Michigan Votes Forum

  This lady has to be nuts.

Lets introduce a law that makes it a mandatory 2 years hard labor if you inter property without permission that is clearly marked" keep out".

Although I can (in a way) understand the impulse behind this proposal, I think the legislation is unnecessary and even stupid.  At some point, we have to be willing to (a) make people responsible for their own safety, and (b) allow the legal justice system to sort out fault and liability in cases like this.

For those who have never snowmobiled in Northern Michigan or the Upper, this bill may sound silly. I have, and think it is a good bill. While snowmobiling at night, a chain or wire across a trail to block snowmobilers from private land can be nearly impossible to see in certain weather conditions. This can lead to a snowmobiler being injured. Private land can, and does, interupt some trails. It is a small matter to place hunter orange on these barricades, but doing so can prevent serious and sometimes lethal injury. This bill does not excuse tresspasers. I see it as analagous to keeping the ice off your front porch.

By the way, Michael Lahti is not a lady.

 Why not teach motorcyclists, snowmobilers,AtV riders to stay on property they know they are welcome on and don't ride full speed when you don't knoiw where you are and can' t see where you are going. Doing that with a full load of booze makes it even more dangerous. They body and mind are both numbed. Don't put the onus on the protection of numkbskulls on propertry owners. Too many feel that the purchase of one of those toys is a license to go any dammed where they please, including across your front or back yard and they know that their chances of being caught operating them while drunk are slim.

gypsy:

... It is a small matter to place hunter orange on these barricades, but doing so can prevent serious and sometimes lethal injury. This bill does not excuse tresspasers. I see it as analagous to keeping the ice off your front porch. ...

Is there (or do we need) a state law requiring us to keep ice off our front porches?  I don't believe so.  The legal justice system (civil and criminal) is capable of sorting out fault and liability and settling matters if an injury occurs when someone enters your property.  Let the established system do its intended work.

Would you feel the same about setting a snare to catch trespassers? I'm not sure, but I imagine that would be illegal. Mostly because trespassing is not considered a capitol offense.

It does little good for the victim, if he is dead or seriously injured, to let the "established system" do it's intended work. I'm surprised you take such a careless position on this matter.

gypsy:

... Would you feel the same about setting a snare to catch trespassers?...

This proposed legislation would not outlaw snares set to entrap trespassers.  It would absurdly regulate the istallation of long used, traditional simple chain, cable or rope access track barriers by requiring the landowner to set them at prescribed heights and use costly chains, etc., "encased" in a specified color.  Ordinary flagging, warning signs, etc., would no longer suffice to protect the landowner from civil or criminal liability, and the prospective trespasser would be essentially relieved of any responsibility to proceed with caution in operating his/her vehicle.

... It does little good for the victim, if he is dead or seriously injured, to let the "established system" do it's intended work. I'm surprised you take such a careless position on this matter. ...

First, the victim who is injured (or dies) attempting to trespass is not entirely without fault for the incident.  There is, to start, the matter of the uninvited trespass itself, which is not legal.  Then, there is the question of careless operation of the vehicle.  So, no, I don't have unbounded sympathy for such "victims," who are not, themselves necessarily competely "innocent" parties.

Second, I am not aware of incidents that have occurred that would justify passing this bill into law.

I continue to believe that the established system of civil and criminal justice is quite sufficient to deal with and settle matters of liability when snowmobilers, ORV operators or other sports are injured (or worse) attempting to run through anti-trespass barriers on access roads to private property.

FreeSpeaker:

It would absurdly regulate the istallation of long used, traditional simple chain, cable or rope access track barriers by requiring the landowner to set them at prescribed heights and use costly chains, etc., "encased" in a specified color. 

Please, let's not be silly. Costly chains? The proposed bill says:

(a) The rope, chain, wire, or similar device is enclosed in material that is the color hunter orange.

 (b) The rope, chain, wire, or similar device is not more than 30 inches above the ground at any point.

Is this really too much to require of landowners to simply make it illegal to put the potential trespasser or reckless vehicle operator in mortal jeopardy?

You would put someones life in danger for an ideological point of view, to "protect" someone's property rights by allowing the property owner to install potentially lethal barricades? 

I refer to your careless logic, not the carelessness of the snowmobiler. When you rationalize the justification of someone being put at risk of death or serious injury because they trespassed or were careless, you stretch the concept of fairness.

