HB658

It's like they went back and thought, "How can we make this worse? Oh, lets have sportsmen foot the bill for it!". Ridiculous.
 
Bump.

Let's keep these threads at the top of the board.

It seems like we had a decently strong voice combatting the first one, although this new bill is terrible too. I did get 2 personal responses, not automatic replies, to my emails saying so and so would not support it and would vote no.

I'm sure this will be an on-going battle. Keep spreading the word.
 
Thanks for catching that
Need to get rid of these politicians/ranchers who are just out for their own bennifit
And against sportsman
 
Need to work an agenda against any of them who vote Yes in your area. Go door to door exposing what these people are doing.
 
It would be nice if we could vote these folks out,. The tough part about it is: once they are in , it is nearly impossible to oust them in the primary. Unless they retire or quit, it's tough to unseat them. The second part of that is most of us have year round, regular jobs. The majority of people don't have the luxury of asking your employer for January thru April off. So you get either wealthy folks or large tract landowners that don't need to work.
 
It's on the agenda for House Ag tomorrow. If you haven't called yet, now is the time.

Chair Judy Boyle - Midvale
Home (208) 355-3225
Bus (208) 355-3225
Statehouse (208) 332-1064 (Session Only)

Vice Chair Thomas Dayley - Boise
Home (208) 562-0276
Statehouse (208) 332-1072 (Session Only)

Maxine T. Bell - Jerome
Home (208) 324-4296
Statehouse (208) 334-4734 (Session Only)

Steven Miller - Fairfield
Home (208) 764-2560
Statehouse (208) 332-1174 (Session Only)

Julie VanOrden - Pingree
Home (208) 684-4052
Statehouse (208) 332-1038 (Session Only)

Van T. Burtenshaw - Terreton
Home (208) 663-4607
Statehouse (208) 332-1179 (Session Only)

Ryan Kerby - New Plymouth
Home (208) 739-0190
Statehouse (208) 332-1166 (Session Only)

Caroline Nilsson Troy - Genesee
Home (208) 285-0182
Statehouse (208) 332-1035 (Session Only)

Thyra Stevenson - Nezperce
Home (208) 305-2800
Bus 208-400-0634
Statehouse (208) 332-1184 (Session Only)

Paul Amador - Coeur d?Alene
Home (208) 497-2470
Statehouse (208) 332-1048 (Session Only)

Randy Armstrong - Inkom
Home (208) 251-8157
Statehouse (208) 332-1046 (Session Only)

Karey Hanks - Anthony
Home (208) 313-3911
Statehouse (208) 332-1056 (Session Only)

Christy Zito - Hammett
Home (208) 590-4633
Statehouse (208) 332-1181 (Session Only)

Mathew W. Erpelding - Boise
Home (208) 856-0291
Statehouse (208) 332-1078 (Session Only)

Sally Toone - Gooding
Home (208) 934-8114
Statehouse (208) 332-1032 (Session Only)
 
It's amazing on so many issues, sportsman (average joe) like me depend on minority leader (Democrat) Erpelding to carry our water. This is a case of if it ain?t broke, don't fix it. I assume based on the house committee members that this passes. I hope the Senate or our lame duck Governor might decide this is not an important enough issue to make such a drastic change!
 
It'll likely get through committee since the sponsor is the chair of the committee. However, we can stop this on the house floor if everyone calls. Lots of legislators are hunters too and they know this is a nonsense bill, we just have to call them and give them the fortitude to stand up for what is right.
Call if you can, email if you can't, but let your local legislators know this is BS.
http://www.idahowildlife.org/hb-536-dead-replaced-by-worse-bill-to-be-funded-by-sportsmen/
 
This BS just passed ag committee. The only representatives who stood up for sportsmen and vote "no" were Armstrong, Erpelding and Tooney. It's headed to the floor.
If you haven't called, tomorrow is the day. Make sure you talk to your senators too in case the bill crosses over.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-18 AT 10:24PM (MST)[p]Fyi to all this is applicable to, Van T. Burtenshaw - Terreton
Home (208) 663-4607
Statehouse (208) 332-1179 (Session Only) Is running for Jeff Sessions soon to be vacated seat in district 35, In addition Rod Furniss is running against incumbent Karey Hanks who is also on ag committee who has now voted twice "aye".... to advance to floor. Please remember this come May elections... we did gain two more of the committee who originally voted aye on #536, so don't think emails and calls aren't working.. John Gannon emailed me today and is in opposition and will be debating the new bill on floor. RIP Lil Bro' "Huntnfever"
 
tworivers, I don't want to hijack the thread, but I wanted to let you know whenever I see your signature about your brother I think back to him helping me out in 52a eight or nine years ago.

