Michigan House Bill HB4013

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Report Pass: 3/12/25
• Engrossed: 4/15/25
• Refer: 4/17/25

Caption

Recreation: other; recreational trespass act; modify posting requirements. Amends sec. 73102 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.73102).

Impact

If passed, HB 4013 would enhance the protections of property owners against unauthorized access while simultaneously seeking to safeguard the rights of individuals engaging in recreational activities. This update aims to clarify the legal standards surrounding trespass laws, potentially reducing conflicts between landowners and recreational users. The requirement for clearly posted signs would help in educating citizens about their rights and responsibilities when entering private land for recreational purposes, likely resulting in a more informed public.

Summary

House Bill 4013 seeks to amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act by updating regulations related to recreational trespass on private property. The bill's primary focus is on the conditions under which individuals can enter private land for recreational purposes such as hunting and fishing. It specifies that consent from the property owner is necessary unless specific conditions apply, such as the presence of navigable streams. The bill also delineates precise requirements for property postings to inform the public about access rules, with details on sign dimensions and spacing.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 4013 appears largely positive among proponents who support the clarified delineation of property rights. Many landowners and outdoor enthusiasts believe that the bill reinforces their rights and ensures responsible use of natural resources. However, there are concerns among certain recreational groups who feel that increased restrictions may hinder access to public waterways and limit outdoor activities, sparking debates about balancing landowner rights with public access.

Contention

Notably, there is contention around the balance between individual rights and public access to recreational areas. Some stakeholders argue that the new posting requirements could unintentionally discourage recreational activities by making access more complicated. Furthermore, the amendment about fisherman access to navigable streams raises questions regarding the interpretation of property rights versus recreational freedoms, making this a point of significant discussion during legislative deliberations.