Posting Land/Handling Trespassers and Neighbors

[DTro]

You guys are dilusional and have tunnel vision. Brian didn't say he supported dbags hunting on posted land or continuing to ignore requests from the landowner to get out. He simply said the law about having to post your land make sense when you take into account the millions of acres owned by trusts or corporations . If you read his posts carefully you will see that. You completely missed it. Does anyone think changing the law is going to make keeping trespassers out any better? Good luck with that...

[CaptainMusky]

You guys are dilusional and have tunnel vision. Brian didn't say he supported dbags hunting on posted land or continuing to ignore requests from the landowner to get out. He simply said the law about having to post your land make sense when you take into account the millions of acres owned by trusts or corporations . If you read his posts carefully you will see that. You completely missed it. Does anyone think changing the law is going to make keeping trespassers out any better? Good luck with that...

Dtro, it wasnt just corporations he was talking about. Go back and READ his posts.

"I don't think it's ridiculous at all that the default for non-agricultural land is 'open' to recreation unless posted. But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. I have no problem with folks being able to recreate on land by default, and leaving the responsibility to the owner to post the land if they want to privatize it."

Sure, he does say post the land, but he is also quite clear that he has no problem with others "recreating" on private land that is not posted without having permission.

Since some here are keyboard attorneys, they may want to brush up on the language in the Hunting/Trapping regulations. The DNR is pretty clear IMO that it is NOT OK to "recreate" on unposted private land...

"Always ask permission before entering private land. Any entry onto

private property without permission is considered trespass. Landowners

may be able to pursue court action against trespassers whether the property

is posted or not."

[DTro]

I'm not going in circles with you, the law is a fair one and opens millions of acres that would otherwise go totally unused.

[CaptainMusky]

Apparently you are unable to read the DNR regulations. Its quite clear no talking in circles. Pick up a free copy or view online.

[perchking]

I am a land owner and personally despise trespassers. It is a never ending battle, doesn't matter if it posted or not. If you don't know where you are, please find out or stay out...

My father in law has about 3500 acres, each Dec I have a hinge cut party with stands over the boundary. No question, no trying to find the owner. I cut all locks or cut down trees if it is not marketable if they build a perm.

Fun time

[CaptainMusky]

Good for you perch king. Quite the garage sale I'm sure! Lol

[perchking]

it all depends how much we are around in the summer/fall. I just keep the real good ones, the others are given away to friends or put up on other parts of the property.

[aanderud]

No, I don't own recreational land. I also don't hunt these days. Used to hunt plenty, even leased a couple hundred acres from a guy in Hutch for about 2 decades (and yes, we posted it).

Dtro, it wasnt just corporations he was talking about. Go back and READ his posts.

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

I have no problem with folks being able to recreate on land by default

Sure, he does say post the land, but he is also quite clear that he has no problem with others "recreating" on private land that is not posted without having permission.

Maybe it wasn't clear when I posted, or maybe things were strewn across multiple posts and hard to tell what I say since I tend to ramble on and on and on...so I'll be more concise here:

The reason I prefer the law we have now where you have to post it to deny access (and written permission is only required for agricultural land) is because it allows us to have access to over a million acres of land owned by folks who are indifferent to having hunters on their land or who are required to leave their land open -- for instance, large timber companies, tribes, etc. For just one example, check the SFIP program. If non-posted non-agricultural land was off limits by default, that land would be off limits, because none of it is posted.

Is the law with the posting requirement perfect? No, there are apparently some 'loopholes' that could be covered from what folks are saying. Here are a few of them:

1) There's apparently some rule in place where if a corner of a sign is ripped off, you can't always win your prosecution

2) Tom said the fines were too low, and that might also be true -- he said the ND fines were OK though, and he didn't seem to have as big of a problem with the ND regulation that the land has to be posted.

3) Some say the dating requirement and 1 year restriction is a hassle that's expensive and time consuming and hard to deal with.

So, maybe the laws could be refined to make the posting requirement easier to follow by landowners and more difficult to skirt by nimwits. But I don't think it should be replaced altogether with a blanket rule of "no-permission, no-access", because if it was changed to that, it would cut off those millions of corporate owned lands and be pretty detrimental to some recreational users.

I noticed that nobody seemed to want to take up the challenge to get written permission from Blandin and the other 8 SFIP companies so that they could recreate on those unposted acres. Probably because the mantra of "Just ask for permission" isn't always as easy as it sounds.

Now I'm really done (I think for the third time). There's really no sense in saying the same thing over and over.

[harvey lee]

I'm not going in circles with you, the law is a fair one and opens millions of acres that would otherwise go totally unused.