You offered me advice on OTC bears too, and though I never could put it together on a bear I always appreciated your help. You guys are class acts.

Grizzly
 
Thanks Grizzly, I don't post too awful much on here anymore. But man I should add his favorite avatar, Ralphie from Simpsons. :)
RIP Lil Bro' "Huntnfever"
 
There's a lot of reason to be against this bill, but to me it is embarrassing for Idaho Legislators to be doing the bidding of two Texas Billionaire's.

No body that would have to enforce this is for it.

Everyone needs to speak up and loudly. Call your buddies.
 
Yes there were three no votes but on the first bill these were the people that voted yes. If they voted yes on either one they get the ax.

Mat Erpelding was the sole No Vote on the first bill.


Judy Boyle, Bill sponsor (R- Midvale)
Thomas Dayley (R-Boise)
Maxine Bell (R-Jerome)
Steven Miller (R-Fairfield)
Julie VanOrden (R-Pingree)
Van Burtenshaw (R-Terreton)
Ryan Kerby (R-New Plymouth)
Caroline Troy (R-Genessee)
Paul Amador (R-Couer d?Alene)
Randy Armstrong (R-Inkom)
Karey Hanks (R-St. Anthony)
Christy Zito (R-Hammett)
Mat Erpleding (D-Boise)
Sally Toone (D-Gooding)
 
Rep
Sally Toone who originally supported #536 to be moved out of committee to house floor as noted above voted no, and will also be debating new bill on floor. Not all are deaf to sportsmen, keep emailing , keep calling!
89864ralphie.jpg
RIP Lil Bro' "Huntnfever"
 
This is the shady bunch promoting HB 658. Not Registered with the Attorney Generals Office or as Lobbyists. The website is from Toronto


 
The house is likely to vote on H658 tomorrow (Friday.) It's going to be close so if you haven't called yet, call first thing the morning. If you already called, call again.

They are getting a lot of pressure from the out-of-state interests and lobbyists to pass this BS. Don't let them think it's ok.
 
It looks like they postponed the vote until Monday. Just an FYI, I talked to one of my Reps (Dorothy Moon). According to her there were many more calls in to her office in support of the bill as opposed. If that is true, we need to step our game up.
 
>It looks like they postponed the
>vote until Monday. Just an
>FYI, I talked to one
>of my Reps (Dorothy Moon).
>According to her there were
>many more calls in to
>her office in support of
>the bill as opposed. If
>that is true, we need
>to step our game up.
>

She's my rep and I've sent an email against the bill.
 
Well, HB658 passed through the House today. It still has to go through the senate and the governor of course has veto power so if you are reading this and haven't called anybody yet, get to it.
 
House passes anti-trespassing bill after contentious, two-
hour debate

It took two full hours of contentious debate, but the House has passed Rep. Judy Boyle?s bill to crack down on trespassing, voting 45-22 in favor of the measure, HB 658. Boyle, R-Midvale, told the House, ?The law-abiding citizen does not need to worry if he doesn't trespass.? She added, ?This is a vital constitutional right. ? Property is sacred in America.?

Others objected that law-abiding sportsmen weren't involved in drafting the bill, which also is opposed by the Idaho Sheriffs Association. Rep. Randy Armstrong, R-Inkom, said, ?It just seems like the right thing to do was make a collaborative effort and let's talk to both sides and let's
work this out. ? I don't know why we have this rush with getting this legislation passed before we've spoken to anybody. ? What's wrong with taking time to listen to these people? It just seems the right thing to do.?

Rep. Christy Perry, R-Nampa, said a lobbyist for a Texas family that recently purchased large amounts of land in Valley County and closed much of it to hunting and public access, leading to well-publicized clashes with locals, approached her last summer about beefing up trespassing laws. Perry said after the lobbyist told her hunters would lose their hunting licenses if they violated the proposed new law and she objected, she wasn?t consulted again. ?The vast majority of sportsmen want to be respectful,? Perry told the House. ?Most of them are. I think they deserved the right to have cooperated with this bill so that we could handle some of these things that maybe haven't
been thought of.?

According to records in the Idaho Secretary of State?s office, lobbyist Suzanne Budge is registered to represent the Wilks Brothers of Cisco, Texas, the family that purchased the Valley County land. The Idaho Statesman reported today that the ?Property Rights Coalition? advocated for the bill for nearly a month, represented by Boise attorney Gary Allen, who worked with Boyle on the bill, but that the group didn't register with the state until Wednesday.

