hunters and landowners in Pa.- interesting rights and responsibilities under laww

I found some interesting info on property rights in the state of Pa.-
turns out the right to hunt and fish on open property is protected by
statute, in favor of the hunter/fisherman, in the state of Pa. Check
this out:

Pennsylvania's statute, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 3503 (West 2000), is
based on the Model Penal Code's trespass provision, which does not
specifically mention hunting but requires posting (or fencing or
enclosing) to exclude all trespassers from land (posting is not
required for buildings and occupied structures). See also infra notes
\l "F88"- \l "F89"
\l "B63"

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common."). Various secondary
sources provide general insight about whether and when landowners must
post to exclude hunters. The Model Penal Code's criminal trespass
provision, on which Pennsylvania's trespass statute is based, \l "F88"
requires landowners to post nonfenced land [*pg 565] (excluding
buildings and occupied structures) to exclude any would-be trespassers,
including hunters. \l "F89" The Restatement (Second) of Torts states
that,

[i]f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
.. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

§ 52 ("A license to hunt does not confer any right on the holder to go
upon lands owned by another, or to enter the enclosure of another,
without his permission. In the case of unenclosed land, however, the
right has sometimes been conferred by immemorial usage or by
constitutional provision." (footnotes omitted)).

CONCLUSION:

Twenty-nine states currently require private landowners to post their
land to exclude hunters, twenty-seven of these states by statute. The
posting statutes were an outgrowth of the American desire to ensure
that hunting was available to everyone, not just the rich and landed.
The statutes vary widely in their particulars, but the core idea behind
them -- that landowners must take often onerous steps to [*pg 585]
ensure that hunters do not enter their land -- exists in all
twenty-seven statutes. Whatever the merits of these statutes when first
formulated, as a result of social changes they now unfairly privilege
hunters over landowners.

TRESPASSING AND POSTING: THE LAWS
Some states have laws that specifically address trespassing while
hunting, and others rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of
the state. In 22 states posting is not required; that is, it is against
the law for hunters to trespass on private property without the
landowner's permission even if the land is not posted. Where posting
is required some states have laws specifying how to post land. But
trespassing and posting laws can be somewhat confusing, so we recommend
that you post your land even if you are not legally required to do so
at a minimum, posting strengthens your case when trying to combat
trespassing by hunters. Posting also identifies your property
boundaries so that hunters and law enforcement officers know where your
private property begins. We also recommend that you get to know the law
enforcement and wildlife officers who would enforce the trespassing
laws in your area so that they might better respond when you have a
problem.

The breakdown of states that do require posting of private property to
exclude hunters/fishermen/trespassers, is as follows-Property Owner
Must Post Land in the following states:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

I have been told that a trespass violation cannot be enforced in
Pennsylvania, unless a land owner has placed NO TRESSPASING signs at
intervals not to exceed 50 feet around the entire property. The signs
must be signed, dated, and replaced annually. Signs must be placed on
their own standard, not on trees or posts.

The posting statutes were designed to balance the rights of two
different groups: hunters and landowners. For many Americans, hunting
is an almost sacred activity, one enshrined in the national culture.

The posting statutes create an obvious problem: they pit the rights of
one group, hunters, against the rights of another group, landowners.
The rights of both groups are powerful. For hunters, the right to hunt
and trap on all land has its source in the early national egalitarian
desire to allow everyone to hunt.

Municipalities do face one impediment if they decide to take action
against hunters -- preemption. The regulation of firearms (including
ownership restrictions and licensing) is a field that states have
traditionally occupied completely, thus preempting any municipal
ordinances in conflict with state law. \l "F194"

Basically a hunting and fishing license in the state of Pa. is a very
powerful thing. These laws were written so someone like Bill Gates with
his $80 billion is assets, can't buy up all the open land in a specific
state, and close it all to public access and recreation. Without these
posting statutes, we would live in a fiefdom/feudal state, where only
the well monied enjoyed property rights and the outdoors. The bottom
line is, if someone buys up a million acres somewhere, they better be
prepared to post a million acres on a yearly basis, to keep people out.
Otherwise it's considered open to public recreation.