Because you are not aware of incidents that may have occurred to prompt this proposed legislation, you are arrogant enough to oppose it on an ideological basis?

I support this bill based on the fact it requires little of the property owner wishing to discourage trespassing, and could potentially save lives and serious injury.

gypsy:

... The proposed bill says:

(a) The rope, chain, wire, or similar device is enclosed in material that is the color hunter orange.

 (b) The rope, chain, wire, or similar device is not more than 30 inches above the ground at any point.

Is this really too much to require of landowners ... ?

In a word, yes.  It burdens the landowner with additional cost and increases the landowner's liability in an incident involving illegal trespass.

You would put someones life in danger for an ideological point of view, to "protect" someone's property rights by allowing the property owner to install potentially lethal barricades?

Sheathing chains, cables or ropes in "hunter's orange" material will not make them less lethal.  And the height requirement will make the barriers less effective during winter months.  Cable, chain and rope barriers have been used to shut off private access tracks from illegal trespass for decades (or more), and I fail to find any significant record of  injuries or fatalities resulting from them.  In fact, researching this via the internet turned up only one Michigan incident, ca 2006, in which an OHV rider died after colliding with a chain barrier.  A letter to the legislature regarding that incidernt called for outlawing chain, cable and rope barriers altogether, arguing that gates and berms are a safer solution to prevent injury to OHV riders who trespass. 

From this I conclude two things:  First, this legislation is a solution seeking a problem, which makes it unnecessary.  Second, it appears to not even be the right solution to the claimed problem, which makes it patently unwise.

Because you are not aware of incidents that may have occurred to prompt this proposed legislation, you are arrogant enough to oppose it on an ideological basis?

If opposing passage of a bill because no justification for it has been demonstrated is an "ideological basis," so be it.  However, that is not arrogance.  It is just clear thinking.

My research turned up a little more substance than yours by going national. Seems this (getting clothes-lined) is a more common occurrence with children and adolescents than adults. Granted, this could be prevented by not allowing children to operate ATV,s, but you and I both know that is not going to happen. Children of course should be taught to respect others property, but again, we both know not all children will obey their parents, especially when out of their sight.

I believe putting a hunter orange cover on chain, and keeping it no higher than thirty inches, will make it less likely a property owner would be held liable for an injury or death caused by someone hitting the barricade. More importantly, it would make it less likely an over exuberant adolescent would be injured. Outlawing all chains, cable and rope would be a solution too, but if putting an orange cover on a chain is too much to ask of the property owner, in your opinion, then having to install a gate or berm just to save a life or two would be beyond the pale.

FreeSpeaker:

If opposing passage of a bill because no justification for it has been demonstrated is an "ideological basis," so be it.  However, that is not arrogance.  It is just clear thinking.

You yourself mentioned the death of one person in Michigan. I found instances of numerous severe injury of children in other states, some of them just riding on the vehicle in front of the adult. I can only describe your need for more justification as arrogance, certainly not clear thinking, in my humble opinion. It seems like such a small measure to require for the resulting benefit.

Putting myself in the property owner's shoes, I would do this without a law, and if it became law, would conform gladly.

Putting myself in the shoes of a parent who lost a child, or had them severely injured, I would find little comfort in being able to sue the property owner, which you espouse as the satisfactory mechanism for such an incident.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

gypsy:

My research turned up a little more substance than yours by going national. Seems this (getting clothes-lined) is a more common occurrence with children and adolescents than adults. Granted, this could be prevented by not allowing children to operate ATV,s, but you and I both know that is not going to happen. Children of course should be taught to respect others property, but again, we both know not all children will obey their parents, especially when out of their sight.

I also found some references to "clothesline" type injuuries on a national scale, but nothing with enough meaningful detail to persuade me this legislation is a solution to a real problem, or solution to any widespread public problem at all.

I believe putting a hunter orange cover on chain, and keeping it no higher than thirty inches, will make it less likely a property owner would be held liable for an injury or death caused by someone hitting the barricade.

And if the barrier failed to meet the law's precise specifications it would automatically and vastly increase the landowner's liability.  This proposed law serves only to shift responsibility for his/her own safety from the trespasser to the landowner.  Liability in these cases is best sorted out by the courts, which are constituted and best equipped to perform that function and arrive at a just conclusion.