Boyle, in her closing debate, told the House, ?This bill was not brought to me by a lobbyist a few months ago ? I don't know exactly what the lady from (District) 11 was discussing there.? She said the bill was ?worked on for a long period of time? by a coalition including major Idaho landowners and a statewide all-terrain vehicle group.

Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d?Alene, who is facing off with Perry in a crowded GOP primary for Congress in May, spoke out in favor of the bill. He said as a deputy county prosecutor, he prosecuted a man who?d driven into the middle of clearly marked private land and shot and dressed
an elk there, but ended up with only a $150 fine after a jury trial. ?Beyond that, there wasn?t a lot of repercussions for this individual, and that in my mind is an absolute tragedy for property rights,? Malek said. ?We need to do something about protecting private property rights in this state. They are unenforceable the way they are now, and this bill moves them in the right
direction.?

Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, said she'd had calls from hunters in her district who were opposed to the bill. ?My first question was, ?Are you a trespasser?? They said no,? she told the House. ?I couldn't understand the source of all these calls ? until we read something on Facebook.? Scott said she now attributes them to ?these radical environmental groups that definitely have an agenda
against private property owners.?

The measure now moves to the Senate side. Here?s how the vote broke down:

Voting yes: Reps. Amador, Anderst, Bedke, Bell, Blanksma, Boyle, Burtenshaw, Chaney, Cheatham,
Clow, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Dixon, Ehardt, Gestrin, Hanks, Hartgen, Holtzclaw,
Kauffman, Kerby, Kingsley, Loertscher, Malek, McDonald, Mendive, Miller, Moon, Moyle, Nate, Palmer,
Raybould, Redman, Scott, Shepherd, Stevenson, Syme, Thompson, Troy, VanOrden, VanderWoude, Wood,
Zito and Zollinger.

Voting no: Reps. Anderson, Armstrong, Chew, Erpelding, Gannon(17), Gannon(5), Giddings, Harris,
Horman, King, Kloc(Tway), Luker, Manwaring, McCrostie, Packer,
Perry, Rubel, Smith, Toone, Wagoner, Wintrow and Youngblood.
 
My two representatives voted NO. I wrote them each, and had replies from each. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT ALL SPORTSMEN/WOMEN ARE WRITING THERE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS, it's amazing how many will come on to a forum and ##### about things but do nothing. This bill is bad news, and will pit "stand your ground" and "trespassing laws" into a shoot it out potential situation.

I also hope that sportsmen/women become actively involved in getting rid of representatives that vote for these bills.
 
I'll have to wear a body-cam so that when I am the victor in the duel, I can show that I did not have criminal intent.

I talked to one of my reps last night, who was a no vote, and she said this thing was a mess!

If you look at the lineup in the Senate Ag committee, you'll notice most are farmers/large landowners and farm bureau types...
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-18 AT 05:49PM (MST)[p]Both of my reps voted yes! I called and emailed multiple times and never heard back from either- Holtzclaw and Palmer! I emailed them again yesterday-

"I am disappointed that I haven't heard back from either of my Representatives, after emailing both and calling your offices to speak about this bill. And then to see both voted yes, it worries me that you are losing touch with the people you were elected to represent. I would ask a simple question- what about this bill makes you feel it is well written and worth making law in this great state of Idaho? The Idaho Sheriffs Association opposes the bill and admits it will be very difficult to enforce. In the words of the Idaho Attorney General?s office, HB 658 conflicts with existing rules of civil court procedure and ?HB 658 does not limit the trial court's consideration of investigatory costs, such an award could result in absurd requests."

So far not a single response... Love me some Idaho politics- guess being elected in ID with an "R" by your name makes folks think they don't need to listen to their constituents...
 
I grew up defending ranchers, I'm done. Ranchers always whine about the damage done on their land from hunters. Well, I would be willing to venture that their cows have done ten times the damage to our public ground. It's high time to end the public land welfare trough that ranchers enjoy. If they can't afford to feed their stock on their own ground, it's time to sell out and find a job that they can support their selves on.
 
I don't like this bill. My Uncle has a big ranch in SE Idaho. There are laws already that needed to be enforced.

If ranchers are forced to sell their property, often it get broken up into smaller parcels and gets developed. This decreases habitat, feed, sometime water supply, and carrying capacity for deer and elk herds. There are many ranchers who loose money from damage to fences, and loss of feed/crops, from large herds of elk eating in their fields at night. Many ranchers just take it in the shorts and are not compensated.

A lot of deer and elk winter on private property and are hunted on public property during the season. This benefits sportsmen. I realize some ranchers post their property and then don't allow any hunting and then complain about damage from elk and seek compensation.