Old, ragged posters nailed to the trees themselves, don't stand up in
court. I'm not advising walking into posted land that may have outdated
posters, or is posted incorrectly- but if lands are not posted at all-
you have the right to access- unless told to leave by the property
owner. In effect, if a property owner only posts one side of a large
square plot of land, the other 3 borderlines are still open to entry.

I'd advise any outdoorsman in the state of Pa. to copy this writeup,
and put a copy in your wallet- in case you are ever stopped while
hunting or fishing. The reality is, most landowners, policemen, and
outdoorsmen don't know the letter of the law.

To anyone who is a property owner, take heed- post your property
according to the letter of the law- and you won't have to patrol your
property and tell trespassers to leave in person. It's a lot easier to
update posters once a year, than to patrol it 24/7/365 days a year.

"the lying liberal from Lancaster" wrote in
message ups.com...

I found some interesting info on property rights in the state of Pa.-
turns out the right to hunt and fish on open property is protected by
statute, in favor of the hunter/fisherman, in the state of Pa. . . .
.. . .
These laws were written so someone like Bill Gates with
his $80 billion is assets, can't buy up all the open land in a specific
state, and close it all to public access and recreation. Without these
posting statutes, we would live in a fiefdom/feudal state, where only
the well monied enjoyed property rights and the outdoors.

Another way of looking at the history is to suppose:
1. PA legislators of say 1750-1800 knew English law of
the period gave landowners title as property to the
wild animals living on their land (except for some species
reserved to the king or feudal lord); and was enforced
severely from the 18th century onward;
2. and probably knew these laws were not universal.
E.g. even in feudal times Swedish law guaranteed the
common people certain rights to be on private land and
to collect there firewood or small game (e.g. rabbits); and
3. knew traditional North American Indian game laws were
something like traditional communism, viz. no one could
or should restrict a hungry man's feeding his family on
whatever the forest produced in the wild.

So it seems possible that PA legislators aimed to preserve
#3 in America, or perhaps preferred #2 over #1.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").
[i]
f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:
[i]
Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R

wrote in message
...[i]
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R

Right in the law, it exempts housing / buildings from the posting law.

wrote:[i]
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

Um......refresh our memory.....just where was it you said you studied
law?

Wolfgang
or english, for that matter.

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:04:16 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
[i]

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R

Right in the law, it exempts housing / buildings from the posting law.

It does? Well, shoot, that explains why every mother****ing house in PA
doesn't have a big ol' sign on the door that says, "No one is allowed to
come in and help themselves to whatever they wish"...

Come on, Billy Mac, fess up - you are really a Nazi queer who hangs
around German train stations hitting on ugly older men, right?

Betcha _this_ won't...well, you know,
R

wrote in message
...[i]
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:04:16 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R

Right in the law, it exempts housing / buildings from the posting law.

It does? Well, shoot, that explains why every mother****ing house in PA
doesn't have a big ol' sign on the door that says, "No one is allowed to
come in and help themselves to whatever they wish"...

Come on, Billy Mac, fess up - you are really a Nazi queer who hangs
around German train stations hitting on ugly older men, right?

Betcha _this_ won't...well, you know,
R

As I stated in another post. You add nothing constructive to the gene pool.

wrote:[i]
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R


answer- read and know the laws of the country and state you live in-
don't make assumptions, as you just did- ASSuming something, only makes
an "ASS" out of you

read it yourself here, it's the LAW

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

on that page, you'll see that occupied buildings are NOT required to be
posted- so to answer your question- NO- I don't have to post my house
and yard- per the law

but we do post our 50+ acre property, as the law requires- so what's
your F-ING problem ? You automatically ASSumed that I had no property
of my own to begin with, and was looking to "bogart" in on unposted
land -WRONG !

these statutes have been challenged by congressmen that were also
landowners- and they lost the case- the postings statutes hold in
court- so if they couldn't defeat the posting statute, you sure as hell
aren't going to

read it here

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

quote:

