Euphemism for Illegal Mountain Bike Trails: "Gray Trails"

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.

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.

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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:03:40 -0700, 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.
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.

What exactly was" bad" about him? Sounds pretty good to me!

NOW I know why people call Vandeman an Ass.
Bill Baka

Bill Baka
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

On Fri, 25 May 2007 01:24:20 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:07:31 -0700, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:04 -0700, wrote:

In article ,
says...
From: "Jon Kennedy"
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:55:24 -0000
Subject: Staff Night Out (5/30) -- Gray Area Conversation --

Come join Justin and Jon next Wednesday at the Redhook Brewery in
Woodinville for the fourth BBTC Staff Night Out.

At this pub night we want your feedback on what our policy on gray
trails should be. A gray trail is one where the land owner informally
allows us to maintain, build or use trails on their land, but there
is no formal written policy.

So it's illegal now for land owners to allow trails on their property?

No, it's illegal to trespass and damage private property. DUH! Leave
it to a mountain biker not to know that.

Which has exactly what to do with trails that the landowner has
specifically allowed, though not in writing?

Or did you not bother reading what you posted: "A gray trail is one
where the land owner informally allows us to maintain, build or use
trails on their land"

Read between the lines. What exactly does "informally" mean? It just
means that they haven't been caught yet, while destroying the land.
They never claimed to have any evidence of the alleged "permission".



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 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 Thu, 24 May 2007 22:48:59 -0400, "userfriendly"
wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
: On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:07:31 -0700, wrote:
:
: In article ,
: says...
: On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:04 -0700, wrote:
:
: In article ,
: says...
: From: "Jon Kennedy"
: Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:55:24 -0000
: Subject: Staff Night Out (5/30) -- Gray Area Conversation --
:
: Come join Justin and Jon next Wednesday at the Redhook Brewery in
: Woodinville for the fourth BBTC Staff Night Out.
:
: At this pub night we want your feedback on what our policy on gray
: trails should be. A gray trail is one where the land owner
informally
: allows us to maintain, build or use trails on their land, but there
: is no formal written policy.
:
: So it's illegal now for land owners to allow trails on their property?
:
: No, it's illegal to trespass and damage private property. DUH! Leave
: it to a mountain biker not to know that.
:
: Which has exactly what to do with trails that the landowner has
: specifically allowed, though not in writing?
:
: Or did you not bother reading what you posted: "A gray trail is one
: where the land owner informally allows us to maintain, build or use
: trails on their land"
:
: Read between the lines. What exactly does "informally" mean? It just
: means that they haven't been caught yet, while destroying the land.
: They never claimed to have any evidence of the alleged "permission".
: --

Give up- Vandeman is a crusading fruitcake who actually believes humans are
the source of all evil in the world. He's against all mountain biking.

Not true. You can mountain bike on paved roads all you want.
--
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 Thu, 24 May 2007 21:01:07 -0700, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:07:31 -0700, wrote:

Or did you not bother reading what you posted: "A gray trail is one
where the land owner informally allows us to maintain, build or use
trails on their land"

Read between the lines. What exactly does "informally" mean?

It means they've spoken with the land owner and the owner says it's OK
to ride the trails, but there's no written trail management agreement.
Or at least, that's what it's meant when I've been involved in
negotiating with land owners for informal trail access.

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.

Some very large institutional land owners have just this sort of
informal trail access policies -- there's no written trail management
plan, no official trail map, just permission to use the land as long as
it isn't damaged -- e.g. singletrack trails are fine, cutting timber is
not.
--
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 Thu, 24 May 2007 21:02:37 -0700, wrote:

In article ,
says...

Irrelevant, since they already admitted knowing that they are on
private property.

With permission of the owner, that is. Allowed access is not
trespassing.

There's no evidence of such permission having been given.
--
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 Thu, 24 May 2007 21:34:41 -0700, Bill wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:03:40 -0700, 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.
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.

What exactly was" bad" about him? Sounds pretty good to me!

NOW I know why people call Vandeman an Ass.
Bill Baka

And we still don't know what exactly was" bad" about him. All I did
was ask a question! What are you hiding? The fact that there IS
nothing bad about him?

Bill Baka
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

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.
--
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 01:21:26 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On 24 May 2007 09:57:04 -0700, SGK wrote:

On May 24, 9:31 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:04 -0700, wrote:
In article ,
says...
From: "Jon Kennedy"
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:55:24 -0000
Subject: Staff Night Out (5/30) -- Gray Area Conversation --

Come join Justin and Jon next Wednesday at the Redhook Brewery in
Woodinville for the fourth BBTC Staff Night Out.

At this pub night we want your feedback on what our policy on gray
trails should be. A gray trail is one where the land owner informally
allows us to maintain, build or use trails on their land, but there
is no formal written policy.

So it's illegal now for land owners to allow trails on their property?

No, it's illegal to trespass and damage private property. DUH! Leave
it to a mountain biker not to know that.
--
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

What don't you understand about "informally allows". That's not
trespassing. You spin faster than any politician.
A gray trail is one the land owners knows about and approves of, but
just doesn't want the riders to tell the world about it.

You completely missed the point: the mountain bikers CLAIM that they
have approval, but there is no proof, and none was presented.


And, there's no proof they did not have permission, implicit or explicit,
and you haven't presented any.

Yes, there is: they failed to produce any evidence, implying that
there isn't any.

More
likely, they have just done it without asking (as usual), and have not
been caught yet. Why should they be any different from other mountain
bikers, a huge number of whom simply do what they want, and claim
ignorance later (they ARE ignorant, but not in that way; they are
ignorant of their environmental impact).


Just because you do not accept at face value the claim that the land owner
doesn't mind does not make the approval less. You do not know if any
permission was asked for or not, and since it is reported that the activity
is allowed, we must surmise that permission was asked for, and granted.

Knowing mountain bikers' penchant for mendacity (ask your mommy what
that means) and lawbreaking, it's more likely that they DON'T have
permission.
--
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 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.

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