Purple markings for no trespassing SF288

Discussion in 'Legislative Forum' started by Fishbonker, Feb 18, 2019.

  1. Fishbonker

    Fishbonker Life Member

    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Padded Room
  2. AdBot Guest Advertisement

  3. gunrunr

    gunrunr Life Member

    Messages:
    1,273
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Pella
    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?
     
  4. JBAGS

    JBAGS Member

    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I agree 100%. What a waste of time and money
     
  5. JNRBRONC

    JNRBRONC Moderator

    Messages:
    8,138
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Put the onus on the trespasser, not the owner. If you don’t have permission, stay the off.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. flugge

    flugge Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Northern Iowa
    Yeah, why on earth would that work? They dont obey current signs so what is the point
     
  7. gunrunr

    gunrunr Life Member

    Messages:
    1,273
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Pella

    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?"
     
    Broot, JNRBRONC and flugge like this.
  8. Rjack

    Rjack Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    980
    Likes Received:
    404
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Johnston, IA
    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!
     
  9. Fishbonker

    Fishbonker Life Member

    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Padded Room
    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.
     
  10. Fishbonker

    Fishbonker Life Member

    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Padded Room
  11. tmiler

    tmiler New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Southern Iowa
    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?
     
    Fishbonker likes this.
  12. Fishbonker

    Fishbonker Life Member

    Messages:
    6,395
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Padded Room
    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.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice