Signs, signs, everywhere a sign...

April 2, 2006 10:10 AM

POSTED / NO TRESPASSING - Has this always been the norm? When did it become popular for virtually *everyone* to do this to their land? How serious are people, in your experience? Also, is there anywhere where they don't do this (as much)?

I spent all yesterday mountain biking through my very rural local area. It is hilly, to the point where are are long stretches of hillside that are unfarmable. During the course of my trip I went by numerous POSTED signs (although I didn't actually violate them, I kept going until I got to a non POSTED place). My problem is that much of this POSTED land was not being farmed, or used in any other way at all. It was just deemed "private" by some person who decided (s)he doesn't want anyone else on his land.

Basically, this practice has been really getting my goat lately. It feels like there is no land which has not been claimed and staked and is not jealously gaurded from everyone else, even though I live in a very rural area.

When did it start that everyone posted their land? Is it the mass popularity of hunting and ATV's? I could see not wanting gunshots and loud motors on my property.

Has anyone here actually been caught violating a POSTED sign, for doing something benign, like hiking or biking? What happened? Did you actually get prosecuted?

Lastly, does anyone here live somewhere that this isn't so common? I'm thinking places like the Northern/Western US, or rural Canada as possibilities. Is it just a pipe dream?

posted by zhivota to law & government (42 comments total)

I used to live in rural British Columbia. I was told that many of these signs were posted to reduce/eliminate the liability for the owner of the property. That way, if you fall off a cliff, become decapitated by fishing line strung across trees when your ATV goes through (happened to a little boy we knew), fall down a well, get shot, twist your ankle, etc., you can't sue the owner for failing to safeguard against those problems. If the owners are aware that people bike or hike on their property, then they assume a certain amount of liability for any injuries, deaths or other problems. IANAL and this may specific to my jurisdiction or not even true.
posted by acoutu at 10:16 AM on April 2, 2006

Er, um, your survivors can't sue either.
posted by acoutu at 10:17 AM on April 2, 2006

In most states, there is a statute that allows the owner of land to use the courts (criminal prosecution and/or civil suits) to remedy/prevent a trespass only when the signs are up. They essentially serve as a fair warning to trespassers that the owner will enforce his rights.
posted by megatherium at 10:23 AM on April 2, 2006

This I don't understand:

It feels like there is no land which has not been claimed and staked and is not jealously gaurded from everyone else, even though I live in a very rural area.

Um, there is no land that has not been claimed and staked. Every little bit is owned by someone, and unless that someone is a governmental agency (or a private person/company that does not mind) he has a right to "guard it from everyone else". That's what private property is all about.
posted by megatherium at 10:26 AM on April 2, 2006

You can't blame people for not wanting strangers wandering around their property doing who knows what. It's their land.

As a practical matter, I really doubt anything serious would happen to you if you got caught unless you were doing something illegal or if you were a habitual trespasser who'd ignored previous warnings to leave. Police have better things to do, so the responsibility of protecting from trespassers falls to the landowners the vast majority of the time. You'd likely just be asked to leave.

Why not find out who the owners are and ask permission to be there?
posted by MegoSteve at 10:29 AM on April 2, 2006

Move to Sweden.
posted by martinrebas at 10:31 AM on April 2, 2006

"Also, is there anywhere where they don't do this"? yes, The UK and Ireland. Walking trails wander effortlessly through private property and it is an accepted pratice (and common law) that these paths are for public use.. this has been a point of substantial legal conflict but he public's right to use these many (and I mean many) paths has been upheld.. Being a frequent visitor to the UK I can also tell you that courtesy and respect for the owners land is also an expected practice. In the States posting and trespassing signs are for the purposes identified in the preceeding
posted by rmhsinc at 10:39 AM on April 2, 2006

I should note that I have never seen these paths used for mountain biking and I would guess that it would be considered a disruptive and unintended use. As an avid biker I would also assert that mountain biking is not an acceptable use of other peoples land. Mountain biking is just to hard on the terrain.
posted by rmhsinc at 10:42 AM on April 2, 2006

This location will not help you (I saw this in the UK), but I'm just throwing it out there as an interesting model.

In England, there are very long hiking trails where the hiker has the 'right of way' (not sure if it is similar to what is cited by the poster above).

Therefore, if you buy property, and your property is on one of these trails, you must leave the trail open and allow hikers, etc. to travel through to the next part of the path. I followed one a few of these paths on a vacation in England and believe it or not many of the trails will even run through farms (cows, horses, sheep will be right next to you). It was a cool experience and I wish we had something like that in the states.
posted by Wolfster at 10:46 AM on April 2, 2006

I grew up in a rural Oregon, and have lived here all my life. These signs have been around as long as I've been able to read (thirty years), though they're often disregarded. I think previous posters are correct: they're a legal formality that allow property owners to enforce their rights should the need arise. If they're new to your area, I would expect that it's because property owners are upset that certain uses are being made of their property. Like mountain biking. Yes, hiking and biking may be relatively "benign", but they become less so with each hiker and biker on a given trail.
posted by jdroth at 10:55 AM on April 2, 2006

I suppose I should clarify a few things.

I understand, megatherium, that "this is what private property is all about." I'm trying to feel out places and times where this was/is not what it was all about.

The site on Sweden was instructive, martinrebas. This, along with the info on the UK, is what I am looking for. As you can see from that megatherium, having exclusive access is not what owning land is about everywhere in the world.

rmhsinc, we could get into a long protracted argument about whether or not MTBing is damaging (I don't think it is if you are responsible about it), this is not what the question is about. Pretend I'm only going on foot if it helps.

Megosteve, have you ever tried to find all the land owners in an area where land claims can huge or small, and there is no correlation between nearby houses and who owns that chunk of woods? On farms, it isn't too bad. In the woods, it's much harder to do than you think.

Sure, if I live the typical American lifestyle, it would be painfully obvious to me that private land is somewhere I shouldn't be and that I should stick to my piss-poor public parks and otherwise stay in civilized areas. But this is not the case for me. Being in the wilderness is the only thing that really brings me peace sometimes. I want to find the places where I can do that without driving to a trailhead and walking around some "wild" place with a paved path and waterfountains every quarter mile.

On preview: Another comment about mountain biking. Everyone just ignore that I mentioned that in the question. I really really don't want this to derail into an argument about that issue.
posted by zhivota at 10:58 AM on April 2, 2006

Northern Michigan is filled with these signs wherever the property is private. There are however, tons of hiking and biking trails in the state and national forests where you can escape the ubiquitous POSTED signs. Another reason so many signs are up is because of the yearly deer hunting invasion when many drunken hunters take to the woods with the weapons of their choice. Snowmobiles and ATV's add to the liability problems when hunting season is off.
posted by Roger Dodger at 11:05 AM on April 2, 2006

In Canada there's a ton of gov't owned land called Crown Land, which you generally have the right to access for any non-commerical purpose.

That said, I usually operate under the impression the the
'posted' signs are there for legal reasons. Esp in the USA, which is the sue-tastic capital of the world.

Often when you're looking for land to access the easist thing (in my experience) is to ask the local police or town council, which gives you the added advatage of avoiding any minefields (political or otherwise).

In the UK apparently pretty much all land is owned, but there's a law allowing access for hikers and other non-destructive uses. I think it's called rambler's access or some such thing.
posted by tiamat at 11:12 AM on April 2, 2006

I want to find the places where I can do that without driving to a trailhead and walking around some "wild" place with a paved path and waterfountains every quarter mile.