Again from a non landowner who simply has no clue and talk about a dude with tunnel vision.

Brian A states 2) Tom said the fines were too low, and that might also be true -- he said the ND fines were OK though, and he didn't seem to have as big of a problem with the ND regulation that the land has to be posted.

Oh, yes I do have an issue with having to post land in ND to keep others out, a very big issue with that. It takes me a couple days to post all the fence and gates and the cost is not minimal.

[harvey lee]

I am a land owner and personally despise trespassers. It is a never ending battle, doesn't matter if it posted or not. If you don't know where you are, please find out or stay out...

My father in law has about 3500 acres, each Dec I have a hinge cut party with stands over the boundary. No question, no trying to find the owner. I cut all locks or cut down trees if it is not marketable if they build a perm.

Fun time

Again, I understand your issues 100% but guys like Dtro or Brian A have no clue and only post what they think is correct. Its hard for them to understand when they have not walked in our shoes. But, they do have all the answers for sure.

[CaptainMusky]

The reason I prefer the law we have now where you have to post it to deny access (and written permission is only required for agricultural land) is because it allows us to have access to over a million acres of land owned by folks who are indifferent to having hunters on their land or who are required to leave their land open -- for instance, large timber companies, tribes, etc. For just one example, check the SFIP program. If non-posted non-agricultural land was off limits by default, that land would be off limits, because none of it is posted.

I guess you just prefer to pick and choose which laws apply to you and where you get your info from. Its quite clearly stated in the MN Hunting Regs the definition of trespassing and what you are advocating is absolutely in violation of that. I suppose since you don't hunt that's an excuse for ignorance in this case.

[brittman]

Harvey: Most landowners that have livestock inside the fence line will walk / ride the line a few times a year to make sure everything is good. Post at that time.

Cost of posting is part of the ownership process in ND if you do not want hunters on your land. If you do not like it, well ... sell.

I grew up in ND and the open access is welcomed by the hunting majority. There is plenty of land where those farming it are cash renting and the owners live far away (town 20 - 50 miles away) if not in Arizona.

My relatives own land (a lot) along the Sheyenne River in ND. I would help my great uncle post each fall before deer opener. He would allow others to hunt later in the season. Yet each year we would have to start the season on the same pasture section because his "neighbors" would drive through it without us there. I would ask him why he did not call the sheriff. He always said "I have to live with them the other 364 days of the year."

Some of you need to get of the idea that hunting unposted (yet open) land is somehow unethical. It is both ethical and legal. Plenty of unethical behavior by some riding their high horses.

[deerminator]

We live right next to a county park and a state park. And from time to time, we get campers and hikers trouncing on to our property (with their dogs during hunting season no less) despite the mailboxes and 911 signs at the end of our and our neighbors' properties? One time, I was drawn back at first light with my bow just to have to let it down as a few rotweilers trotted by down a prime deer trail. I think of it this way, how would you feel if I came to your house in the Cities and started walking around in your front yard in the suburbs shooting at birds in your trees. Or decided to throw a party in your driveway? Sorry, you didn't post your yard so its fair game! I might even hang out on your front porch and smoke some cigarettes. Crush em out on your landscaping. Its no different. I get the benefits of private land entered into public programs so more people can hunt. That's great. But it still doesn't mean you shouldn't have to look at a map and figure out where you can hunt and where you should not. It's a matter of common courtesy and respect. I can't count the number of times around here I've heard from farmers at church on Sunday how they had to deal with trespassers pheasant hunting and how "if they just would have asked," I probably would have said OK. But the fact that they didn't show that courtesy or respect resulted in no hunting instead.

[BobT]

Property lines are not always clear and as I mentioned earlier, without a surveyor tagging along with you, it can be nearly impossible to determine if or when one might have crossed onto private property if the property isn't marked in some way. Posting in this case can eliminate the guessing game.

Try hunting north of Hwy. 169 on the iron range where I hunt. You can travel north for miles and never come across a fence or even a road. There is no practical way for the average person to know where the property lines are.

There's also another situation that I've encountered that throws another kink in this discussion. I have come across posted land that I knew for a fact was not private property. People do this from time to time. This is why the law requires a legible signature and contact information on the posting. For this reason, if I come across a sign that says I'm entering private property, I will not take it seriously if there's no signature and contact information with it. I'm not required by law to take it seriously either and in fact, the posting is not considered valid or legitimate unless it is signed with contact information.

[NWKR]

Harvey: Most landowners that have livestock inside the fence line will walk / ride the line a few times a year to make sure everything is good. Post at that time.

Cost of posting is part of the ownership process in ND if you do not want hunters on your land. If you do not like it, well ... sell.

I grew up in ND and the open access is welcomed by the hunting majority. There is plenty of land where those farming it are cash renting and the owners live far away (town 20 - 50 miles away) if not in Arizona.

My relatives own land (a lot) along the Sheyenne River in ND. I would help my great uncle post each fall before deer opener. He would allow others to hunt later in the season. Yet each year we would have to start the season on the same pasture section because his "neighbors" would drive through it without us there. I would ask him why he did not call the sheriff. He always said "I have to live with them the other 364 days of the year."

Some of you need to get of the idea that hunting unposted (yet open) land is somehow unethical. It is both ethical and legal. Plenty of unethical behavior by some riding their high horses.

I get the thing with the corporate owned land up north. But lets say that someone is driving by my cabin Sunday evening the weekend of firearms opener and they see me packing up my pickup and pull out on the road and drive away. They pull up the county GIS w e b site and see that my home address is 3 hours away and assume correctly I won't likely be back during the week. They come back in the morning and see that I don't have the land posted so they go ahead and hunt it.

You do not think that a person has ethical issues if they hunt that property since it would be legal??? I just can't follow that line of thought. I guess I have some serious ethical lapses every day when I set my cruise at 62 when driving to work in a 55 mph area.

[Wanderer]

You guys are dilusional and have tunnel vision. Brian didn't say he supported dbags hunting on posted land or continuing to ignore requests from the landowner to get out. He simply said the law about having to post your land make sense when you take into account the millions of acres owned by trusts or corporations . If you read his posts carefully you will see that. You completely missed it. Does anyone think changing the law is going to make keeping trespassers out any better? Good luck with that...

I'll throw my hat in with DTro and Brian on their arguments. And they're not saying it's OK to hunt or access a person's yard for their own pleasure, it's an argument for a situation that I just recently dealt with while duck hunting in the Superior National Forest.

We boated through a chain of lakes and rivers where cabins/homes are few and far between. We found a great point to set a spread in front of and solid enough bog to kneel and hide on. We did look it up on the big map and it showed green for SNF land but was adjacent to white private land. We figured we were fine since there was no posting and no evidence of activity. We hunted it.

One of the neighboring residents came close enough to snap a couple pics of us sitting there. We wondered why. A couple days later we went further into the lake and around another point and found a remote, boat in cabin for sale. We later looked it up with the realty advertisement and found it was on an acreage parcel. We had no way of knowing if we were on the parcel or not without either accessing it to find the border or going through phone call after phone call and waiting for a reply.

We were wondering if the neighbor reported us to the CO but felt quite confident we were legal. We did move on to another spot after that though.

In the end, we could still hunt the spot even if the land becomes posted (which would be ugly in that environment), but we'd have to stay in our boat to do it. It's no longer a favorite spot because of this but one we would return to someday unless told otherwise through a sign or verbally. I don't think the current owner cares since there wasn't even a posted sign near the cabin.

Am I now a heathen trespasser?

Not all fellow sportsmen have been blessed enough to be able to purchase their own slice of heaven. If we don't allow some freedom to travel and make everything a headache, we'll be back to mid-evil times where only the land barons had anyplace to hunt, fish, and enjoy.

Enjoy your blessings but please don't smear fellow sportsmen who are just trying to enjoy the great outdoors while making reasonable efforts to remain legal while doing it.

[outdoors247]

Quote:

I get the thing with the corporate owned land up north. But lets say that someone is driving by my cabin Sunday evening the weekend of firearms opener and they see me packing up my pickup and pull out on the road and drive away. They pull up the county GIS w e b site and see that my home address is 3 hours away and assume correctly I won't likely be back during the week. They come back in the morning and see that I don't have the land posted so they go ahead and hunt it.

You do not think that a person has ethical issues if they hunt that property since it would be legal??? I just can't follow that line of thought. I guess I have some serious ethical lapses every day when I set my cruise at 62 when driving to work in a 55 mph area.

I hear what your saying NWKR and please don't take this as I'm picking on you but you can easily fix that by posting your land. Like anything in life, land owning comes with it's responsibilities and if you don't want anyone on your property you have to post it.

FYI - I'm a hunter and would never hunt on anyone's land that I didn't have permission to do so. I do however hunt some of the paper companies land in northern Minnesota and it would be a loss if those lands were off limits.