Grazing done properly can improve habitat for deer and elk. Google it if you want more info.

Sportsmen would be much better off working with ranchers. Many ranchers love deer and elk as well, they are just trying to survive and make a living. Many under hard situations.

A few thoughts.
 
Ranchers are not interested in working with anyone that isn't filling their pockets with cash under the table.
I don't hunt private land but wen you have legislators that are putting up laws that restricts your dust off your tires from falling onto private land then somewhere the train has came off the tracks.
If your hunting close to private land and the owner hears you shoot. He can charge you with trespassing if he thinks your bullet or pellets landed on his land. You will have to pay all the court costs and his lawyer fees and yours to protect your self If you lose. If you win the rancher doesn't have to pay your fees. That is pretty one sided.
This is a stab at trying to take over public land. They want all of Idaho and they want it now. They want no public on the land but they want the tax dollars to help them every time they turn around. I am sick of it.
 
I certainly agree with you. When grazing is done properly it is beneficial. I believe that the majority of sportsmen would be more than happy to work together with ranchers. However, no sportsmen's groups were engaged or asked for comments over this bill. That to me means that the Idaho Farm Bureau has no interest in working with us. Ranchers and landowners like to lump all hunters into the category of vandalizing miscreants. I can no longer support the ranchers plight. If they can't make it without public land grazing, sorry about their luck.
 
That's rich, especially considering that the sponsor (Judy Boyle) had a lobbyist present the bill for her in committee. Also, the Wilks have two lobbyists pushing for this bill so they can import their out-of-state values.
 
Boy is that NOT a TRUE statement !!! I posted an update on this bill looks like 1 person replied !! Ryan Kerby told me in our phone conversation that he had NOT had a SINGLE call text or email from ANY sportsmen at all !!! Kerby sent me an update text this morning that this got sent to amending EVERYONE THAT IS POSTING ON HERE NEEDS TO CALL THESE REPRESENTIVES !!!! CONTACT THEIR FRIENDS ANY OUTDOOR ORGINAZATIONS THAT THEY BELONG TO OR KNOW OF & GET EVERYONE THEY KNOW CALLING !!!
 
It's been sent to Amending Order. Not dead yet. The Legislature is trying to convene on Wednesday, so look for it to show back up before then.
 
Awesome work folks. It's cool to see Idaho sportsmen standing tall.
It sounds like they are going to debate and vote on it tomorrow on the senate floor. They may try and "fix it." If you haven't called your senator, make the call tomorrow morning.
 
It's still in amending order, likely to come up tomorrow (Tuesday.) Word is that some senators are trying to stop it because of sportsmen opposition, but it definitely still has a chance.
Hopefully, they will adjourn soon and put an end to this nonsense bill.
If your rep voted the right way, make sure you call and thank them, because we will need their help next time.
 
They amended it this morning, but didn't fix it. The senate seems like they are going to pass it, probably tomorrow or as soon as this afternoon, despite the strong objections of a large number of Idaho hunters and anglers.
 
Tue., March 20, 2018, 9:22 a.m. - Spokesman Review

Sponsor?s amendments to anti-trespassing bill approved, others rejected


A series of amendments to HB 658 proposed by Sen. Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs, the Senate sponsor of the anti-trespassing bill, have been approved by the Senate on divided but lopsided votes; while competing amendments from Senate Democrats - including one to strike the enacting clause of the bill, rendering it ineffective - were rejected on similarly divided but lopsided votes.

Sen. Maryanne Jordan, D-Boise, who proposed the amendment to strike the enacting clause, said, ?The current law probably does need some improvement. I think that there's concern on all parties that work needs to be done. But the primary concern I have, and the reason that I brought this amendment, is that I think that this bill needs some time, and it needs a group of folks around the table working things out together.? To bring amendments as complicated as Harris? this late in the session, with no opportunity for any public input, would result in a law that would have been better ?with a little more time and care,? Jordan said.

Sen. Jim Rice, R-Caldwell, countered, ?This bill has had a great deal of discussion and a great deal of work by a very large group of people. The amendments that are proposed to the bill by the sponsors really do make this a bill that is appropriate to consider.? If the Senate adopted Jordan?s amendment, he said, it?d be saying ?don't consider anything. Don?t listen to people. Don?t protect private property rights.?

Harris told the Senate, ?The current trespass law is broken, it's confusing, it's disorienting, the posting requirements are inconsistent. ... The penalties are weak.?