There's a ton of unspoiled wilderness in my neck of the woods (Southwest Florida). Most of the "parks" that I go to are acres of woodlands with barely-maintained dirt trails and nobody patrolling the place to make sure you stay on them. These are largely Florida state parks, which technically are only "open" during daylight hours, but again, nobody's really checking to make sure you adhere to this. Of course, there's a lot of dangerous wildlife on the loose here (and no doubt in other areas of wilderness as well), so you'd be exploring at your own risk. Here are a few links in case you ever decide to visit.
posted by Gator at 11:19 AM on April 2, 2006

I second what Rodger says. Here in PA, you post on your property to keep idiots from shooting your dog/cow/kid on the last monday of November. Generally, hunters can wander through anyone's property unless you have Posted signs up.
posted by octothorpe at 11:29 AM on April 2, 2006

If you are using land, do be careful to look for evil owners (or kids) who've put fishing line across the trails. :(
posted by acoutu at 11:29 AM on April 2, 2006

There's two additional, less cheerful verses to Woody Guthrie's This Land Is Your Land that don't often get sung. The first is:

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;
And on the sign there, It said "no trespassing."
But on the other side: it didn't say nothing!
That side was made for you and me.

Anyway, liability and preservation of affirmative property rights is the reason, like others have said.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:32 AM on April 2, 2006

In Sweden, Findland, Norway, Scotland, England, Wales and probably a bunch of other places you have the right to access land, private or not. This and several other similar laws are treated with exceptional importance in Scotland. IIRC, around 10 years ago there was a shopping centre built over a designated public path which had been there for hundreds of years. The route of the path had to remain intact and the architect had to work around it. The path ended up diagonally bisecting the centre, accessible by unmakred doors at each end, leading down into the basement and back up, but nobody even knows it's there now.

In Sweden access to land is called Allemansrätten, in Scotland it's usually referred to as the "public right of way," although it may have an official name. Exact terms vary, but it usually means you can camp on people's land for a certain number of days, swim in their water, and enjoy their space. In return you agree to respect their property - no fires, litter etc. It doesn't apply to dwellings and gardens.

Madonna had a problem with hikers walking across the grounds of her stately home a few years back.

More about the subject - Right of public access to the wilderness.
posted by fire&wings at 11:32 AM on April 2, 2006

I own a fair amount of forested land in a rural area, adjacent to state forest and a snowmobile trail. For the first couple of years we didn't put up signs; saw no real reason to try to keep people away.

But I rapidly tired of seeing beer cans and cigarette butts and garbage all over the place, tired of seeing plants crushed, branches broken, and even smaller trees uprooted by people pushing their ATVs through shortcuts or building hunting blinds, and tired of feeling like it wasn't safe to go out in the back yard during hunting season. Somebody ditched a broken snowmobile well off the trail, finally; that broke the camel's back. Signs up.

They get torn down pretty frequently; I have to hike the perimeter three or four times a year to replace them. Which depresses me, that's not the sort of thing I like to have to think about when I'm hiking.

I know it's just a minority who do these things, but the No Trespassing signs are their fault.
posted by ook at 11:35 AM on April 2, 2006

acoutu is spot on; it's a liability issue. You want to check out this similar thread where a number of lawyers (including megatherium) have weighed in on the matter.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 11:35 AM on April 2, 2006

The Right To Roam in the UK

Public Footpaths & Bridleways in the UK with a handy FAQ

The Countryside Code

Sounds lovely, however, some landowners are not keen on ramblers. So it's best not to upset them.
posted by Arqa at 11:39 AM on April 2, 2006

I'm not sure about the liability issue. I've lived in Vermont for 20 years and have noticed that when property is purchased by a non-resident as a second home, up come the no trespassing signs. Rarely, if ever will you find a native Vermonter posting thier land. Usually the trespassers, trash dumpers, and drunken hunters are from out of state too.

As the New Yorkerization of Vermont continues eventually the whole state will be one huge no tresspassing sign.
posted by Xurando at 11:45 AM on April 2, 2006

I've lived in Vermont for 20 years and have noticed that when property is purchased by a non-resident as a second home, up come the no trespassing signs.

I'lll second this, though I've only been here for less than a decade. If you're not living on your land, you have more of a reason to want to keep people off of it, to stop them from moving in to your house while you're away, etc. I also know that people sometimes post their land when they have family/pets as a way of making more certain that hunters don't go hunting there. IIRC posted land here needs to be reposted annualy for the no tresspassing edict to be in effect. Snowmobiles and ATVs can be a problem, though the sad part is that there are great organized groups of people trying very hard to maintain harmony with landowners, but there is the "few bad apples" issue that can really wreck things. I've gotten into arguments with my neighbor about him ATVing on my land late at night when I am either sleeping, or earlier when I might be out walking. It's a hard balance to strike, even with people you know.

