Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
Actually... in your example.
The snowmobiler and mountain biker trails as described would be legally prohibited under the RSA 635:4 because of the gate and the posting that the trail is closed. They could be cited for a trespass violation.
The kayakers, though not very well-mannered, didn't violate any law... unless the property was legally posted against trespass.
As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.
If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.
|
Yes, John, we get the semantics.
My point is the line between courtesy and legality and why the OP feels he deserves an explanation.
Clearly the owners of Blueberry want people to stay off their property unless given explicit permission as evidenced by the posted signs.
Evidence of why—damage, trash, etc.—has been given.
Whether or not those signs meet the legal requirements should not matter—the intentions are clear, so people should stay out.
My additional belief is that, even without signs, people should assume landowners don't want strangers on their land.
Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk