Euphemism for Illegal Mountain Bike Trails: "Gray Trails"

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:01:07 -0700, wrote:

The land owner often doesn't want to start a paper trail that might
establish permanent trail access, or expose the land owner to additional
liability for hazardous conditions, but has no objection to peaceful
recreational use of the property.

Whether it's on paper makes no difference. Verbal contracts are just
as valid as writte contracts. But we have been given no evidence of
EITHER.

PRECISELY -- the agreement exists, it's valid, but it's not on paper, so
if there's ever a court case, *there's no evidence of it* beyond he-
said/she-said conflicting testimony.

I'm surprised you were actually capable of figuring that out.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

Why don't YOU read between the lines?

You have no clue whether or not the land owner said, "sure, ride on my
land
because you guys chase the drugg adicts away." There is a chance that bike
riding is less traumatic than the drug parties, therefore the land owner
is
okay with the rider's presence.

I don't know that either, but I'm not making charges that people are doing
illegal stuff.

We BOTH know that mountain bikers do "illegal stuff". The difference
is that I'm honest enough to say it. You aren't.

I've never pretended that mountain bikers don't do illegal stuff, I only
said that all mountain bikers don't do illegal stuff, which YOU claim they
all do. You are the one making the false assertions.

I'm certain the difference in our positions will be lost on you.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 01:30:26 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:29:31 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
wrote:

On 2007-05-24, Bill wrote:
Wolf Leverich wrote:
snip

Depending of the state, the land may have to be fenced, posted at
specific intervals, or the landowner may have to order folks off
the land to make presence constitute trespass and be subject to
civil and criminal penalties.

California requires, IIRC, at a minimum of posting every third of
a mile along a property boundary plus posting at all places where
roads and trails enter the property.

Wrong. I live in California and the rangers will give out a ticket
even
knowing they are wrong. They play the odds that you won't plead not
guilty. I came down off of an unmarked fire trail once, not even sure
which park I was in, and the ranger wrote me a traffic ticket for
riding
on a non-bike trail. I ate the ticket and then it showed up on my
driving record.

Oops, my bad.

I was responding to MV's apparent assertion that riding on
private property was automatically trespassing. It isn't.

I wouldn't be terrifically surprised, though, if riding
closed-to-bike trails on public lands is a citeable offense,
even if the trail isn't marked where you got on it.

One of my pet peeves is that if you're the CEO of Enron, the
government has to fly up its own arse to prove you intended to
break the law (though it's obvious even to the village idiot).
But if you're an ordinary Joe who gets screwed on something
like this, the fact that there was no reasonable way for you
to know you were in the wrong place isn't a defense at all.

BS. It is very easy to find out. And it's also your obligation to find
out BEFORE riding there. But that isn't the mountain biker "cowboy"
way. They ride first, and ask questions later. If ever.



It actually ISN'T easy. What is easy is to travel several miles and be in
sight of the trail's end, only to find an opening in the fence that says
one
is entering public land where one would expect the public to be allowed to
be, and find a sign pointed the other way that says, do not enter. On the
side where entry was made, there was no such sigh, but where the exit is,
there is a sign reading, stay out.

It amazes me that this needs to be explained to you.

It amazes me that you STILL miss the point: You can (and MUST) easily
find out the trail status BEFORE going there.


You're an idiot. You are not even talking about what you started talking
about.

: I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
: humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
: years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
:

Are you an evolutionist? If so, how can humans be kept out of a "pure
habitat"? We're PART OF nature! Don't you understand that?

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:32:42 -0700, Bill wrote:

Wolf Leverich wrote:
On 2007-05-24, Bill wrote:
Wolf Leverich wrote:
snip
Depending of the state, the land may have to be fenced, posted at
specific intervals, or the landowner may have to order folks off
the land to make presence constitute trespass and be subject to
civil and criminal penalties.

California requires, IIRC, at a minimum of posting every third of
a mile along a property boundary plus posting at all places where
roads and trails enter the property.
Wrong. I live in California and the rangers will give out a ticket
even knowing they are wrong. They play the odds that you won't
plead not guilty. I came down off of an unmarked fire trail once,
not even sure which park I was in, and the ranger wrote me a
traffic ticket for riding on a non-bike trail. I ate the ticket and
then it showed up on my driving record.

Oops, my bad.

I was responding to MV's apparent assertion that riding on
private property was automatically trespassing. It isn't.

I wouldn't be terrifically surprised, though, if riding
closed-to-bike trails on public lands is a citeable offense,
even if the trail isn't marked where you got on it.

That's what ****ed me off. I had been riding the ridge most of the day
and found a trail down. No signs or anything, just a good fire truck
trail. At the bottom where I almost literally ran into the ranger, he
said "Look at the signs.", which were all, of course facing the park.
I tried to explain the signs were all facing the wrong way for me, and
was I supposed to climb back to the top and find another road when I
got a standard "Ignorance is no excuse." from him. Needless to say,
some rangers are jerks just like some (fortunately few) police.

I see. there was NOTHING wrong whith what he did! He was correct: you
should have determined that the trail is legal, BEFORE riding it. The
fact that a sign was missing (probably torn down by a typical mountain
biker) is no excuse.


Mike,

So if he did ask the land owner permission to ride on the land, then
off-road bike riding is ok??



One of my pet peeves is that if you're the CEO of Enron, the
government has to fly up its own arse to prove you intended to
break the law (though it's obvious even to the village idiot).
But if you're an ordinary Joe who gets screwed on something
like this, the fact that there was no reasonable way for you
to know you were in the wrong place isn't a defense at all.

