Michigan House Bill HB4682

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/25/23
• Refer: 5/25/23
• Report Pass: 2/22/24
• Engrossed: 12/3/24
• Refer: 12/5/24

Caption

Recreation: other; responsibilities of property owners under the recreational trespassing law; modify. Amends sec. 73102 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.73102).

Impact

If passed, the bill would have significant implications for state laws concerning land use and trespassing. It would reinforce the idea that property owners have the ultimate authority regarding who can enter their land for recreational purposes. Additionally, the bill sets a legal framework for what constitutes lawful entry, specifying that consent can be given either orally or in writing, thus aiming to reduce conflicts between recreational users and landowners.

Summary

House Bill 4682 seeks to amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act by modifying Section 73102, which pertains to property owners' responsibilities regarding recreational activities on their land. The bill introduces provisions that emphasize the need for consent from landowners before individuals can engage in activities such as fishing or trapping on private property. This change is aimed at protecting landowner rights and ensuring clarity in the interactions between property owners and recreational users.

Sentiment

The discussion surrounding HB 4682 has revealed a complex sentiment among lawmakers and the public. Supporters see the bill as a necessary step to protect property rights and provide landowners with the tools to manage access to their property effectively. In contrast, some critics argue that the provisions might restrict public access to natural resources, thus undermining recreational opportunities in Michigan. There is concern that the stricter regulations could deter outdoor activities that benefit the community and the local economy.

Contention

One of the notable points of contention in the discussions of HB 4682 is the balance between the rights of landowners and the public's right to access natural resources. Proponents posit that the amendments are essential for safeguarding private property, while opponents worry that it creates barriers to recreational activities that Michiganders value. This conversation highlights the ongoing debate over individual rights versus collective access to land and resources, particularly in areas that are vital for outdoor recreation.