Pennsylvanians to Be Allowed to Paint Trees Purple to Warn Trespassers

[Teegate]

Maybe coming soon to NJ??

Pennsylvanians to Be Allowed to Paint Trees Purple to Warn Trespassers

Pennsylvania will allow landowners to legally notify hunters and others that they’re trespassing by painting purple stripes on trees or posts.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

 

[1Jerseydevil]

A good idea as the signs are unsightly and need frequent replacement. Trees are already painted in the Pines by hunters, blue for their drive lines. I've also seen white, yellow, orange and green......?

 

[Boyd]

I like it. But awhile ago, Scott posted a link to NJ hunting regulations. I was surprised to see that it said the hunter is personally responsible for knowing whether he is on land where hunting is permitted, and that the lack of posted signs is not an excuse.

 

[bobpbx]

A real problem is the lack of an up to date countrywide database of property owner boundaries that can be referenced on digital maps and aerials.

 

[Boyd]

Your favorite "despicable" company will gladly sell that to you.

"Garmin HuntView™ Plus Maps
PART NUMBER 010-D1651-01
$89.99 USD

{ ..... }

Identifies landowner names and boundaries for public/private land types and boundaries, using data from multiple sources for superior coverage and detail"

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/646691#overview

I've found that availability of parcel data is inconsistent. I downloaded the NJ data back in 2014, but it was only available as shapefiles with parcel/lot and PAMS_PIN data - no ownership or tax info. That was provided in a separate Microsoft Access database, so I had to come up with my own way to "marry" the data to the map. Then, around 2017 NJGIN pulled it all from their website and it was gone for two years or so. I recently noticed it is back (or claims to be) but I haven't downloaded anything.

Have looked for a downloadable statewide dataset a few years ago for NY, PA, DE and MD but couldn't find it, although some counties had it in various forms.

 

[lj762]

I downloaded the latest (2019) shapefiles which now come along with tax data (MOD-IV), rather than a separate download. But I don't think that means they are 'synced' up better. There are still many lots with no ownership information, or no shapes. Or just missing data.

Example: I was on Batona recently near the Bass River / Wharton line, and there is a crossing sand road (Cutts Rd on maps) with gates on either side of the trail. There are no signs - not Private Property nor State Forest Boundary. Curious about the gates, when I got home I looked up the adjacent lots in the latest parcels data, and there is no information on them at all. Turns out it is state property but leased to Cutts Bros for cranberry farming. Is it private or public? Can you walk there? Hunt there? Not clear at all.

I guess the purple marks on trees for private property is a good idea. But it isn't as easy to see as the yellow or orange POSTED: Private Property signs. Unless you paint every single tree, I suppose.

 

[bobpbx]

I sure hope Mr. Haine's doesn't contract with some business to do his trees. That would be a mess and a shame.

 

[Teegate]

Turns out it is state property but leased to Cutts Bros for cranberry farming. Is it private or public? Can you walk there? Hunt there? Not clear at all.

I would think it would be the same as renting a house. If you live there nobody can trespass or just walk in the house without your permission.

 

[1Jerseydevil]

It is the hunter's responsibility to know where he's at. I also feel that it is the landowner's responsibility to know his property lines and post accordingly, not just on the road. If a landowner is that adamant against hunting or trespassing it is his responsibility to completely and effectively post his entire property on all sides. Now deep in the woods, if a hunter tracks a deer from public property into private property abides by the markings or signs is another matter, if caught there is no excuse. Not every tree need be painted but I think less than the 100' proposed is better, say 50'. Yes, purple is less glaring than orange, but I think that is the idea, visible but not unsightly.

 

[1Jerseydevil]

I sure hope Mr. Haine's doesn't contract with some business to do his trees. That would be a mess and a shame.

Bob, Haines has already done so by having all his property surveyed and cut survey lines which he did post. There is no imaginary line, but a physical line. Most of the signs have fallen down, paint is much longer lasting. During the winter months, his full time workers are not that busy and he could send a team out re-establishing his property lines with paint. In most cases, Haines grants permission to hunt if asked. There are exception areas where his workers have established hunting, and that's only fair.

 

[bobpbx]

Bob, Haines has already done so by having all his property surveyed and cut survey lines which he did post. There is no imaginary line, but a physical line. Most of the signs have fallen down, paint is much longer lasting. During the winter months, his full time workers are not that busy and he could send a team out re-establishing his property lines with paint. In most cases, Haines grants permission to hunt if asked. There are exception areas where his workers have established hunting, and that's only fair.

Do you work for him?

 

[46er]

Ridiculous

 

[1Jerseydevil]

Do you work for him?

No, but as a member of a group that has permission to use his land I'm aware of what he has done and his property.

 

[1Jerseydevil]

Ridiculous

I like it.

 

[manumuskin]

In Arkansas painting trees is the way they mark their property.Purple is the color they use.Been doing it a long ti me.
also I was reading somewhere online the other day that on NJ The property should be properly posted and if it is they can prosecute you the first time your caught but if it isn't they can throw you off the first time but if you come back then they can prosecute you.Don't know if this is true,but I did read it.

 

[lj762]

Not every tree need be painted but I think less than the 100' proposed is better, say 50'.

I think when we post signs, it is usually 10 per mile, so about 520' between signs. Probably too far apart for "No Hunting", since a person could easly walk through without seeing a sign.
46er: Thanks for that picture... not so sure it is a good idea now.

 

[46er]

46er: Thanks for that picture... not so sure it is a good idea now.

My first thought was that anyone wanting a private day in the pines will pack a rattle can of purple with their lunch. No way of knowing if the paint is placed legally. The signs are required to have the land owner's contact info.

 

[1Jerseydevil]

My first thought was that anyone wanting a private day in the pines will pack a rattle can of purple with their lunch. No way of knowing if the paint is placed legally. The signs are required to have the land owner's contact info.

There's always those that take advantage. I've seen the same with the signs, some signed, others not. For example, say a sign is signed and you dispute it. You contact the signer. It's your word against his, the only way to prove is to hire a surveyor, which is really the responsibility of the landowner. That probably isn't going to happen because of the cost, but a person should know his legal property lines. In the end, is it really worth it to you to dispute or just move on? If you"know" for sure, you can always carry a can of black paint.

 

[46er]

you can always carry a can of black paint.

Perhaps the color of the paint should change each year

 

[manumuskin]

As I"ve read it it is a sign every 100 ft