He said, ?The effort behind this amendment is to combine civil, criminal and recreational trespass into one place. The bill would not affect those who use ordinary care. It would affect those who don't use ordinary care and disregard the law.?

Harris said his amendments would address concerns that were raised about a one-way awarding of attorney fees, allowing either side to recover attorney fees in certain circumstances; clarify oral permission; say damages should be awarded to the damaged party, which in the case of a lessee who had his crops damaged would be to the lessee; clarify that investigative costs that are assessed must be ?reasonable;? create a simple infraction offense with a $300 fine for a first-time trespass offense without any property damage; and clarify that Fish & Game funds would apply only to recreational trespass. Harris said his amendments are ?extensive.?

The amended bill now still needs passage in the full Senate, concurrence from the House in the Senate amendments, and the governor?s signature to become law.
 
March 20, 2018 12:03 PM - Idaho Statesman


A bill overhauling Idaho?s trespass laws is still in play after the Senate on Tuesday approved a series of amendments aimed at addressing concerns about the controversial bill.

The bill attempts to update trespass laws in three different sections of Idaho law ? something everyone involved seems to agree is needed. It revises private property notice requirements and hikes the penalties for trespassing.

The amendments will:

▪ Also allow verbal permission from the property owner to access private property. The current bill allows written permission only.

▪ Award the prevailing party attorney?s fees in a civil suit. The current version only awards such fees if the land owner prevails.

▪ Make the first trespass offense with no damage an infraction instead of a misdemeanor.

The Senate, on a voice vote, approved the amendments proposed by the bill?s Senate sponsor, Sen. Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs.

Two other proposed amendments failed, one by Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, which sought to add clarification about entering a home or business and one by Sen. Maryanne Jordan, D-Boise, proposing striking the bill?s enacting clause so it could go back to the drafting board for more collaborative work.

The House passed HB 658 on a 45-22 vote on March 12 after nearly 10 hours of committee hearings and a two-hour floor debate.

When Harris brought the bill before the Senate Resources and Environment Committee on March 14, he asked to send the bill to the Senate?s amending order, so changes could be made to it.


The committee concurred after hearing testimony from law enforcement representatives who are concerned about difficulties enforcing the bill as written.

Next the full Senate will debate the full bill as amended; if approved, the amended bill will go back to the House for approval.
 
Frankly, with all this debate, I still do not understand how this affects un-posted, private land.

I think this bill makes it so that if private land is not posted (anywhere) that written or oral permission is now required. This would be a change from current law, which basically says un-posted, uncultivated private land is open to hunting.

Does anybody disagree?
 
Currently, if un-posted land is un-cultivated, un-developed, basically "wild" land you could trespass on it. For many ranchers, the "back 40" was ok to hunt, and if they didn't post it, have at it. This was actually good for the rancher, as the most annoying inconvenience was to have to deal with people asking for permission, either driving up to door, as he was on a tractor working, on his phone, etc.

Now, it is now up to everyone to KNOW if they are on private or not. Regardless of how the property looks, whether there is even a fence. They are trying to make it a misdemeanor as well. With a first time offence of $500. It's ##### law, as back room paid for by the non-native Wilks brothers whom are buying up any big chunks of land across the west.


Pet Door Sales and Installation
www.utpetdoor.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-18 AT 02:53PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-18 AT 02:48?PM (MST)

From a personal page rather, a thread that may be public :
https://www.facebook.com/tadsherman...80488660732?if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif

From Boise based attorney Stephen Blackburn, from Idaho Wildlife Federation page: Still so many bad things in this bill. Take the civil trespass for example. The bill says that any person found liable (and because it is a civil case the burden of proof is more probable than not) SHALL be liable (note no judicial discretion here) for the greater of: 1) fine or penalty of $500 2) amount of actual damages, AND reasonable attorney's fees if the plaintiff prevails (judicial discretion here) AND any costs associated with investigating any trespass if the plaintiff prevails (no judicial discretion here). So, here's a hypothetical scenario: I walk up to a property owned by the Wilkes brothers. It's a nice ranch house, but there aren't any "no trespassing" signs anywhere. I enter the property to ask permission to hunt some acreage behind the residence. Before I get to the door, Mr. Wilkes opens the door and says, "STOP RIGHT THERE. YOU ARE TRESPASSING." I tell him I was simply trying to ask permission to hunt his land. He then lectures me about how it doesn't matter, that I need to stay put while he calls the police. Not realizing the hornet's nest I walked into, I slowly back away, turn and get in my truck and go home. Later, I get served a summons and complaint for civil trespass. Because I'm not about to lie, I tell the truth on the stand and explain the situation. Because the plaintiff met all of his burdens at trial, I am found liable. Here's where it gets good (or, really, really, bad). What I didn't realize before going to ask permission to hunt was that, Mr. Wilkes knew all about this statute. He really liked it. So much so that he already had a private investigator and a forensic specialist hired to compare my footprints to my shoes that I was required to provide to him in discovery. The total cost of the investigation into my trespass was $27,500.00. His "reasonable" attorney's fees were deemed to be $4,300.00. Adding all of these to the $500 fine, my rather innocent "trespass" just cost me $32,300.

