Rod,

You're right - I didn't hear the situations, so I'm curious (and these are serious questions). Of all the negative situations that you listened to, how many of them were not ALREADY illegal? And how many situations that were NOT already illegal will now be illegal because of this law?

I just don't see what possible useful thing this bill does. If I take off my hunting cap for a moment and put on my landowner cap, here is how I see the bill:
You STILL have to have permission to go on my land. Nothing about that has changed. All that has changed is that now the state is telling me a verbal contract is no longer legally acceptable and that all contracts and permissions must be written. Basically, my word is worthless to the state. I have to write it down for it to "count". Then, on top of that, even though it's MY land, *I* don't get to decide who is prosecuted for being on it...the STATE does. Somehow that doesn't surprise me, though, coming from a state that can send people on my land to do an archeological survey during turkey season without my permission..... For a "landowner rights protection act", it sure does make me feel more and more like the state thinks it's THEIR land that they just let me use......

Ken, I agree if you are a land owner should have the right to say who can go on your land. I also think you should have the right to post your land and have someone to patrol it for intruders and be able to prosecute them. There are land owners that has their land posted and people still go on it and may even damage property because it is posted (still hunters vs dog hunters) so to speak, any way you look at it is bad for one good for another. I'm just glad this is all (so far) we are going to get out of it , for a dog hunters prospective.