Pennsylvania's statute, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 3503 (West 2000), is
based on the Model Penal Code's trespass provision, which does not
specifically mention hunting but requires posting (or fencing or
enclosing) to exclude all trespassers from land (posting is not
required for buildings and occupied structures). See also infra notes
\l "F88"- \l "F89"
\l "B63"

Pennsylvania courts generally hold that posting is required to exclude
hunters. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433
(C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed
open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties
where hunting and outdoor activities are common."). Various secondary
sources provide general insight about whether and when landowners must
post to exclude hunters. The Model Penal Code's criminal trespass
provision, on which Pennsylvania's trespass statute is based, \l "F88"
requires landowners to post nonfenced land [*pg 565] (excluding
buildings and occupied structures) to exclude any would-be trespassers,
including hunters. \l "F89" The Restatement (Second) of Torts states
that,

[i]f. . . it is the custom in wooded or rural areas to permit the
public to go hunting on private land . . . , anyone who goes hunting .
.. . may reasonably assume, in the absence of posted notice or other
manifestation to the contrary, that there is the customary consent to
his entry upon private land to hunt or fish." \l "F90"

§ 52 ("A license to hunt does not confer any right on the holder to go
upon lands owned by another, or to enter the enclosure of another,
without his permission. In the case of unenclosed land, however, the
right has sometimes been conferred by immemorial usage or by
constitutional provision." (footnotes omitted)).

CONCLUSION:

Twenty-nine states currently require private landowners to post their
land to exclude hunters, twenty-seven of these states by statute. The
posting statutes were an outgrowth of the American desire to ensure
that hunting was available to everyone, not just the rich and landed.
The statutes vary widely in their particulars, but the core idea behind
them -- that landowners must take often onerous steps to [*pg 585]
ensure that hunters do not enter their land -- exists in all
twenty-seven statutes. Whatever the merits of these statutes when first
formulated, as a result of social changes they now unfairly privilege
hunters over landowners.

TRESPASSING AND POSTING: THE LAWS
Some states have laws that specifically address trespassing while
hunting, and others rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of
the state. In 22 states posting is not required; that is, it is against
the law for hunters to trespass on private property without the
landowner's permission even if the land is not posted. Where posting
is required some states have laws specifying how to post land. But
trespassing and posting laws can be somewhat confusing, so we recommend
that you post your land even if you are not legally required to do so
at a minimum, posting strengthens your case when trying to combat
trespassing by hunters. Posting also identifies your property
boundaries so that hunters and law enforcement officers know where your
private property begins. We also recommend that you get to know the law
enforcement and wildlife officers who would enforce the trespassing
laws in your area so that they might better respond when you have a
problem.

The breakdown of states that require posting to exclude
hunters/fishermen/outdoorsmen is as follows:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

I have been told that a trespass violation cannot be enforced in
Pennsylvania, unless a land owner has placed NO TRESPASSING signs at
intervals not to exceed 50
feet around the entire property. The signs must be signed, dated, and
replaced annually. Signs must be placed on their own standard, not on
trees or posts.

The posting statutes were designed to balance the rights of two
different groups: hunters and landowners. For many Americans, hunting
is an almost sacred activity, one enshrined in the national culture.

The posting statutes create an obvious problem: they pit the rights of
one group, hunters, against the rights of another group, landowners.
The rights of both groups are powerful. For hunters, the right to hunt
and trap on all land has its source in the early national egalitarian
desire to allow everyone to hunt.

Municipalities do face one impediment if they decide to take such
action -- preemption. The regulation of firearms (including ownership
restrictions and licensing) is a field that states have traditionally
occupied completely, thus preempting any municipal ordinances in
conflict with state law. \l "F194"

Pennsylvania Hunter Harassment Statute:

The Pennsylvania statute prohibits intentionally obstructing or
interfering with lawful hunting. It is a violation to block, impede or
otherwise harass a lawful hunter, or to enter private property without
the owner's permission or enter public property intending to violate
the law.