In my area of Central Vermont there is a cultural trend against these signs, as Xurando says, and I've always heard anecdotally, that if your land isn't posted, that it's available for whatever use people want to make of it. I'm sure this is changing, especially in more populated areas of the state, but especailly in the Northeastern part of the state, you're likely to see large stretches of land that are open for walking.

On the other other hand, my land isn't posted and I maintain a fair amount of liability insurance just in the event that people who aren't me hurt themselves or injure themselves stepping in to a groundhog hole or even possibly flipping over their handlebars. Just because someone isn't farming their land doesn't mean they may not be using it for something else (tree farm, sugaring, wildflowers, bees) that might be impacted by someone biking or hiking through, potentially.
posted by jessamyn at 11:58 AM on April 2, 2006

In Sweden, Findland, Norway, Scotland, England, Wales and probably a bunch of other places you have the right to access land, private or not.

Yes but you can't necessarily mountian bike, ride ATVs or horses along them. Walkers only. And you have to stay right on the trails and keep moving, legally.

We own some land that leads to a river and not only is it posted it has the trail blocked off. However, all the locals know they can use it and all a new person would have to do would be to ask. It is posted because we don't want drunken hunters or ATVs or bikes tearing up the trail as it's the one we use every day to get to the cabin. We don't want people who will go off the trail and take poops near our well (hello people!) or party. We also have a lot of bear and other wildlife and we prefer they remain undisturbed in the spring when they're raising their young.

Another friend of mine has posted her entire 100 acres on the East Coast and DOES inforce it after numerous instances of people trying ot pet or ride her horses or shooting at them thinking they are deer. Her family has been there about 80 years and this has only become an issue as subdivisions encraoch on the ladn. She has a 100 yeard setback so from the outside it looks like unused land but it most assuredly is not. She also has some very fragile wetland habitat in the setback and as part of her agreement on the easement she is responsible for protecting it from adverse impacts. Like mountain bikes. In the summer I'm sure she'd let someone she knew ride there but in March? Uh no, she doesn't need to be rebuilding all her trails every year.
posted by fshgrl at 12:03 PM on April 2, 2006

How serious are people, in your experience?

Forgot to answer this part.

If I catch someone on our land just hiking, I leave 'em be; maybe just a 'good morning' and a once-over to see what they're up to. If they're armed, or drinking, or smoking, I ask them to leave; if they refused, I'd definitely call the cops. (So far no-one has, though the conversations are often not a lot of fun. I hope this last situation never arises; I'm not armed and don't relish conflict.)

The day after we first put up the signs, a hunter came to our door in full camo regalia, shotgun in hand, to ask if No Hunting actually applied to him. Offputting. We worked that one out, though: he's a neighbor, and a responsible hunter; still gifts us the occasional bit of venison.

Rarely, if ever will you find a native Vermonter posting thier land. Usually the trespassers, trash dumpers, and drunken hunters are from out of state too.

Everybody likes to blame everything on the New Yorkers, but most of the damage around here (Western MA) seems to come from teenage idiots on snowmobiles who were born and raised here. Having once been a teenage idiot myself, I don't begrudge them their pleasures; I'd just rather they had them elsewhere. As for whether the non-locals are more likely to post signs, yeah, probably so, especially if they're not here year-round. (I'd been in this area four or five years before we broke down and put 'em up, if that's a data point.)
posted by ook at 12:08 PM on April 2, 2006

Thanks for all the good info everyone, especially all the detail about the UK and the anecdotes about what goes on in your neck of the woods (that's really what I wanted from this anyway).

Right now I'm researching the Nordic countries, I really like the "everyman's right" laws they have there. I may use that fact on my next big cycle-touring trip. I tire of touring in the US with these sketchy land laws.

