Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Purple markings for no trespassing SF288

Seems ridiculous to me - in today's digital world you should be responsible enough to know where you and know if you belong there or not without me having to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in the woods with purple paint bucket! Looks like neighbors have to agree if they want the adjoining fences treated purple or not - not sure how that is supposed to work?
 
gunrunr said:
Seems ridiculous to me - in today's digital world you should be responsible enough to know where you and know if you belong there or not without me having to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in the woods with purple paint bucket! Looks like neighbors have to agree if they want the adjoining fences treated purple or not - not sure how that is supposed to work?
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. What a waste of time and money
 
Put the onus on the trespasser, not the owner. If you don’t have permission, stay the off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah, why on earth would that work? They dont obey current signs so what is the point
 
gunrunr said:
Seems like it only gives tresspassers an excuse to try and get out of being charged.
"I didnt see any purple so thought it was OK to hunt here?"
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is the current law. It is not trespassing until you have been notified you are to leave. If your land is not clearly posted, you can not prosecute someone for trespassing unless you tell them they are not welcome and then they return again. I would rather see that law fixed, but providing a lower cost way to post your land (purple paint instead of signs) isn't a terrible idea in my opinion. The real problem is that a landowner even needs to post their land. As stated above, if you don't have explicit permission, stay off!
 
Passed subcommittee today.

I compared this year's bill with last years. I thought they were different but it is the identical bill to last years.
 
This bill makes no sense to me. It complicates the prosecution of a trespasser and in fact gives trespassers rights and lessens land value. There is no existing requirement to notify a trespasser that they are not allowed to trespass if they are on your property without permission, there is no requirement to post. Look at code section 716.7(2)(a). The provision to give notice that they have to remove themselves only applies if they are there lawfully and you tell them to leave, then they must leave or its trespassing. This bill should fail. Two lobbyists are against it and the rest are undecided- why? Why would anyone be for this bill?
 
tmiler said:
This bill makes no sense to me. It complicates the prosecution of a trespasser and in fact gives trespassers rights and lessens land value. There is no existing requirement to notify a trespasser that they are not allowed to trespass if they are on your property without permission, there is no requirement to post. Look at code section 716.7(2)(a). The provision to give notice that they have to remove themselves only applies if they are there lawfully and you tell them to leave, then they must leave or its trespassing. This bill should fail. Two lobbyists are against it and the rest are undecided- why? Why would anyone be for this bill?
Click to expand...

Remember undecided does not denote approval. It just means the lobbyist can "lobby" the legislators on a bill. The two lobbyists that are against represent the same group, the ICA.

EDIT: This bill is on the debate eligible calendar but I don't believe it has been assigned a day for debate.
 
Saw this in Arkansas last week. Purple rectangles painted everywhere. Why????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cybball said:
Saw this in Arkansas last week. Purple rectangles painted everywhere. Why????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Its the new thing from state governments. Must be stock in purple paint. The new no trespassing sign for those that no speaky english.
 
Assigned to a Judiciary subcommittee yesterday, no date set yet for a meeting:

Representative Ross Paustain, House District 92, the western half of Scott County. Email: Ross.Paustian@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=9407

Representative Bobby Kaufmann, House District 73, eastern Johnson, all of Cedar County and the town of Wilton. Email: bobby.kaufmann@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=10756

Representative Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, House District 45, parts of Story County around Ames. Email: beth.wessel-kroeschell@legis.iowa.gov Legislative page: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/legislator?ga=88&personID=774
 
LOL, guess I got the jump on this as I sent Bobby an email earlier this week stating that I didn’t care for this bill and trespassers might use the “I didn’t see purple” excuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just got an email from Bobby that they killed this bill, thanked me for weighing in with my views.

Again, IMO, a landowner should not have to do ANYTHING to dissuade trespassing. If you don’t have explicit permission, stay off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
tmiler said:
This bill makes no sense to me. It complicates the prosecution of a trespasser and in fact gives trespassers rights and lessens land value. There is no existing requirement to notify a trespasser that they are not allowed to trespass if they are on your property without permission, there is no requirement to post. Look at code section 716.7(2)(a). The provision to give notice that they have to remove themselves only applies if they are there lawfully and you tell them to leave, then they must leave or its trespassing. This bill should fail. Two lobbyists are against it and the rest are undecided- why? Why would anyone be for this bill?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Here is the text of the most current code I could find (Decide 2018):

(2) Entering or remaining upon or in property without justification after being notified or requested to abstain from entering or to remove or vacate there from by the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, or the agent or employee of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, or by any peace officer, magistrate, or public employee whose duty it is to supervise the use or maintenance of the property. A person has been notified to abstain from entering or remaining upon or in property within the meaning of this subparagraph (2) if any of the following is applicable:
(a) The person has been notified to abstain from entering or remaining upon or in property personally, either orally or in writing, including by a valid court order under chapter 236.
(b) A printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to the property or the forbidden part of the property.

Now, I would never do it, but this seems clear I can enter ANY private property that I have not been told to stay out of (verbally or via a posted sign) and it can't be prosecuted as tresspassing. That notification can be in person or via sign (or purple paint if this passed).

I agree that law needs changed, but until it is, I will support cheaper and easier ways to provide notification.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom