<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Bruce, et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>A short summary and an agreement:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Idaho is an open access state, one of the very few left.
Basically, except for agricultural land in cultivation, unless private is posted
in a very particular manner, anyone who has not received a private,
written no trespassing notice in the last year can trespass with
impunity. If the property owner or their authorized agent finds someone on
their property and orders them off, then if the person so ordered does not
leave, they are then trespassing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Below the line is a recent post urging changing the law to be
more protective of property. Following that is the response from Senator
Gary Schroeder. His response is quite revealing. For all the loud
lip service Idaho's Republicans give to private property rights, when it
comes to doing something to effectively enforce those rights with a modern
trespassing law, Idaho's Republicans are invisible, and as you can see from
Schroeder's response, pathetically beholden to and in fear of special interests
groups.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Besides hunters and ORVs, Moscow Mountain property owners (and
others) are now facing a new trespassing peril -- paint gun games and their
resulting messes and safety problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The <FONT size=6><FONT face="Olde English">Wilson &
Family's Cult & <FONT color=#00bb88><STRONG>Cash
Machine</STRONG></FONT></FONT></FONT> even objects of people taking pictures
from public property such as streets, alleys, and sidewalks. For those
interested a long Word document, which describes such an incident. is
available. Those wishing to read it can email me at <A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A> for a copy. If there had
been an arrest in this case, the City of Moscow and some members of the MPD
would be much poorer today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=4>_____________________________________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Previous post on Trespassing:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT size=3><FONT size=4>Mark, Phil, Dan, et
al,<BR></FONT><BR></FONT><FONT size=4>I agree with Mark that part of the problem
is Idaho's trespassing statutes. Idaho is one of the last open access
states. Except for agricultural land in cultivation, unless private is
posted in a particular manner, anyone who has not received a private no
trespassing notice in the last year can trespass with impunity.<BR><BR>In recent
years the sheriff's office has greatly stepped up its enforcement in certain
county areas, an action almost all of we property owners on Moscow Mountain
greatly appreciate. In the case of some motorized recreation, users can be
cited with vandalism/damage to property if they<BR>cause ground and/or tree
damage even on unposted property.<BR><BR>Changing Idaho's trespass laws is a
huge undertaking and one for which the legislature has shown little interest in
addressing in the past.<BR><BR>When I lived in Boundary County, which was then
experiencing the same kind of motorized recreation/unsafe hunting problems that
we see in Latah County now, a number of us proposed a tiered state trespassing
statute. Briefly:<BR><BR>1. Unarmed, non-motorized
trespassing would continued to be allowed unless the land was posted. The
posting requirements would be changed so as to not be such a burden to the
landowner.<BR><BR>2. Armed and/or motorized trespassed would
only be allowed if clearly posted for such or with the permission of the
landowner.<BR><BR>3. The third violation of 1 above in a ten
year period would be a felony; the second violation of 2 above in a ten
year period would be a felony.<BR><BR>4. Certain civil actions
would be simplified in order for landowners to collect damages for trespass
and/or damage.<BR><BR>The rational for such a tiered system is based on the
amount of damage or threat to safety each kind of trespass generally engenders
and/or for which history documents abuse. The legislators in that area of
northern Idaho at that time, although in agreement with the proposed changes,
would not proposed them since the reaction from motorized users groups and
hunters would be extremely adverse to their re-election chances.<BR><BR>I wonder
if our current legislative representatives would be willing to try something
like this now.<BR><BR><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box
9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843<BR><BR>(208) 882-7975<BR></FONT><A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR><BR>__________________________________________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>Response to the above from Senator Gary
Schroeder:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>From: "Gary Schroeder" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:Gary@hideandfur.com"><FONT
size=4>Gary@hideandfur.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>><BR>To: "'Art Deco'"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><FONT
size=4>deco@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4>><BR>Sent: Saturday, January
28, 2006 11:16 AM<BR>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] LMT -- Everyone hears this tree
fall<BR><BR><BR>This need to be co-ordinated with the ATV groups.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>G.<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>From: "Bruce and Jean Livingston" <<A
href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com">jeanlivingston@turbonet.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>To: "Craine Kit" <<A
href="mailto:kcraine@verizon.net">kcraine@verizon.net</A>>; "Andreas Schou"
<<A href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Cc: "Vision2020 Moscow" <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:20 AM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Vision2020 in the yard?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=4><FONT size=3>>I suppose it is relevant what the
criminal law defines as trespass, and I <BR>> don't have the time to research
all of the other laws that might conceivably <BR>> apply to the alleged
Jackie Woolf photography shoot, but wandering around on <BR>> anyone's
private property without permission seems wrong to me. If there <BR>>
isn't an applicable law, "there oughta be a law." One ought to ask
<BR>> permission, notwithstanding the lack of posted "no trespassing" signs,
and <BR>> if nobody is home to give you permission, you ought to walk back
down the <BR>> sidewalk from the front door that wasn't answered and leave
the property <BR>> immediately without wandering around on someone else's
property.<BR>> <BR>> Bruce Livingston<BR>> <BR>>
<BR></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>