My true wish would be that people could make two kinds of signs, one that really says "hey I don't want anyone here, seriously" and one that says "hey, i'm not responsible for you getting hurt here, and by the way no hunting/fishing/MTBing/other_activity on my land" that would essentially elminate liability and also exclude certain activities. But then in this litigation happy place, that probably wouldn't be a workable solution. Hence my thinking about leaving this country entirely.

On Preview: fshgrl, you're right about no biking in UK for the trails, I believe, but not in the Nordic countries. From the pamphlet taken from here, is this text: "Everyone is entitled to walk, ski, cycle, or ride freely in the countryside, as long as this causes no harm to property or nature."

Also of note is that in the Nordic countries it is actually illegal to post your land unless you have some valid legal allowance to do so.
posted by zhivota at 12:14 PM on April 2, 2006

Many states have adverse possession laws, whereby if someone without title posseses land for a statutory period of time, they can gain title to the land. Posting a "no trespassing" sign is supposed to protect the owner's interests by keeping the statutory period from running, since the would-be adverse posseser has notice that the land is in fact owned by someone else.
posted by subtle-t at 12:22 PM on April 2, 2006

How serious are people, in your experience?

Depends on what you're doing and what they use the land for. We gots no problems with snowmobilers- we're not there in the winter, they keep an eye on the cabin and they don't tear anything up. ATVs are more of a problem as they tend to tear pst our window at 5am and they leave huge ruts in the dirt road. Surprisingly hikers are often the worst offenders, coming to peer in the windows of the cabin and such.
posted by fshgrl at 12:30 PM on April 2, 2006

I remember exploring woods and property with my friends when we were kids. We'd always just agree that if someone confronted us, we'd go, "Uh, what sign? We didn't see anything!"

But of course, we knew were just kids and basically they'd just tell us to get the hell out of there.
posted by defenestration at 12:48 PM on April 2, 2006

you're right about no biking in UK for the trails

No on public footpaths. Yes on public bridleways and byways.
posted by grouse at 1:04 PM on April 2, 2006

zhivota, sorry for the sharp elbow.

One additional point to make about my state of Michigan. Last summer, the state Supreme Court issued a decision vindicating the right of the public to walk along beaches up to the "mean high water mark". Landowners can no longer keep them off. That doesn't give anyone the right to set up a blanket and a volleyball net, but it does confirm a traditional right of passage, based on the traditional right of free access to the navigable waterways of the state.
posted by megatherium at 1:22 PM on April 2, 2006

No-one seems to have mentioned this but trespassers won't be prosecuted in most cases. This is because trespassing is a civil offence, while prosecution is for criminal offences. (This applies to the UK/US. YMMV.) Criminal trespass does, of course, exist and what exactly it is varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it usually involves a) violence; b) a dwelling. If I wander in your woods and do no damage, you might be seriously pissed off or threaten me but you cannot have me prosecuted. Indeed, even suing me, if I did no damage, would be a waste of your time and money, unless I did it on a regular basis. Naturellement, IANAL.
posted by TheRaven at 1:56 PM on April 2, 2006

On my parent's wooded homestead property in Pennsylvania the "no hunting," "no trespassing," and "safety zone" postings are almost a necessity. First, I have to say that no one on foot or pedal bicycle, unarmed, and pleasant has ever been questioned...sometimes even welcomed. Individuals on ATVs and uninvited hunters are a danger to themselves and to us. They don't know where the landowners are on their property or what they are doing with it. A clear wooded trail today might be part of an enclosed barbed-wire pasture tomorrow. I don't even want to get into the idiots who cameo-up to poach game, thinking that its safer to not wear safety colors so they don't get caught. Signs are posted so that the trespasser has fair warning that they are not factored into the equation. Now, having said that, I've only ever been stopped once in that area my entire life and asked to leave while hiking.
posted by mrmojoflying at 1:56 PM on April 2, 2006

I don't think anyone I know has a problem with responsible people using the trails on their land (except the weird militant ones) but everyone who owns land or a farm knows about someone who trespassed, did something blatantly stupid then sued the landowner and won.
posted by fshgrl at 2:04 PM on April 2, 2006

I believe there are some states where permitting public access for certain purposes legally means by extension permitting access for other purposes. In NH, for example, you can't forbid hunting on your land if you allow access for hiking or other uses. I believe the same applies for trapping and fishing, maybe snow-mobiling as well. You can't hang "No Hunting" signs but let people hike. So if you want to forbid hunting on your land you have to hang "No Trespassing" signs and then look the other way if you want to allow hiking or biking. This was an issue for a neighbor when I lived in NH several years ago.
posted by tiny purple fishes at 2:13 PM on April 2, 2006

You could go to the eleven states west of the line connecting Montana and New Mexico where the federal government owns over 50% of the land. For example 83% of Nevada is federal land. These are managed primarily by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which is part of the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service which is part of the Department of Agriculture. East of that line the feds own less than 5% of the land.

But you better go soon because there is powerful movement in this Republican administration to sell it off because of the belief that if it isn't privately owned then it isn't earning enough money. For example the Congressional Western Caucus and the Sagebrush Rebellion. There is even talk about privatizing the National Parks by turning them into for-profit amusement parks.
posted by JackFlash at 2:15 PM on April 2, 2006

The real answer to all those No Trespassing sign is not to get resentful, but to try and talk with the people who put them up. A large part, maybe even a majority of the time, just doing that will get you permission to use the land, especially if you're a neighbor. Some people may have special restrictions if they're, say Mennonites. Respect any such restrictions. Some may not want you or anyone else on their land, for whatever reason. Respect that, too. If it becomes known that you respect the wishes of the landowners, others who are less restrictive will become more inclined to grant you access.

As population pressure increases, this user-landowner interaction is becoming a huge issue for all sorts of outdoor activities, but the basic approach is always the same. Try to be responsive to the landowner's wishes, and to appear to be reasonable. Arguing or expressing resentment is going to harden the landowner's heart, and he has the weight of the law behind him (at least in the U.S.). If your use is more intrinsically hazardous than walking around, you might make up a waiver of indemnity for the landowner, stating that you (or your survivors) won't sue him.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:29 PM on April 2, 2006

AskMefi question suggestion: How do you find out who to contact to get permission to use land? (I'll probably ask this eventually, but my questions are booked for some time at this point :)
posted by -harlequin- at 7:10 PM on April 2, 2006

Often the signs have a phone number on them. Ours do.

Or you can go to the registry of deeds and look up the property owner's name.
posted by ook at 8:29 PM on April 2, 2006

When I lived in the suburbs of Sacramento, CA, I overheard an Animal Control Officer at the county pound explain that if there was not a "No Trespassing Sign" posted on the property, then it was legal for anyone to come into the backyard and there was nothing the sheriffs could legally do about it.

It is my understanding, and I'm no lawyer, that at least in the west, that is the law.

I own 10 acres near a very popular river area. I have posted signs not so much to keep people out, but to be able to have the legal right to kick jerks off of my property.

You might consider calling the local police/sheriff and seeing what they say the law is.
posted by tbird at 11:56 PM on April 2, 2006

I am also not a lawyer, but I think if you tell someone to leave your property, and they do not, they are trespassing, and the police can make them go. The signs just take the place of your telling the someone in person. I think the actionable offense is called "trespassing after notice". The notice is either your saying "leave" or the sign. The officer was probably saying there was nothing they could do about someone in your yard without one or the other kind of notice.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:30 AM on April 3, 2006

I am also not a lawyer, but I think if you tell someone to leave your property, and they do not, they are trespassing, and the police can make them go.

Also not a lawyer, but I have some practical experience with this. Someone trespassing where property boundaries are not clearly marked can easily say, "how do I know this is your property and not John Doe's, and he told me I can be here." You can call the cops, and the trespasser will eventually have to stand down, but you'll be told to put up signs by the police if you don't want people on your property. The signs are a deterrent, but they also carry the force of law. Unless you are in your yard and its obviously your property, that's a big help. Of course, in the neck of the woods I'm talking about, trespassers are rarely ever beligerent -- it doesn't serve their interests, or safety.
posted by mrmojoflying at 9:52 AM on April 3, 2006