Jason Hanson on the verbage: I think you are right on the money here. I have problems with language like "reasonable person would recognize" as well as others. You tell me that a cross fenced piece of land that has sections marked and unmarked is easy for someone to reasonably recognize. I fear our once great state is turning into Idafornia. We live here because we love the laws and what it provides. Make us like every other state and guess what...we are every other state. Mark your land and stiffen the penalty for trespassers. If it is not marked properly, it should fall on the landowner not the person unable to identify what belongs to who. Mr Blackburn once again: NOTE! Look at this provision! "(c) If an action for civil trespass or civil
trespass with damage is brought without foundation and the defendant
prevails, the defendant may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees, which shall be taxed as costs." SEE WHAT THEY DID HERE? If you are found liable for civil trespass with/without damages, the plaintiff SHALL receive the enumerated damages. BUT, if the alleged trespasser wins in court then s/he MAY be awarded reasonable attorney's fees... Also, look at the burden on the defendant in order to MAYBE get attorney's fees. The case must be determined to have been brought "without foundation AND the defendant prevails,..." So just prevailing is NOT enough. The judge must also determine that the case was brought without foundation, whatever that means. Terrible language that again heavily favors the landowner. THIS is not really about TRESPASS as we would term it....









89864ralphie.jpg
RIP Lil Bro' "Huntnfever"
 
Another post noted this was approved by the Senate and inferred it was off to the Governor.

I don't think so. This from legislative website:

03/20 Placed in the Committee of the Whole
Amendments ordered printed
Reported out as amended; filed for first reading
Amendments reported printed
Read first time as amended in the Senate; Filed for Second Reading

My understanding as it was Amended by the Senate, after first being passed by House, it then has to go back to House for full debate and re-vote. Then back through Senate. Looks like it was Read once and referred back for Second Reading.

I don't see it yet on today's calendar for reading and vote.

Some hope they may run out of time before they retire for the year.

That said the current version is much better than first. I prefer Status Quo, though I don't mind stiffer fines for obvious offenders, but I don't want the burden off of the landowner to post, which is the intent of the sponsor. Right now the burden to mark every 660' is gone and replaced with:

"Property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner
that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating a private property boundary. Provided, however, if the property adjoins or is contained within public lands, the fence line adjacent to public land is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at the corners of the fence adjoining public land and at all navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the private land from the public land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would be put on notice that it is private land; or

The property is unfenced and uncultivated but is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at all property corners and boundaries where the property intersects navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would be put on notice that it is private land."

My biggest issue is in regards to relying on a fence as a property market, where the state is littered with BLM range fences that are not property line boundaries. My biggest issue is those properties that the landowner allows hunters on now, are not posted now, and once this law goes into effect you make the same crossing and become a criminal. Take Access Yes properties now. Technically could we be cited?

My hope is we have raised enough doubts, and law enforcement has agreed enough to make them think they need to back up and get us, the sportsmen, involved enough to negotiate a final agreement.

We should all agree that any property where the owner does not intend us to be on their property, as long as we can reasonably be communicated that intent, we should stay off! And, for those who would break that agreement they should pay enough of a fine to make them not do it again!

We're not there though.
 
It was amended in the senate, they pushed the readings and voted on it in the senate this morning (Wednesday.) It passed 29-6.

It does go back to Ag committee, but don't forget, the ag committee passed 536, which was even worse. They don't have to hear testimony, so they won't. The house already passed a worse version, so they will simply suspend the rules and pass it. They have plenty of time to get it through and apparently, the Wilks brothers are making it worth their while to get it done.

I'd like the believe that it won't be able to jump these procedural hoops, but it probably will, hence the reason you should call the gov. asap.
 
My note to my legislators...for what it is worth. (written today as I read about this legislation yesterday)

I have just learned of and read through the proposed legislation. I URGE YOU TO SEND THIS BACK TO COMMITTEE OR TABLE IT UNTIL IT GETS A MORE THOROUGH PUBLIC HEARING. IT HAS TOO MANY HOLES AND IT WILL COMPLICATE A VERY SIMPLE SET OF LAWS CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS!

