8/19/03 Denver Post RS 2477 Article

[DaJudge]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1578388,00.html

[Comfortably Numb]

"But the Chamberlins soon realized their neighbors considered their driveway and an old road that continued across the west side of their wooded 23-acre property to be a public trail."

Well duh. If the road was already there what did they think was going to happen?

I have no sympathy for them at all. Just more rich elietests trying to close off the country to the rest of us.

[Butt Head]

The whole article is stupid. somebody needs to tell the reporter that r.s. 2477 applies to PUBLIC property not PRIVATE property. if i was the chamberlins i'd just get my gun. remember that colo has a make my day law. that's what i remind dirt bikers when they try to cut thru my property anyways. they respect my property rights more now that they got a good close look at ol' Betsy.

[Bill]

Originally posted by Butt Head:
The whole article is stupid. somebody needs to tell the reporter that r.s. 2477 applies to PUBLIC property not PRIVATE property. if i was the chamberlins i'd just get my gun. remember that colo has a make my day law. that's what i remind dirt bikers when they try to cut thru my property anyways. they respect my property rights more now that they got a good close look at ol' Betsy. The "Make My Day" law applies if someone breaks into your dwelling (house or apartment) AND threatens you. Brandishing a gun at people who are merely crossing your land could easily be construed as fellony menecing.

[Bill]

The biggest point of the whole article is that this is an extremely complicated legal issue. There are no easy, cut-and-dried answers. No matter which side of the debate you are on you cannot speak with assurance. It will take a lot of court cases and probably more legislation to get this straightened out and even then there will be vague areas.

[ramdodger]

Originally posted by Bill:
... It will take a lot of court cases and... the difference btwn a dead armadillo and a dead lawyer in the road? skid marks in front of the armadillo...

[Butt Head]

what do'ya call 20 lawyers skydiving out of an airplane? skeet!! graemlins/laughing.gif

[Snotty]

I think it is a well written article with points made for both sides. However, I think that this paragraph sums it up.

The Chamberlins' experience is becoming more common across the New West as new property owners face angry demands for continued access to trails used by the public for years.These people are buying up land and then crying about the use of said land. Sort of like buying a home by Bandimere and then complaining about the races and trying to get it closed. The part of thge article that appeals to me the most is the quote from this indivdual:

"My view is, if there is a historic road, the public should have a right to continue to get from point A to Point B. It doesn't necessarily have to be on that historic road, but there should be some accommodation by the landowner towards traditional uses," said Neumann, a professor of accounting and health administration at the University of Colorado at Denver.The above the quote from Neumann shows that there are people outside of the considered redneck norm that feel that RS-2477 and continued and recognized traditional use should be taken account and respected.

The concern that I have and the reason that I can side with the land owners that want the trails closed, is the lack of respect for the property.

Signs asking visitors to stay on the trail and respect their property have been vandalizedWhen will you morons learn that this is way to get trails closed and to help us not only lose the fight, but the war as well. Keep to the trails and respect the property and we would have less problems with the landowners then we do now.

[Bill]

Keep to the trails and respect the property and we would have less problems with the landowners then we do now. Absolutely and totally right on the money!

[Hairy]

Snotty, I like your take on this. Is Barking Dog the same as the Chamberlain's then? Would there be another way from point A to point B or would that even apply there with the historic usage?

[Snotty]

Hairy,

The Barking Dog trail and the Chamberlain?s are the same issue, but not the same trail. In some cases there are different routes from a-b but not always. I fail to see what that has to do with the historical usage of an RS-2477 route.

Some people might argue that if an alternate route is provided, then the RS-2477 route can be closed. This would be true in new cases, but not in RS-2477 routes that were grandfathered in. That is where is the historical usage comes into play. What was the trail used for before?

Barking Dog Trial was originally used for access to mining claims and land locked private property, and I know some of the history about this trail now. So I can comment on its usage, but have been asked not to in a public forum or with people that I do not know or have met. But I can tell you that the recent historical usage for the last 30+ years has been local property access and as a 4 wheeling trail. It is well documented with federal, local agencies, BLM and the forest service. It even has a trail designation from the Forest Service.