More importantly, it would make it less likely an over exuberant adolescent would be injured. Outlawing all chains, cable and rope would be a solution too, but if putting an orange cover on a chain is too much to ask of the property owner, in your opinion, then having to install a gate or berm just to save a life or two would be beyond the pale.

Three points.

First, it is not my obligation to be a parent to anybody else's "exuberant adolescent."  Parents are the parties responsible for "accident proofing" their own kids by setting and enforcing limits on their behavior.  

Second, in reviewing the details of the very few cases I could find involving "clotheslining" incidents, I noted that even multiple, visible "no trespassing" signs suspended from a cable barrier along its length did not prevent the trespasser from striking it.  I have found no evidence that dressing a chain or cable or rope in "hunter orange" really would prevent that many -- if any -- incidents and injuries.

Third, I oppose this legislation because no good evidence has been presented that it addresses a significant or substantial problem, and even if it did address such a problem it mandates a prospectively poor and ineffective solution. That makes it wasteful legislation on every count.  Show me decisively and convincingly that a very substantial public interest problem is in play here, and I would be inclined to advocate a real solution involving more substantial and visible barriers.

You yourself mentioned the death of one person in Michigan. I found instances of numerous severe injury of children in other states, some of them just riding on the vehicle in front of the adult. I can only describe your need for more justification as arrogance, certainly not clear thinking, in my humble opinion. It seems like such a small measure to require for the resulting benefit.

Those children riding with an adult in most cases I found were on single-rider vehicles.  So you had a safety violation before the clotheslining incident ever occurred.  Further, the accounts of those accidents almost universally fail to report sufficient detail to establish that barrier chains or cables were involved.  For all I could discover, these people may have hit ordinary fences or guy wires rather than barriers across access tracks to private property. 

Again, there seems to be little or no real evidence that this proposal addresses a problem of any substantial or significant public interest in Michigan.

Putting myself in the property owner's shoes, I would do this without a law, and if it became law, would conform gladly.

Fine, but some simple colored flagging, or "no trespass" signs hanging from the barrier -- a common practice already -- certainly provides visibility and should give ample and sufficient warning.

Putting myself in the shoes of a parent who lost a child, or had them severely injured, I would find little comfort in being able to sue the property owner, which you espouse as the satisfactory mechanism for such an incident.

You are only making an emotional, rather than a rational argument here.  The fact is, as noted above, the courts are constituted and well equipped to deal with questions of liability should they arise in these cases.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

This legislation is not an ounce of prevention.  It is using the full force of state law to resolve what so far appears to be a non-issue from a broad public interest perspective.  Moreover, it legislatively shifts responsibility in an unreasonable way, especially when tried and true mechanisms already are in place to resolve the responsibility-liability question in any incident that may arise.

I am pleased to see this bill reported out of committee with a recomendation it pass.

 Excellent debate between gypsy and freespeaker!  Gypsy wins because the bill is out of committee with passage recommended.  FreeSpeak should win based the intellectual argument.  Gypsy, based on your logic, it seems snowmobiles and atv's should be outlawed.  I know several people who have been injured by hitting ditches with snowmobiles, what should we do to protect them? 

I note that the actual committee recommendation for passage endorses substitute H-1, but I am not sure what the content of H-1 is. 

Barriers blocking access to commercial farming operations (or croplands) are exempted under this bill.  Why is that?  If access barriers are really a hazard to trespassers that has to be regulated, aren't barriers across access points to crop land also a hazard?  If the access barrier hazard is real, shouldn't all access barriers then be treated the same way?

Then, the legislative analysis of this bill says:

House Bill 5777 would increase financial costs to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.  Because the bill includes a governmental entity within its definition of a person, the State of Michigan would fall under that definition and be required to come into compliance with the bill's new requirements concerning points of entry into land areas. 

The State of Michigan is itself a landowner and owns or manages over 4.5 million acres of land in Michigan.  According to the DNRE, bringing the State into compliance with  the bill's requirements that any barrier across a point of entry be enclosed in hunter orange colored material and no higher than 30 inches above the ground would generate very significant costs to the Department.  At this time, it is unknown how many points of access currently exist on land that the State owns or manages.

The Department would also incur additional costs from enforcement responsibilities of the bill's provisions.

Surely this would become another one of those unfunded Legislative mandates, if this bill passes.