I have the following comments:

FIRST - This is going way too fast. This proposed legislation it is down-the-road-and-around-the-corner and the public at large hasn't had a chance to weigh-in.

SECOND - The legislation is not needed. I am an avid hunter and not once do I recall not being able to identify which lands were posted. I am 68, have hunted since I was 12 and have never trespassed or even been accused of trespassing here in Idaho.

THIRD - Here in Northern Idaho, that portion of the following section of the Legislation that I have high lighted below is unworkable. It will make trespassers our of most of us....and it would be a nightmare for law enforcement to enforce....and a nightmare for landowners to meet in a manner that is legally "reasonable"

(a) A person commits criminal trespass when he enters and remains on the real property of another without permission, knowing or with reason to know that his presence is not permitted. A person has reason to know 10 that his presence is not permitted on real property that meets any of the following descriptions: (i) The property is reasonably associated with a residence or 13 place of business; (ii) The property is cultivated; (iii) The property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as delineating a private property boundary. Provided, however, if the property adjoins or is contained within public lands, the fence line adjacent to public land is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at the corners of the fence adjoining public land and at all navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the private land from the public land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would be put on notice that it is private land; or (iv) The property is unfenced and uncultivated but is posted with conspicuous "no trespassing" signs or bright orange or fluorescent paint at all property corners and boundaries where the property intersects navigable streams, roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land, and is posted in a manner that a reasonable person would be put on notice that it is private land.

Dan, A) - here in Northern Idaho...as you know, public and private timberlands are intermingled. I often hunt along skyline drive above my home. It is a mixture of Potlatch, Forest Service, Bennet Forest Products, IDL and McCrosky State Park. All of these landowners harvest timber. There are no fences. It is impossible to know when one crosses from one ownership to another. This intermingled land ownership pattern exists throughout Northern Idaho....and THE BOUNDARY MARKING GUIDELINES CONTAINED ABOVE SIMPLY WILL MAKE TRESPASSERS OUT OF MANY HUNTERS.

B) - Marking at boundary corners in the timbered country of Northern Idaho or any steep, hilly or mountainous lands here in Idaho will not "put on notice" a "reasonable person" that property has been posted no-trespassing. or the most part, in the timbered and hilly/mountainous lands in Idaho, marking just corners would be unfair and likely wholly unenforceable.

C) - there are a plethora of stream crossings in our Northern Idaho woods. So many that a landowner would likely be unable to actually meet this requirement.

D) - There is no provision for a landowner to indicate where their lands end. A landowner could mark their corners and a citizen would not know which corner is marked or if the adjacent property is public lands. There is already so much fraudulent marking of public right of ways that pass through private lands in an attempt to fool people into thinking the actual right-of-way is private....the boundary marking requirements in this law would exponentially compound this fraudulent practice. The current law requires paint at specific intervals....which has worked very well for 50 years for me without incident. I feel the landowners are getting off scot-free with doing their job to make it clear to a reasonable person that their lands are posted
 
And here is the letter I have written to Governor Otter...for what it is worth.

Dear Governor Otter,

I don't know if the Trespass Legislation will get to your desk....but if it does, please VETO it.

In my opinion it is being hastily rammed through to avoid a fair vetting by those of most affected....the hunters of Idaho.

I am 68. I and my extended family have hunted since I was 12. My father was a stickler for obtaining permission and honoring any private lands. In all my years here in Idaho, I have never once been confused about which lands are posted and I, nor any member of my family, including my two sons and daughter who now hunt with their children, have ever been found on land that was posted. The current law has worked well, is clear and unambiguous.

There are several parts of the proposed legislation that concern me.

1) The boundary marking requirements will not work in forested, hilly and mountainous terrain. And they will not work in intermingled public/private lands.

Marking only boundary corners in forested or hilly/mountainous terrain will not allow a "reasonable person" to know what is and what is not posted. Or what is and what is not public lands. These marking requirements in the new law would allow for more confusion and open the door to fraudulent marking. (For example...one is out in the BLM lands and comes across a "fence corner" that is marked. I the fence line isn't posted it would be impossible for a "reasonable person" to determine which property line is private and which is public.) The current law which requires a landowner to clearly mark their entire boundary does work well and is clear and unambiguous.

Marking the numerous stream crossings that occur here in our Northern Idaho woods where I live and hunt would take a pile of signs/paint. I doubt it would ever be achieved by the larger private landowners suich as Potlatch Corp.

