in the SAME BOAT either way -- you have to post the land to get reasonable compliance levels, and in BOTH cases you're going to have to deal with a small fraction of people who will still break the law. There is NO benefit.

Benefit: None

So -- to recap: you as a sportsman and you are in favor of giving away what we have today -- unimpeded access to millions of acres of land by sportsmen all across the state -- for NO benefit. Sounds like you just want to complain, to me. You can't or won't look at things objectively because you're emotionally involved. An unbiased look at cost/benefit of doing what you propose shows NO benefit and a HUGE cost.

[DTro]

[harvey lee]

Post the land and call the local sheriffs office and ask if there are two or three deputies that would like a local deer hunting spot, leave your number. When they contact you, and they will, meet them out there and show them the boundaries. Be sure to tell them they may run into an occasional friend that is hunting with a permission slip from you and that's ok; at the same time ask them to ticket any trespassers (hunters without permission slips) they come across while hunting or on patrol.

Pretty close. I have the local CO that comes out and hunts and his 2 kids also. They know the boundaries and also who else is hunting as I have printed cards of who has permission to hunt. if they do not have a card, either I get a phone call or they are charged if they have no card from me. really pretty easy to set up with the cards. I have had the CO call as some have lost the card or, I did not get one to them and I then tell the CO, they are ok.

The other people who we allow to hunt also keep an eye out for other trucks in the area that may be trespassing and will call and let me know.

Actually, this works out very well.

We have also had the Game & Fish out and they set up a deer decoy to try and catch those who think it is ok to shoot from the road at a deer standing on the road with the house in the line of fire. Yes, they have caught and tagged them for that, actually 2 in one evening or night.

The local CO in this area, understands the issues many ranchers have with trespassers and they gladly prosecute them if they are asked to do so. The CO also told me very few ever get found guilty as there are so many loopholes in the law. The last group that got charged were found guilty. The CO was concerned as one of probably 20 signs along one fence line had a small corner missing and because of that corner missing, they could have beat the charge, yes, this is true.

They paid if I remember correctly, $700 each for trespassing and the one paid another $1,100 for wanton waste as he shot a deer, buddy saw him so he took off, I caught them on the 4 wheeler so he had to pay for that along with the 4 others with him. Then they lost their hunting privileges for another 2 years I believe it was. Now, there's some teeth in the law. Simple solution, just simply ask for permission.

I use to have the CO chase them off and he said unless you are willing to prosecute them for trespassing, no reason to even call me as they will simply be back. he said if you go after them and they are fined, that word will get out and your issues should really be less in the future, he was correct.

I am so confused why it is so hard to simply ask.

Yes, I know some say it will make no difference if we did not have to post as some would still come in and trespass but, at least what some states could do is make the fine large enough that it would hurt to get prosecuted and the fine would deter many more.

With land getting harder to access all the time, I would think just maybe, if all hunters would simply ask, that trend could possibly turn around. But because of a few that believe they can do as they please, hunter access will only get harder to find every year as it has in the past 10 years or so.

We have neighbors who charge a pretty hefty fee to hunt their land, we only ask that hunters get permission.

But most states will do nothing about it as they want all the land possible to be open for others to use and enjoy and they also want to sell licenses so, let's make it as easy as possible for all to hunt where ever, if they get caught, well like MN, let's fine them a pittance as everybody should be able to go wherever.

I believe for many states that is what it is really all about.

I understand what you are trying to say Brian but I question that you understand maybe where I am coming from with all the issues we have had in the past years with trespasser and what they will do.

We have a few different understandings here, the landowner would like all to ask, some hunters believe they can hunt wherever they chose and then the group that will always ask. Each one will respond differently to this issue of trespass.

[aanderud]

I understand what you are trying to say Brian but I question that you understand maybe where I am coming from with all the issues we have had in the past years with trespasser and what they will do.

I know where you're coming from Tom, I'm just not in agreement with you that the "open unless posted" rule is the answer. I don't understand how changing the law slightly is going to deter people who are ALREADY breaking the law from doing it. I've laid out that there are other unintended consequences/costs with changing it, and again no benefit. If the posting requirement is filled with loopholes, then in my opinion those loopholes should be closed rather than eliminating the posting requirement altogether.

I agree with you on the one fact -- if the fine is too small, that is an issue. One way to determine whether the fine is a deterrent or not is to look at recidivism rates. That is, how many people get fined and then do it again because the fine was so small it was inconsequential? Have you noticed repeat offenders on your property after prosecuting them? In ND you say you have not, so maybe in MN you have? I'd have no problem making the fines match those of the surrounding states.

[harvey lee]

The fines are stiff in ND and no repeat offenders as far as I know, hard to watch many miles of fence line.

In MN, we do not have issues with trespassers as we do not have land that is hunted so I cannot say either way on repeat offenders.

I realize it would cost to change the law but it would sure save a lot of time doing this all the time as many simply get ripped off the post. Then there is the added cost also to post as much as we do.

I would say it comes down to, we get tired of chasing people off when they trespass. After awhile or for a few years of dealing with the trespassers, you simply get to hate what they do and in the end, you harden up a bit like I have.

You can ask any CO or Sheriff's dept about all the calls they get for trespassing during the hunting seasons, they hate it as well as it takes up a lot of their time when they could be doing more constructive things.

As I stated above, when you have to call a Deputy to have them come to remove trespassers as they would not leave after you have asked them, that is a royal pain for both us and the deputy as they also have better thing's to do.

I do like when I have to call the renters due to the fact someone left a gate open and then the renters have to come and round up there lose cattle.

[delcecchi]

I thought the default for ag land was no trespassing even with minimal or no signage. Is that not true?

[CaptainMusky]

I thought the default for ag land was no trespassing even with minimal or no signage. Is that not true?

Thats what I thought as well...

[aanderud]

I would say it comes down to, we get tired of chasing people off when they trespass. After awhile or for a few years of dealing with the trespassers, you simply get to hate what they do and in the end, you harden up a bit like I have.

You can ask any CO or Sheriff's dept about all the calls they get for trespassing during the hunting seasons, they hate it as well as it takes up a lot of their time when they could be doing more constructive things.

As I stated above, when you have to call a Deputy to have them come to remove trespassers as they would not leave after you have asked them, that is a royal pain for both us and the deputy as they also have better thing's to do.

You are talking in circles again. The folks who are currently trespassing and not leaving when asked and whatnot (who are a royal pain as you put it) will continue to do this regardless of the wording/semantics of the law. It won't help to change the law to say that all private land is off-limits without permission. You said they won't even leave when you ask them to! What makes you think the wording of the law matters?

Heftier fines, as you mentioned earlier, might deter the behavior, but rewording the law will NOT solve your problems. That's all I'm saying.

[BobT]

[eyedr]

The benefit would be as a landowner I wouldn't have to deal with people using my land who think they are within the confines of the law to do so. It wouldn't eliminate the people who would trespass anyway, but it would eliminate folks who believe it is their right to do so. Its like being guilty until proven innocent. Why should I have to prove it's mine and post that I don't want anyone on it? It should be the job of the one who does not have the privilege of owning the land to find out who does and if it's ok that they use it. It is frustrating when land is in trust or owned by corporations, but I never seemed to have a problem tracking the right people down before I owned my own land.