|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
BILL
NUMBER: SENATE BILL 758 – AS
INTRODUCED
TOPIC: Shining upon
private property
SPONSOR: Senator
Jim Barcia
CO-SPONSORS: None
COMMITTEE: Natural
Resources and Environmental Affairs
Analysis Done:
POSITION
The Department of Natural Resources opposes this
legislation, as proposed.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
Rural property owners believe that shining onto their
lands, homes and associated buildings without their permission should be
prohibited by law.
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
Senate Bill 758 would amend Part 401, “Wildlife
Conservation,” of 1994 PA 451 to: 1) prohibit casting an artificial light for
the purpose of locating animals onto an occupied dwelling, barn or building
used in a farm operation or onto land within 450 feet of such structures,
unless separated by road or highway, without the written consent of the owner
or lessee of the structure; 2) prohibit shining for the purpose of locating
animals onto any private property conspicuously posted “No Shining” without the
written consent of the owner or lessee, and 3) expand the prohibition on use of
an artificial light for the purpose of locating animals to include all of the
period from September 1 through December 31 (currently prohibited only during
November). The proposed legislation contains
a sunset provision and provides exemptions for certain activities and persons.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
There are those rural landowners that feel the act of
shining a light onto their property, especially on their residence and other buildings,
is an invasion of their privacy and property rights. Requiring written permission to shine these
buildings or within 450 feet of these buildings or upon lands posted “No
Shining” would protect rural property owners against such unwanted intrusions.
Con
The provision of this bill prohibiting
shining from September 1 through December 31 is unnecessary for the added
protection of wildlife. Current shining
laws, which prohibit shining during the month of November and from
In addition to not being needed for resource
protection, the primary purpose of this bill is not wildlife conservation but
rather private property protection against the intrusion of artificial lights
being cast upon homes, other buildings, adjacent lands, and other private lands
when posted against such trespass. As
such, the other provisions of this legislation should not be proposed as an
amendment to the wildlife protection laws but perhaps more appropriately as an
amendment to Chapter LXXXV, “Trespass,” of the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, for the improved protection of
private lands.
It should be expected that enactment of the proposals
in Senate Bill 758 may result in an increase in the number of complaints from
property owners. Responding to these
complaints might mean that law enforcement officers may not be as available to
react to other requests for assistance.
Although the direction of a beam of light may be
under the control of the person using it, the distance the light will travel is
difficult to control and unlit rural residences, barns and other buildings used
in farm operations may not be discernable until after the light beam has
penetrated the protected space.
Depending on terrain and other factors, it would be very possible for an
individual lawfully using a light to be accused of causing the light to shine
on property where they have not been granted permission. Individuals with no intent to disturb others
may be faced with defending themselves in court if it is alleged that their
light was cast onto property protected under this proposal or posted against
trespass.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Are there revenue or budgetary implications in the
bill to the --
Budgetary:
Shining trespass complaints by rural property owners
might be expected to increase Conservation Officer workloads
and create a greater need for State general funds to support this enforcement
activity.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT (Con’t)
Revenue:
None.
Comments: We would anticipate that resource protection
funds would be disallowed to support enforcement in this area.
Budgetary:
None.
Revenue:
None.
Comments:
None.
Comments: Local enforcement agencies may have a concern if shining trespass
complaints increase officer workloads in rural areas.
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
The Michigan Department of State Police may have a
concern if shining trespass complaints
increase officer workloads in rural areas.
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
The Michigan Farm Bureau has supported similar
legislation in the past.
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
None.
_______________________________
K. L. Cool
Director
_______________________________
Date
LED