In short, the new law will be infinitesimally more ambiguous and confusing than the existing law making the provision in the new law that puts the monetary responsibility on the trespasser totally irresponsible on the part of the State. Why pass a law that obviously creates an hugely unfair complicated legal morass?

As a personal illustration, I have asked permission on many occasions to hunt posted private lands (Keeping with my father's example of always honoring private lands). I could safely state that in the recent past (past 20 years) I have been refused permission 95+% of the time and the reason given 100% of the time for refusing permission is that the landowner is reserving the hunting privilege (or fishing) to either family, friends or clients. I am 100 percent OK with a landowner not giving permission. That is not my point.

My point here is that most landowners who post their lands are reserving their lands for hunting (or fishing)....and the vast majority of the cost of managing wildlife and fish in the State of Idaho is NOT PAID FOR BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS per se. This makes the Trespassing Issue more a Wildlife management issue that a simple Landowner issue yet the Idaho hunter, who pays the bills, has been largely excluded from the conversation.

There is nothing that makes me angrier than to see fellow hunters abusing and/or damaging our public lands. It really makes me angry to see fellow hunters deliberately trespassing on private lands. I have witnessed it first hand and I have reported it. So I would like to see an update to punish the bad guys/gals commensurate with the trespass. That is all that really needs legislation. Let's confiscate the ATV or PU used in the trespass and sell it for Wildlife Management. Let's take away their license privileges for 5 years on the first offense and so on. But this proposed law punishes the vast majority who are willingly adhering to current trespass laws and respect private property rights!

I URGE YOU TO VETO THIS LEGISLATION IF IT MAKES IT TO YOUR DESK AND URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO CONVENE A WORKING GROUP THAT COULD MAKE THIS A VIABLE UPDATE....NOT A MORE COMPLICATED AND UNWORKABLE SOLUTION THAT IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE.
 
Call the Governor?s office and tell him you oppose the bill. (208) 334-2100. They are taking a poll in consideration of a veto. The Governor vetoed the Stand Your Ground bill today. There?s hope.
 
Well boys and girls who love the Idaho outdoors and have for long generations enjoyed a privilege unique to Idaho....or put another way....made Idaho unique among most states in the US....of having the express LEGAL right to hunt on unmarked private land...have just seen that privilege taken from you. What really hurts is that our legislature did this largely in response to the lobbying effort of out-of-state interests who wanted Idaho to be just like their home state of Texas.

I hope you all understand why our legislature supported this...and vote accordingly in the next primary...and election. Know your candidates before voting.
 
+10 and probably a setup for when they start to take public lands for sale to highest bidder..........privately owned, down the road.
Also a good read up on the "wildlands project"
"Yukon to Yellowstone" keywords:
rewilding, reforestation, sustainable development.... will also be eye opening for further restricted access.




89864ralphie.jpg
RIP Lil Bro' "Huntnfever"
 
Idaho sportsmen really need to unite our voting efforts. Collectively, we have the numbers to make a political difference. A model similar to the NRA would be a start.
 
Welcome to the rest of the Western hunters lives. most other states are the exact same as this new bill. it sucks but its the way of future. OnX Hunt's stock probably just went up too!
 
I'm thinking the tex brothers must have made it worth the elites voting their way.
Follow the money.
Sad.

Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 

Similar threads

wweaver79
Idaho HB 587
Replies
70
Views
3k
Blindnonresident
Blindnonresident
runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
822
devobrodie
devobrodie
Robiland
Very good podcast.
2
Replies
135
Views
3k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_2022-11-10-06-56-52-311.jpg
efce1e7f49a3fef88e1629f1c6f53ded.jpg
Nice Buck
Screenshot_20211214-164050_Gallery.jpg
FBB46971-7D3C-4B2A-A978-2EB0810E814A.jpeg
Screenshot_20210905-193519_Facebook.jpg
E3AFADBD-04BD-4376-8FB8-3B586CA28C2E.jpeg
2319846D-B6D1-417B-84A9-61F0542EAD02.jpeg
FB51AB7B-B7BE-42A3-BCCD-DFA727F708F1.jpeg
Screenshot_20221206_104658.jpg
IMG_7424.MOV
CC8F2642-45F1-43B6-81E1-61944E297227.jpeg

Idaho Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Bearpaw Outfitters

Idaho Deer & Elk Allocation Tags, Plus Bear, Bison, Lion, Moose, Turkey and Montana Prairie Dogs.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, whitetail, bear, lion and wolf hunts and spend hundreds of hours scouting.

Jokers Wild Outdoors

Trophy elk, whitetail, mule deer, antelope, bear and moose hunts. 35k acres of private land.

Back
Top Bottom