There has also been a recent court decision in Penna. that if you have
you
land in "Clean & Green" you must allow recreational access to your land

unless you can provide a valid excuse for denying useage. And farming
is not
a valid reason. Recreational access would include hunting, fishing,
horseback riding, hiking, etc. For those who are not familar with
"Clean &
Green" program in PA., its a substantial property tax break for anyone
owning more than 10 acres and registering with the program. If the land
is
ever sub-divided, the taxes that were saved throughout the years, must
be
made up at the time of sub-division. It purpose was to encourage land
preservation.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Janice Haagensen
In December 3, 2001, Pennsylvania attorney Jan Haagensen spoke to two
hunters who were hunting on a road adjacent to her property, in order
to prevent them from trespassing on her property. Ms. Haagensen she was
charged with criminal harassment under Pennsylvania's "Hunter
Harassment Statute."
The statute was originally passed to protect recreational hunters from
interference by the animal protection movement; yet, as it is written,
the statute has a much wider reach. Overbroad and vague, the statute
criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution and Article 1 § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In
Ms. Haagenson's case, the trial judge found her guilty of criminal
harassment based on the fact that her speech was directed at hunters,
speech that would be protected had there been no hunters involved. The
statute is a content-based and viewpoint-based restriction that
violates the First Amendment.

see legal briefs on the subject he

https://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite....Duke+L.+J.+549

INTRODUCTION
Rod Froelich, owner of seventy-five hundred acres in Sioux County,
North Dakota, was tired of having hunters enter his land to hunt
without his permission. Froelich had not posted "no hunting" signs on
his land, which under the common reading of the state's posting statute
meant that hunters were not obligated to seek his permission to hunt.1
As a member of the North Dakota House of Representatives, he sponsored
legislation that would have required hunters to get permission from
landowners before hunting on private land.2 When the legislation
failed, Froelich, with the support of the North Dakota Stockmen's
Association3 and the North Dakota Farm Bureau,4 sued the governor and
the director of the Game and Fish Department of North Dakota, seeking a
declaratory judgment that hunters must have landowner permission before
hunting on private land.5 In moving for summary judgment, Froelich
argued that the posting statute, which provided for a criminal penalty
if a hunter entered posted land, did not abrogate his common law right
to exclude and his civil trespass remedy to enforce that right on
unposted land.6 He further argued that if the statute was interpreted
to effect such an abrogation -- which was the common reading -- it [*pg
550] would amount to an unconstitutional taking.7 In reply, the
defendants simply relied on the existence and history of the posting
statute to support their position that the public could hunt on
unposted land without permission, free from any civil or criminal
sanction.8 They further stated in a newspaper article that, "The
assumption that unposted land is open for hunting has been the case for
decades, if not since statehood."9 The court deemed Froelich's
complaint a request for an improper advisory opinion and granted
summary judgment for the defendants, declining to reach the merits of
the case.10

The year before Froelich filed his suit, an Arizona landowner mounted a
similar protest before an Arizona House of Representatives committee,11
lobbying in support of a bill to repeal Arizona's recently enacted
posting statute.12 Although agreeing that the statute clearly abrogated
a landowner's civil trespass remedy against people hunting on unposted
land, she argued that it unfairly undermined private property rights.13
In hearings before the committee, she stated that proper posting under
the statute was difficult if not impossible, that some hunters knock
down "no hunting" posts, that hunters were often dangerous, and that,
in the end, the state's posting law was simply inimical to private
property rights.14 Three other landowners testified similarly.15
Members of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona Wildlife
Federation, and the National Rifle Association argued in response that
the posting law was a reasonable "compromise" between the [*pg 551]
rights of hunters and landowners.16 After a lively debate, the bill
failed.17

These two conflicts revolve around state posting statutes -- statutes
that require private landowners desiring to exclude hunters from their
land to post "no hunting" signs. As an initial matter, as this Note
later shows, Froelich's argument that the statutes are only criminal
and therefore do not affect landowners' civil remedies is unavailing --
the posting statutes actually make hunting on unposted land perfectly
"legal."