[smsmith]

Well, if nothing else this thread made me go check my signs. The sharpie I used to sign, date, and address them had worn off...so, I couldn't have had a trespasser cited most likely. Just an FYI for the rest of you guys who own and post your property, check those signatures/dates for legibility. Mine should be good to go for awhile now. Think the next signs I purchase will have my info printed right into the signs. Would still have to date them annually (ridiculous rule IMHO) I suppose.

[BobT]

I hear what your saying NWKR and please don't take this as I'm picking on you but you can easily fix that by posting your land. Like anything in life, land owning comes with it's responsibilities and if you don't want anyone on your property you have to post it.

FYI - I'm a hunter and would never hunt on anyone's land that I didn't have permission to do so. I do however hunt some of the paper companies land in northern Minnesota and it would be a loss if those lands were off limits.

In some cases they are off limits....sort of. Around Cloquet we encounter signs on trails posted by Potlach complete with contact information however, they don't post the entire border, only trails that cross into their property. If I am walking through the woods grouse or deer hunting and happen to cross onto the Potlach property I would not know it unless I came upon one of those signs adjacent to a trail, which is very unlikely since I rarely use trails when hunting. Land borders aren't painted on the ground so they are easily recognized so it is nearly impossible to know precisely where they are.

[Getanet]

Would still have to date them annually (ridiculous rule IMHO) I suppose.

That does seem a little overboard. I'm not sure what a happy medium would be, but signing/dating them every 3 or 5 years or so would seem a little more reasonable.

[NWKR]

I hear what your saying NWKR and please don't take this as I'm picking on you but you can easily fix that by posting your land. Like anything in life, land owning comes with it's responsibilities and if you don't want anyone on your property you have to post it.

FYI - I'm a hunter and would never hunt on anyone's land that I didn't have permission to do so. I do however hunt some of the paper companies land in northern Minnesota and it would be a loss if those lands were off limits.

No problem I understand the posting laws even if I don't agree with them in their entirety. We have not had issues with trespassing on our land. That was just a hypothetical situation and I was just trying to say how I don't understand how someone would see that as being ethical even if it would be legal.

[smsmith]

That does seem a little overboard. I'm not sure what a happy medium would be, but signing/dating them every 3 or 5 years or so would seem a little more reasonable.

I see no reason for the date. If I have posted my property, put my name and address on it...and the signs/my info remain legible...then why on earth do I have to go out and date them every year? Just seems like another way to allow "ethical" trespassing "Hey, this guy posted his place but the signs aren't dated this year...we're good to go".

[smsmith]

if I come across a sign that says I'm entering private property, I will not take it seriously if there's no signature and contact information with it. I'm not required by law to take it seriously either and in fact, the posting is not considered valid or legitimate unless it is signed with contact information.

This is exactly the kind of cr@p that would make me go postal. So...I've posted my place, put up the signs, dated them, signed them, put my address on them...and the sun fades the added personal info over the course of half a year (exactly what happened to mine)...and you, as the all knowing stickler for placing the onus on a landowner note that the signs don't have personal info/dates, decide you're going to hunt my place.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that such an occurrence on my place would not end well for either of us.

[Getanet]

I see no reason for the date. If I have posted my property, put my name and address on it...and the signs/my info remain legible...then why on earth do I have to go out and date them every year? Just seems like another way to allow "ethical" trespassing "Hey, this guy posted his place but the signs aren't dated this year...we're good to go".

Because land is bought and sold quite frequently. Just because someone posted the land at one point and time doesn't mean they are still the current owner - or even still alive. Heck, it could have easily become tax forfeited land between when it was originally posted and the present. Dating the sign gives all parties involved a visual indication that the owner still wants to keep his land private. As you said yourself, those signs take a lot of abuse in the elements and could looks 10 years old when they are only 1 or two.

[CaptainMusky]

Not all fellow sportsmen have been blessed enough to be able to purchase their own slice of heaven. If we don't allow some freedom to travel and make everything a headache, we'll be back to mid-evil times where only the land barons had anyplace to hunt, fish, and enjoy.

I can totally see your point and agree things can be difficult in different areas of the state, but this comment threw me for a loop especially the bold.

I dont personally own land of my own to hunt. I rely solely on land that is public regardless of what I am hunting.

I have plat maps, use the MN DNR Recreational Compass, Delorme Maps, MN Atlas, etc. Lots of tools to identify what is public and what is not. Obviously some of them are more useful in various parts of the state than others.

BUT, your comment about having the freedom to travel just gets me. So you are telling me that your "freedom to travel" is more valuable than someone else's freedom to own land for their own pleasure?

I just dont get where all these people think this is perfectly legal to do. The Regs say otherwise. My son just completed firearms safety training and his book says otherwise. The instructors taught them otherwise....