This sucks.

###

AMEN^2
Bill Baka

This is kinda important to hikers, or there would be even more
access problems than there already are ...
May be some of us in California should write about bad rangers.
Bill Baka

Not a bad plan. Might at least get the trails marked better.

BS. They STILL sound like a GOOD ranger, doing his job!

Cheers, Wolf.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator,
soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair
http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/ P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA
93222-6831


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:17:10 -0400, "userfriendly"
wrote:


: I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
: humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
: years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
:

Are you an evolutionist? If so, how can humans be kept out of a "pure
habitat"? We're PART OF nature! Don't you understand that?

That's not the REAL question. The REAL question is WHICH part of
nature are we? Certainly the most destuctive part!

As a species, we are native to Africa, and everwhere else a newcomer
(exotic species). Wildlife lived in human-free habitat for almost 4
billion years, and is adapted to it.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Fri, 25 May 2007 07:29:00 -0700, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:01:07 -0700, wrote:

The land owner often doesn't want to start a paper trail that might
establish permanent trail access, or expose the land owner to additional
liability for hazardous conditions, but has no objection to peaceful
recreational use of the property.

Whether it's on paper makes no difference. Verbal contracts are just
as valid as writte contracts. But we have been given no evidence of
EITHER.

PRECISELY -- the agreement exists,

Prove it. We've been given ZERO evidence that that is true. The word
of a mountain biker is worth precisely ZERO.

it's valid, but it's not on paper, so
if there's ever a court case, *there's no evidence of it* beyond he-
said/she-said conflicting testimony.

I'm surprised you were actually capable of figuring that out.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 29 May 2007 13:58:23 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:32:42 -0700, Bill wrote:

Wolf Leverich wrote:
On 2007-05-24, Bill wrote:
Wolf Leverich wrote:
snip
Depending of the state, the land may have to be fenced, posted at
specific intervals, or the landowner may have to order folks off
the land to make presence constitute trespass and be subject to
civil and criminal penalties.

California requires, IIRC, at a minimum of posting every third of
a mile along a property boundary plus posting at all places where
roads and trails enter the property.
Wrong. I live in California and the rangers will give out a ticket
even knowing they are wrong. They play the odds that you won't
plead not guilty. I came down off of an unmarked fire trail once,
not even sure which park I was in, and the ranger wrote me a
traffic ticket for riding on a non-bike trail. I ate the ticket and
then it showed up on my driving record.

Oops, my bad.

I was responding to MV's apparent assertion that riding on
private property was automatically trespassing. It isn't.

I wouldn't be terrifically surprised, though, if riding
closed-to-bike trails on public lands is a citeable offense,
even if the trail isn't marked where you got on it.

That's what ****ed me off. I had been riding the ridge most of the day
and found a trail down. No signs or anything, just a good fire truck
trail. At the bottom where I almost literally ran into the ranger, he
said "Look at the signs.", which were all, of course facing the park.
I tried to explain the signs were all facing the wrong way for me, and
was I supposed to climb back to the top and find another road when I
got a standard "Ignorance is no excuse." from him. Needless to say,
some rangers are jerks just like some (fortunately few) police.

I see. there was NOTHING wrong whith what he did! He was correct: you
should have determined that the trail is legal, BEFORE riding it. The
fact that a sign was missing (probably torn down by a typical mountain
biker) is no excuse.


Mike,

So if he did ask the land owner permission to ride on the land, then
off-road bike riding is ok??

Of course not. That doesn't prevemt oit from being very destructive.

One of my pet peeves is that if you're the CEO of Enron, the
government has to fly up its own arse to prove you intended to
break the law (though it's obvious even to the village idiot).
But if you're an ordinary Joe who gets screwed on something
like this, the fact that there was no reasonable way for you
to know you were in the wrong place isn't a defense at all.

This sucks.

###

AMEN^2
Bill Baka

This is kinda important to hikers, or there would be even more
access problems than there already are ...
May be some of us in California should write about bad rangers.
Bill Baka

Not a bad plan. Might at least get the trails marked better.

BS. They STILL sound like a GOOD ranger, doing his job!

Cheers, Wolf.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator,
soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair
http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/ P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA
93222-6831
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

snip

I see. there was NOTHING wrong whith what he did! He was correct: you
should have determined that the trail is legal, BEFORE riding it. The
fact that a sign was missing (probably torn down by a typical mountain
biker) is no excuse.


Mike,

So if he did ask the land owner permission to ride on the land, then
off-road bike riding is ok??

Of course not. That doesn't prevemt oit from being very destructive.

So let me get this straight, riding a bike off-road is bad, but asking
permission BEFORE riding is less bad??

Thats kinda like a 14 year old getting permission from Dad for the car keys
, and Dad saying "Sure son, here you go". Once again, more MV logic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 31 May 2007 12:03:57 GMT, Chris wrote:

snip

I see. there was NOTHING wrong whith what he did! He was correct: you
should have determined that the trail is legal, BEFORE riding it. The
fact that a sign was missing (probably torn down by a typical mountain
biker) is no excuse.


Mike,

So if he did ask the land owner permission to ride on the land, then
off-road bike riding is ok??

Of course not. That doesn't prevemt oit from being very destructive.

So let me get this straight, riding a bike off-road is bad, but asking
permission BEFORE riding is less bad??

Of course, but it doesn't jusify mountain biking. It's just good not
to break the law.

Thats kinda like a 14 year old getting permission from Dad for the car keys
, and Dad saying "Sure son, here you go". Once again, more MV logic
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande