Euphemism for Illegal Mountain Bike Trails: "Gray Trails"

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
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. Sometimes they like us there to keep the
meth heads and dumping out, but it is a "don't ask, don't tell" type
thing. Should we ignore gray trails, encourage their use, try to shut
them down, support their maintenance? We want to know what you think.

This is easy. The land owners have a problem, the bike riders keep the
problem to a minimum level, or eliminate it altogether. Don't ask, don't
tell.

The land owner might turn around tomorrow and decide that crack heads are a
better choice for whatever reason. No matter what policy is devised now, the
land owner has the final say -- assuming we are discussing private property.

Bottom line, you should not be there, but if nobody is objecting, take care
to not get hurt and then turn around and sue somebody.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
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?

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
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

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:55:24 -0000
Subject: Staff Night Out (5/30) -- Gray Area Conversation --

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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. The riders
thank the owner by keeping the trails in shape, land garbage free and
keeps the non desirables out.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
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"

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
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.

Actually, in many states being on other folks' land is not, in and
of itself, illegal or trespassing.

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.

This is kinda important to hikers, or there would be even more
access problems than there already are ...

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 [email hidden]

Wolf Leverich wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden]

Bill said:

Wolf Leverich wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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.

###

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden]

SGK said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

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. 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).

The riders

Quoted message said:

thank the owner by keeping the trails in shape, land garbage free and
keeps the non desirables 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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
> 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".
--
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

Wolf Leverich said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
> 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.

Actually, in many states being on other folks' land is not, in and
of itself, illegal or trespassing.

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.

Irrelevant, since they already admitted knowing that they are on
private property. Plus it's very easy to find out.

Quoted message said:

This is kinda important to hikers, or there would be even more
access problems than there already are ...

Cheers, Wolf.

--
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

Bill said:

Wolf Leverich wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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!

Quoted message said:

Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden]

--
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

Wolf Leverich said:

Bill said:

Wolf Leverich wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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.

Quoted message said:

This sucks.

###

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

--
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

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

SGK said:

Mike Vandeman said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:04 -0700, <[email hidden]> wrote:
>In article <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] says...
>> From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
>> 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.

More

Quoted message said:

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.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:04 -0700, <[email hidden]> wrote:

>In article <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] says...
>> From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
>> 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.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wolf Leverich said:

Bill said:

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 [censored] 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.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
: On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:07:31 -0700, <[email hidden]> wrote:
:
: >In article <[email hidden]>,
: >[email hidden] says...
: >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:04 -0700, <[email hidden]> wrote:
: >>
: >> >In article <[email hidden]>,
: >> >[email hidden] says...
: >> >> From: "Jon Kennedy" <[email hidden]>
: >> >> 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.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:07:31 -0700, <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

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

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

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>