IL: “Purple Paint Law” gives landowners.....

[TRAPnHUNT]

Courtesy of Illinois Outdoor News.

Springfield - A new law signed by Gov. Pat Quinn allows Illinois landowners or lessees the option of using purple paint markings on trees or posts on their property as a "no trespassing" notice. The "Purple Paint Law" is designed as an alternative which Illinois landowners can use to protect their property from trespassing.

The new law - Senate Bill 1914 - was signed by Quinn on Aug. 22 and took effect immediately.

While the new "Purple Paint Law" gives Illinois landowners or lessees the option of marking their property with a series of defined purple paint markings on trees or posts, additional notice is still required through 2012.

Until Jan. 1, 2013, those landowners using purple marks must continue to issue a "no trespassing" notice either by oral or written notice to individuals or by posting appropriate signage at the main entrance to the property in question.

Provisions of the new law require that the purple paint marks used to designate "no trespassing" notice must be either:

1.) A vertical line of at least 8 inches in length. The bottom of the mark shall be between 3 feet and 5 feet high. Each mark shall be no more than 100 feet from another such mark and be readily visible to any person approaching the property.

Or,

2.) A post capped or otherwise marked on at least its top 2 inches. The bottom of the cap or mark shall be between 3 feet and 5 feet 6 inches high. Posts so marked shall be no more than 36 feet apart and be readily visible to any person approaching the property. Prior to applying a cap or mark that is visible from both sides of a fence shared by different property owners or lessees, all such owners or lessees must agree to the decision to post their own property.

The new "Purple Paint Law" does not apply to real property located in a municipality of over 2 million inhabitants.

[TrappinTommer]

While this law seems good because property lines would be more obvious and it would be much cheaper and easier to post your property, the only downfall I can see is that if someone wants to ask permission to hunt/trap/fish on a property, they will not know who owns it. Also you won't know who's property line is who's because they will all be the same color.

[TRAPnHUNT]

Sept 19, 2011 6:23:40 GMT -5 TrappinTommer said:

While this law seems good because property lines would be more obvious and it would be much cheaper and easier to post your property, the only downfall I can see is that if someone wants to ask permission to hunt/trap/fish on a property, they will not know who owns it. Also you won't know who's property line is who's because they will all be the same color.

That's the same thing I was thinking Tommer. The "No Trespassing" signs can give a ton more info than a purple patch of paint.

[Admin]

Well, being a landowner and always dealing with trespassing issues, I'd have to say I like the law. I certainly would have signs to back it up but signs do fall off and around here they get torn down. If the sign gets torn down by some s**theel, does that mean it's no longer posted? They seem to think so. If simply having purple paint means NO TRESPASSING is in effect, then I am all for it. It would be a lot easier to pait every tree in a property line than to hang sign on every tree. I paint my boundaries anyway.

[jacktheknife]

Gentlemen,

At first, when I saw an important looking post entitled 'purple paint law'
I assumed it meant Spanish speaking folks up north can't paint their houses like they do down here in Texas, with bright purple paint and bright green trim.
The house across the street from my friend Jose is painted like that and it looks good. Now I wouldn't want a purple and green trimmed house near my house but in Dallas where all the houses are old and dingy, it brightens up the neighborhood. That's the way they paint houses down in Mexico and it is a colorful style.

Purple paint on boundary line trees?
I'll get back to y'all on that one.


Thank you...


Jack the Knife

[patricimo54]

They use it in Arkansas. I'd never seen it before so I asked the obvious question, why purple? I was told by the man I purchased my property from that purple is what you'd get if you were to mix all of the colors of the spectrum together. He is a painter by trade, I guess he knows what he is talking about.

I still prefer the printed word myself, NO TRESPASSING. It leaves no room for doubt, but you still have the vandalism issue of signs being torn down.

[Admin]

Sept 19, 2011 9:29:16 GMT -5 jacktheknife said:

At first, when I saw an important looking post entitled 'purple paint law'
I assumed it meant Spanish speaking folks up north can't paint their houses like they do down here in Texas,

[/quote]

That's exactly what I thought too and wished it would come into effect.

Whenever I see a bright purple house I roll my eyes. Yes just like this Here's another one

I figured the purple paint for boundary markers was because purple and blue aren't natural colors in the woods. Blue anything really stands out at any time of year. Bright orange colors even blend in at certain times but blue never does.

[barkspud]

That dosn't sound to bad JC like you said easy to mark and u can't tear them down. Here they can mark with silver horizonral line 2'' high buy no more then 8" wide very 100 feet. The signs ned to be placed a vehicle access points. I thought they had color coded like silver and red for permission only. I don,t see it but it should be that way. This isn't to ease thing for the sportsman its to ease it for the land owner. Not many use the hash marks and not many people know about it. The state needs to advertise it more to be fair to the public. Can't change the rules without telling.