Rod Froelich, owner of seventy-five hundred acres in Sioux County,
North Dakota, was tired of having hunters enter his land to hunt
without his permission. Froelich had not posted "no hunting" signs on
his land, which under the common reading of the state's posting statute
meant that hunters were not obligated to seek his permission to hunt.1
As a member of the North Dakota House of Representatives, he sponsored
legislation that would have required hunters to get permission from
landowners before hunting on private land.2 When the legislation
failed, Froelich, with the support of the North Dakota Stockmen's
Association3 and the North Dakota Farm Bureau,4 sued the governor and
the director of the Game and Fish Department of North Dakota, seeking a
declaratory judgment that hunters must have landowner permission before
hunting on private land.5 In moving for summary judgment, Froelich
argued that the posting statute, which provided for a criminal penalty
if a hunter entered posted land, did not abrogate his common law right
to exclude and his civil trespass remedy to enforce that right on
unposted land.6 He further argued that if the statute was interpreted
to effect such an abrogation -- which was the common reading -- it [*pg
550] would amount to an unconstitutional taking.7 In reply, the
defendants simply relied on the existence and history of the posting
statute to support their position that the public could hunt on
unposted land without permission, free from any civil or criminal
sanction.8 They further stated in a newspaper article that, "The
assumption that unposted land is open for hunting has been the case for
decades, if not since statehood."9 The court deemed Froelich's
complaint a request for an improper advisory opinion and granted
summary judgment for the defendants, declining to reach the merits of
the case.10

The year before Froelich filed his suit, an Arizona landowner mounted a
similar protest before an Arizona House of Representatives committee,11
lobbying in support of a bill to repeal Arizona's recently enacted
posting statute.12 Although agreeing that the statute clearly abrogated
a landowner's civil trespass remedy against people hunting on unposted
land, she argued that it unfairly undermined private property rights.13
In hearings before the committee, she stated that proper posting under
the statute was difficult if not impossible, that some hunters knock
down "no hunting" posts, that hunters were often dangerous, and that,
in the end, the state's posting law was simply inimical to private
property rights.14 Three other landowners testified similarly.15
Members of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona Wildlife
Federation, and the National Rifle Association argued in response that
the posting law was a reasonable "compromise" between the [*pg 551]
rights of hunters and landowners.16 After a lively debate, the bill
failed.17

These two conflicts revolve around state posting statutes -- statutes
that require private landowners desiring to exclude hunters from their
land to post "no hunting" signs.

Calif Bill wrote:[i]
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:04:16 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:09:33 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").

f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

I live in Centre County, PA, and have always assumed that if I don't
see a NO HUNTING or NO TRESPASSING sign, I can hunt on that land.
Provided it's in the country and not obviously a home area, of course.

I've never had a problem.

. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on trees or posts.

I would estimate that 99 and 44/100 % of the signs I've seen have been
on tree trunks.

vince

Un-flocking-believable...do you feel the need to post your home with a
sign that says "No one is allowed to come in and help themselves to
whatever they wish" to prevent people from doing such? Would you
support such a requirement? And how would you feel if you were required
to similarly post _every_ single possession you to which you have title?
As a landowner, I pay property taxes in a fair number of areas (and
can't homestead exempt) at the same rate as those who utilize the full
services those taxes support, and in several instances, I am required by
law to pay "non-resident" licensing to hunt or fish my own land. And
yet, if I don't post my land in a highly-specific method, I am construed
to be allowing its use as essentially open land. I make no claim to the
free-roaming game that might happen upon the land, only to my right to
control access to the land that I own. Yet you and others seem to think
trespass fair and just. So, I repeat - how to you feel about your own
home and possessions?

TC,
R

Right in the law, it exempts housing / buildings from the posting law.

It does? Well, shoot, that explains why every mother****ing house in PA
doesn't have a big ol' sign on the door that says, "No one is allowed to
come in and help themselves to whatever they wish"...

Come on, Billy Mac, fess up - you are really a Nazi queer who hangs
around German train stations hitting on ugly older men, right?

Betcha _this_ won't...well, you know,
R

As I stated in another post. You add nothing constructive to the gene pool.


or the thread....

no doubt he has a cookie-cutter lot in postage-stamp estates, that he
wants to post...and kick people out of...