Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Posting And Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to criminalize posting “No Hunting” signs on land not owned by poster
Summary
House Bill 87 would make it a class B misdemeanor to place signs or posters prohibiting hunting or other physical activity on land the poster knows they do not own; sponsors and law enforcement said the change is intended to deter false posting that restricts access for licensed hunters.
Representative David Love, the House sponsor of House Bill 87, told the Senate committee he brought the measure after incidents where neighbors posted "No Trespassing" or "No Hunting" signs on land they did not own and then called police on legitimate hunters. "I brought this bill to the house, because of what something that happened to my brother," Love said, adding that modern mapping apps often make it possible for hunters to contact the actual landowner when signs appear to be on private property.
The bill would add a criminal penalty for knowingly placing a sign or poster that prohibits certain physical activities on land when the person knows they lack a legal right or reasonable basis to do so. Love described the proposed penalty as a class B misdemeanor and framed it as the flip side of an existing statute that penalizes the removal of posted signs: "This will put penalties to it. It's more or less the flip side of the coin of RSA 6:35:4, where people caught taking down signs are penalized," he said.
Colonel Jason Jordan of Fish and Game told the committee existing statutory tools are weak for this conduct and that law enforcement sometimes sees landowners who report that their land was posted by someone else. Jordan referenced an older statute on unauthorized posting and advertising and said it has not been used often in his 30 years of service: "It's not ... well written for what we have. It's RSA 2:36‑27. It's unauthorized posting and advertising. I've never used that in 30 years," he said, but added that the new bill could be a better tool and act as a deterrent.
Committee members discussed a drafting/clarifying amendment suggested by one member to tighten the bill's grammar and make the mens rea clearer. The committee adopted a technical committee amendment to change the phrasing to, in effect, require that the person know they have no legal right or reasonable basis to post the sign.
The committee moved the bill out with the committee amendment and reported it as "ought to pass as amended." The motion carried on unanimous voice consent.
Why this matters: witnesses and law enforcement told the committee that falsely posted signs can reduce available land for licensed hunters and that a clearer, enforceable penalty could deter people who post signs on neighbors' or third-party land to prevent lawful access.
What the bill does not do: the measure does not change the existing civil rights of landowners who properly post their own property; it targets persons who knowingly post signs on land they do not own or for which they lack a reasonable basis to assert control.
Votes at a glance: The committee adopted a committee amendment and moved HB 87 out as "ought to pass as amended" on unanimous voice consent.