In a time of state government seriously strapped for operating funds -- to the extent we are cutting important services -- does it make sense for the Legislature to burden a State agency with new and increased costs to implement something the need for which has not been clearly and decisively demonstrated?

If the Legislature has any real sense of responsibility and realism, this bill will not pass.

FreeSpeaker:

Barriers blocking access to commercial farming operations (or croplands) are exempted under this bill.  Why is that?  If access barriers are really a hazard to trespassers that has to be regulated, aren't barriers across access points to crop land also a hazard?  If the access barrier hazard is real, shouldn't all access barriers then be treated the same way?

Please read section 3 of the bill:

Sec. 3. Section 2 does not apply to a fence, gate, or other barrier that serves as a partition within a farm, or separates farm property from any other land.

A gate or fence is much more visible than a single chain or cable.

gypsy:

Please read section 3 of the bill:

Sec. 3. Section 2 does not apply to a fence, gate, or other barrier that serves as a partition within a farm, or separates farm property from any other land.

A gate or fence is much more visible than a single chain or cable.

Perhaps ypu should read the whole of what you quoted. 

Note the phrase, "or other barrier," which certainly refers to a chain, rope or cable.

FreeSpeaker:

Perhaps ypu should read the whole of what you quoted. 

Note the phrase, "or other barrier," which certainly refers to a chain, rope or cable.

Point taken. I should have pointed out the more obvious intent of sec. 3 was to exclude barriers within or between properties. The bill is directed at access points to property.

gypsy:

Point taken. I should have pointed out the more obvious intent of sec. 3 was to exclude barriers within or between properties. The bill is directed at access points to property.

I really don't wish to belabor you over this, but let's go to the actual wording again:

Sec. 3. Section 2 does not apply to a fence, gate, or other barrier that serves as a partition within a farm, or separates farm property from any other land.

Note the phrase, "or separates farm property from any other land."  That, of course, includes roadways and the like or neighboring non-farm land.  The mention of  "gate" in the first clause clearly tells us this statement refers to property (or tract) access points. 

The question remains:  If this is a real problem and substantial or significant threat to public safety, why are cable, chain or rope access "gates" to farm property -- which certainly is extensive in Michigan -- exempted? 

"The bill would establish a new act to prohibit any individual or entity from using a rope, chain, wire, or similar device as a barrier across a point of entry in order to prevent access to land unless:  (1) the rope, chain, wire or similar device was enclosed in material of the color hunter orange; and (2) was placed no higher than 30 inches above the ground at any point.  "Point of entry" means "a road or path suitable for use by a motorized vehicle, including a motorcycle, all terrain vehicle, or snowmobile."  (The bill applies to any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity.)"

It is self explanatory, at least to me anyway. Please read the definition of "point of entry". I have a strong assumption this is where an accident is most likely to occur.

Really, Gypsy, you should read (a) the actual bill, and (b) the legislative analysis prepared for it.

You then will know that an extensive exemption has been carved out for "farm" land access points.  That strongly implies this is one of those "solution looking for a problem" bills.  If this proposal actually addressed a substantial and significant hazard to the public health and welfare there would be no justifiable reason for such a widespread exemption. 

At the same time, the analysis points out this bill would substantially burden the DNR land management effort with new expense.  But the bill provides for no additional funding to cover it.  With no case having been made for a substantial and significant public hazard, and, therefore, necessity being addressed, this is competely irresponsible legislation.

You're right, I should read the actual bill and legislative analysis, and I have, prior to your suggestion I do so. I have reached a different conclusion than you, and see this bill as a prudent and worthwhile safety precaution, and view the farm exemption as reasonable.

I cannot agree this is "irresponsible legislation". The safety of her citizens is one of the states most serious responsibilities.

gypsy:

I cannot agree this is "irresponsible legislation". The safety of her citizens is one of the states most serious responsibilities.

Why and how is the exemption on farm land "reasonable," if cable, chain and rope access barriers present enough of a safety hazard to warrant this legislation?     

I will repeat what I've said before.  I have seen no real evidence that "clotheslining"  incidents involving access barriers produce sufficient numbers of injuries or deaths to represent a threat to public health and welfare that would justify this legislation.  Nor do I find any evidence whatsoever that dressing chain, cable or rope barriers in "hunter orange" would substantially reduce any hazard they may represent, and thus justify this legislation.