As for the Chamberlain?s issue, without knowing the trial, it would be hard to comment about the trail. The issue with their piece of property is that the trial had been there before they purchased the land. And the line about doing a search and not finding anything in my opinion would be bogus at best. If the trail is the only way in, then they need to suck it up and deal with what they bought. But I understand the frustration with the idiots that can?t keep it on the trial and think that every sign in the world should have bullet hole it. Much like their heads but I can?t make that call.

I can comment on the ?Back Way to Jamestown? trial and it?s historic usage and RS-2477. This trail connects the back side of Jamestown of to Lee Hill Drive. There is a portion of the trail near the top of Jamestown that went through a creek bed. This piece of the trail was closed. Many wheelers tried to keep it open but it was closed anyway. The reason it was closed was to maintain water purity as the creek supplies Jamestown with water, but it was also closed because there are several other 4x4 trails that keep this area open. And several of the trails cross private property. The trails were nothing but access to private mining claims in the past and in fact, the Lee Hill Drive portion of the trail crosses an active mine that at the last time I had been up there was still open. I had heard that the claim owner petitioned to close the trail but the Forest Service using RS-2477 kept it open. The town of Jamestown was able to close the top portion of the trail because there were other trails that left the area accessible and intact.

They also can?t close the trail simply because there are other ways to get from point A-B. Vicinity of point A must be taken into account as well. If point B is in the middle of the wilderness and all entry points are geographically isolated, then the closure of point ?A becomes a moot argument because the historical usage of the trail supercedes. In the case of the Jamestown Trail, there is lower access to the same series of trails in Jamestown. So the closure of the upper portion did not effect the geographical location of the trail access.

[Hairy]

There sure are some complicated issues from such a short law as RS2477 is. Over public lands (like whats going on in Moffat county)it seems very clear, but over private lands it's certainly a much more thorny issue. But basicly people like the Chamberlain's or even Butthead earlier in this thread, where he's threatening motorcycles with a shotgun dont't have a leg to stand on as long as folks stay on the ROW. Is Barking Dog only acrost private property or does it cross public land too?

[Snotty]

The problem with the RS-2477 and Private Property owners is that a small minority of users refuse to respect the land or the owners of the property that they are crossing. But on the flip side of the coin, there are a few owners that don't like motorized use as a whole and want the trails closed period or at the very least closed to motor type traffic. Which is what it sounds like in the case of the Chamberlain's and is the case of the Barking Dog Trail. Butthead, is well, Butthead and we don't need to say more on that issue. ;)

As for Barking Dog, yes it crosses both public and private land. The private landownership is increasing as mining claims are sold off. Barking Dog Trail at one time crossed nothing but public land. It wasn't until owners started buying land on both sides of the trail and proceeded to incorporate the trail/ROW as part of their property. As it stands now, if the trail is closed, then there are several pieces of property that will be land locked, including a small parcel of public property.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Hairy:
But basicly people like the Chamberlain's or even Butthead earlier in this thread, where he's threatening motorcycles with a shotgun dont't have a leg to stand on as long as folks stay on the ROW. Hairy,

never threatened motercycles with a shotgun. I threatend em with 'ol Betsy. Betsy is my old lady, and she is a lot scarier than my shot gun. graemlins/thefinger.gif there ain't no Row accross my property. The dirt bikers are tresspassing when they take short cuts accross it.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
Butthead, is well, Butthead and we don't need to say more on that issue. ;)

As for Barking Dog, yes it crosses both public and private land. The private landownership is increasing as mining claims are sold off. Barking Dog Trail at one time crossed nothing but public land. It wasn't until owners started buying land on both sides of the trail and proceeded to incorporate the trail/ROW as part of their property. As it stands now, if the trail is closed, then there are several pieces of property that will be land locked, including a small parcel of public property. Snotty.
since you brought up my name i better reply and this is something i know alot about. you can't sell a mining claim so what you are saying makes no sinse. i have bought and sold alot of property in Colo and i know what i'm talking about on that one. unless you prove up your claim all you got is mineral rights and the goverment can take it back anytime. if all the barking dog guy owns is claims then you can drive there anytime you want cuz he don't even own any surface rights at all. i know a lot of miners that build fences and stuff to keep people out but basicly your not sposed to do that. basicly a mining claim is still owned by the goverment except for the mineral rights and they can take that back if the owner of the claim does'nt do the work he is sposed to do every year. hope that helps hairy.

