Stop in for a cup of coffee

dukeboy_318 said

a: it's my property that I paid for, pay the taxes and insurance on.
b: if they ask permission, by all means, I'd says yes, its the one's without permission that are the problem.
c: most people in this area aren't just walking, they're there to poach fish,deer or even steal eggs from the chicken house and stuff from the garden.
d: if that's not what they're after, its to nose around my stuff and see what i have, which isn't anything super valuable but again, none of their business.
e: then you have the idiots who trip and roll and ankle that want to sue you since they were walking on your property and stupidly, the courts side with them 90% of the time or they settle with the insurance company which then hikes your rates.

Click to expand...

Well, if you wish to keep people off your land simply because it is your land, then there is not much else to be said.

Regarding the c and d , like I said, that isn't allowed here either.

E is just beyond my comprehension. Has that really happened? How could anyone walking in nature, regardless of who owns the land, be able to sue and actually win if they hurt themselves? How can you guys allow it to be this way?

The original issue was that it isn't allowed to collect firewood in parks. I can absolutely see how that is a necessary rule to have. If it was allowed, pretty soon, due to the amount of traffic in the parks, the dead branches on the ground within a reasonable distance from designated fire places would be used up. Then what would people do? Of course they would start breaking off dead-ish branches from trees, and when those are all used up, the not dead at all branches. Maybe throw leaves and pine cones on the fire causing lots of flying hot particles increasing risk of wild fires.