When in a discussion we begin repeating what we've said before, clearly a difference of opinion exist that is irreconcilable. I rest my case.

Thank you changeagent for granting me the win, although I don't view a recommendation to pass as a victory, it is encouraging.

To your question of where my logic leads, I can't imagine it leading to outlawing snowmobiles or ATV's, since I have owned and operated both, safely. I can see it supporting age limits, safety equipment, and training programs. I see putting orange covers over chains and cables at property entrances as a minor inconvenience for the state and property owners as compared to the safety value gained. I am also realistic enough to know that not all hazards can be eliminated, such as ditches. The concept that ideology cannot be compromised for practicality seems more prevalent on your side of the aisle.

gypsy:

  When in a discussion we begin repeating what we've said before, clearly a difference of opinion exist that is irreconcilable. I rest my case.

Once more, I don't want to belabor you.  However, it is you who have, in your arguments, repeated over and over again that this bill would somehow protect public safety.   That is the sum and substance of the argument you have carried on here.

I recognized some time ago that we have a real difference of opinion, and probably of general viewpoint on this bill. 

Like you, my initial impulse in looking at this bill was to say, "hey, looks like a good idea to me because I think safety is important."  Where we parted company is that, upon looking at the facts, I found no evidence to support the idea that  cables, chains or ropes used as barriers across property access points constitute a public safety hazard of substance or significance.  Further, I found no evidence to support the idea that the "solution" proposed by this bill actually would be an effective safety measure. 

Thus, I changed my mind and decided this bill is unnecessary and, therefore, wasteful legislation.  That makes it unsupportable in my view.

My approach stems, partly, from a several year period during my career during which I was involved in writing industry safety standards and regulations to be implemented by MIOSHA.  To this day I remain impressed with the number of proposals put on the table that, at first blush, seemed reasonable but simply failed to hold up under closer scrutiny, and which consequently were rejected.  I believe members of the legislature owe a duty to the public to be as circumspect as the MIOSHA professionals I once worked with by crafting legislation that is genuinely warranted by factual evidence.

I reply reluctantly to your post, specifically because I have rested my case. As you say, the crux of my argument is I sincerely believe this bill would promote public safety.

I do reply though because you mention your stint as an author of MIOSHA standards and regulations. That is quite coincidental, because a good share of my career was spent implementing safety regulations for a corporation, maybe some of the regulations you wrote. I usually found initial resistance to any regulations by the very people they were designed to protect, but upon implementing them, they became much easier to accept. Predictions of expense and wasted time because of new regulations never seemed to materialize, or had been greatly exaggerated, and people learned eventually to incorporate new safe work practices into their routines. It's always hard to know how many life's were saved or accidents prevented because of safety regulations, but insurance claims and lost time injuries were reduced.

I respect your position on this matter, but fail to see why you, or anyone, would oppose such a simple solution to a dangerous situation.

How many accidents would you need to record to change your opinion on the necessity of this legislation?

gypsy:

How many accidents would you need to record to change your opinion on the necessity of this legislation?

That is a reasonable question, which I approach this way:

From what I can gather from usual sources, we have around 700,000 to 750,000 registered snowmobiles, ATVs and OHVs in Michigan.  Additionally, it is safe to assume that a substantial number of unregistered machines are ridden illegally for recreation in in our state.  In researching "clotheslining" incidents involving access barrier chains, cables or ropes resulting in death or injury in Michigan, I find specific reference to just one incident, dating to ca 2006.

That one incident stacked up against the potential exposure represented by the number of snowmobiles, ATVs, etc., registered and ridden each year in Michigan is far short of sufficient to justify this legislation as addressing a significant public health or safety issue, in my opinion.  Proponents of this legislation are challenged to produce factual data that will demonstrate otherwise.

A couple of points about my involvement with developing MIOSHA safety rules and regulations.

First, I never authored any rules or regs.  I participated in advisory committee work as an industry voice supporting the MIOSHA professionals' in their efforts to write reasonable regulations.

As for your experiences in implementation of these rules within industry, Gypsy, change almost always is resisted, at least initially.  Reasonable change usually gets accepted over time.  My guess is that the MIOSHA regs you saw accepted and embraced over time were accepted and embraced because they were well crafted to begin with, representing real solutions to real problems, and thus were reasonable.

 This legislature is interested in protecting trespassers from harm by requiring orange sleeves on chains protecting private property, but is not interested in protecting motorcyclists( repeal of helmet law passed). The cyclists have the freedom to do as they choose. The property owners cannot protect their own property and can be fined if they do not follow the law prescribed to protect trespassers. Go figure.

Again, our legislators are not protecting the rights of the people and are promoting the rights of the criminal.  I, as a property owner, have the right to keep and restrict people from tresspassing on my property and if they run into something as they are illigally tresspassing so be it, maybe they'll think again before doing it again. Property owners need to send a loud and clear message on this one....  it is totally rediculous.

I have some real-world experiences with motorized vehicle intrusion on my acerage; it's essentially land-locked and bounded by private property. I think that many, many ATV'ers and dirt bikers think they have an "open range permit" when they acquire their machines. They, like speeders on the highway, can be an important source of income for local law enforcement agencies (until they "catch on"). It's too bad that responsible citizens put more value on the welfare intruders that the than the intruders do for themselves. Let's hit them where they feel it- in the wallet. Please evaluate my correspondance with the representatives:

The Honorable Douglas A. Bennett
N1196 House Office Building
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
August 25, 2009

Sir:
I am in need of assistance from your office regarding a long time problem here in Muskegon Township and probably all across your district, as well as Michigan. As an owner of seventy-plus acres in our township, the problem of intrusion on (my) private property by motorized, wheeled vehicles has been a long history of calls to our local police department and toDNR officers. On one hand, I can see the difficulty of enforcement due to limited resources and man power and on the other hand, I can see that this situation needs to be gotten under control by means of a legislative approach.
Our county has wonderful and adequate ATV/dirt bike trails available for the adventurous here in our township. Those who intrude, uninvited, on private property need to be compelled to use those trails. Therefore, I am asking if you can sponsor some sort of legislative enhancement to increase fines or penalties for those who feel compelled to use motorized, wheeled vehicles uninvited on private property. Since many intrusions have come via Consumers Power/ ITSproperty and easements, I would hope to see those included or have special attention. The higher fines could be dedicated toward purchasing, maintaining and manning vehicles, set aside, as needed, for that purpose- such as law enforcement ATV's, etc. Since many municipalities -- as well as certain State of Michigan departments-are strapped for cash these days, this approach can generate the needed financial resources to make our State and municipalities pleasant places to enjoy the peace and beauty of nature to a higher degree.
My personal concern is one of safety. I use my back, land locked property for the pleasure of peace and also as a place to target shoot or plink (using safe practices) at the spur of the moment.  The greatest concern I have is that an uninvited ATV'er would unexpectedly dart into the line of fire. This has happened on two occasions and thankfully without injury. My property is heavily posted with signs and danger banners at all entry points-all of which have been ignored at various times by ATV intruders. Lately, ATV'ers have taken to using chain saws to clear out pathways on private property in the township;some of this on Orchard View School property. Lower priororities are,hill climbing, camping, littering and unattended fires.
I believe that the law enforcement philosophy is that these irresponsible individuals will, one day, become reasonably responsible citizens of a community and so I think we need to work to get them to that point safely and without serious incident. I have candidly discussed these issues with adjacent land owners and we have arrived at the basic issues stated in this correspondence. Responsible 'dirt-bikers' have expressed concern for the negative image set by irresponsible intrusion. I believe I am speaking for those people, too.
I hope we can use this situation, which is probably prevalent across Michigan,  to set a positive example for other Michigan communities to foster responsible citizenship and , henceforth, focus on taking advantage of Michigan's natural beauty.

Respectfully,

Roy

I am in agreement fines should be increased for trespassing and the money used to support or increase enforcment. I do not think a landowner wants to be responsible for the injury or death of a tresspasser though. The crime does not deserve the death penalty.

Self-inflicted injuries are not "the death penalty."  Clotheseline injuries of the type this legislation purportedly seeks to prevent are self-inflicted, resulting from careless operation of the vehicles involved.

So far, there has been absolutely no real evidence presented -- a substantial history of incidents -- to demonstrate a need for this legislation.  Nor has there been any evidence presented that this legislation represents an effective "solution" to the presumed problem.  It burdens both private landowners and public land management agencies with unneccessary costs.