[Comfortably Numb]

I think you're partially right Butt Head. But there is a process where the mining claim holder is able to purchase the land. The problem is that the land purchases are usually so oddly shaped or situated on such unuseable land that they are ofter given back to the Government after being mined out.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Butt Head:
you can't sell a mining claim so what you are saying makes no sinse. i have bought and sold alot of property in Colo and i know what i'm talking about on that one. Well then, I guess Boslough doesn't have a leg to stand on then. And neither would anyone else that owns property up that area. Mark Boslough and several others claim to "own" the land. In fact, there are maps that show the claims and how over the course of the years they have been sold and purchased and combined into one piece of property.

There has been several disputes over mining claims and who owns the property. If claims can't be sold, I am also curious how the state bought back the mining claims in clear creek. In fact, they have tried to buy all the claims and all but one owner has sold. But what they did, was to purchase the property, not the claim.

While you may not be able to sell a mining claim per say, you can sure as heck sell the land. The mineral rights will go back to the state.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
[QUOTE] Mark Boslough and several others claim to "own" the land. In fact, there are maps that show the claims and how over the course of the years they have been sold and purchased and combined into one piece of property.
it sounds like your confusing claims with patents. If they were bought and sold then they must be patents. if more than one person is claiming to own them then they need to get a title search. you can usually find out who owns them by finding out who pays the taxes but if they are patents then their private property just like any property and rs2447 does not apply sinse it only applyes to public land. you can read the actual law on that Denver Post storey: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public land, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." so it gets you across public land but not private land. it sounds like you need to find out if this guy owns claims or patents.

[Snotty]

So let me get this straight.

You can?t sell a mining claim, but in case you do, it becomes a patent. At which point it becomes private property. At which point all access previous is now across private property and then the ROW ceases to exist. Thereby land locking any other claims that can?t be sold but can be bought and turned into a patent?

Butthead, you are indeed smoking crack.

Yes, you can have an RS2477 ROW across private property if the ROW can be shown to exist prior to 1974. The RS2477 legislation is not a one line law. There are several pieces to it. Including the definition of what is considered a roadway or highway and the said construction thereof, including something as simple as a man and shovel or a mule train trail.

Just because you bought the property does not mean that the ROW goes away. If it existed, and was/is continued to be used the ROW is valid. You would have to prove that the ROW was abandoned and an alternate means of travel provided within reason and taking into account the historical usage of the ROW. Historical usage does not mean 50-100 years ago either. If the ROW was/is used for wheeling and connects point A (public property) to point B (public property) and its use can be documented, then the ROW as provided by RS2477 crossing private property has to be respected and maintained. The only time that I have seen RS2477 legislation not come into play, is if the ROW in question terminates on private property. Now, if the ROW terminates on private property, but crosses other pieces of private property, or there are intermittent spots of public property, then the preceding properties must provide a ROW to gain access to the terminating property and/or access to public land along the way. At which point, said pieces of the ROW are valid. A private property owner cannot land lock another piece of private or public property in the State of Colorado.

Now RS2477 legislation can be tossed out the window if and only if, the ROW was not in documented use prior to 1974. At which point the RS2477 legislation grandfather clause grants public access. By the way, documented use does not mean it has to be on a map either. Post 1974, the land owners can petition to make the ROW a private road unless there is public property in the mix and access has been given at any point. But all owners must be in agreement or you can?t get the road or ROW changed. The word ?public? is what seems to toss everyone for a loop. In your mind, I assume, the other land owners around you are not the ?public? as you define them. They are neighbors and or adjacent land owners. But the RS2477 does not make this differentiation. As far as the Federal Government is concerned, those neighbors or land owners are the public and it?s left at that. They do not define sub groups of public in this case.

Now yours and the Chamberlain?s case may be different based on the land, ROW and usage. But in the case of Barking Dog, this was not only RS2477, but had FS trail designation and a CR designation. The CR portion at the top of the trail has been closed per Boulder County. And since it is their road they can do that. But the ROW never goes away, ever. The issue at hand is the FS designation which I have gone over before. The land is federal and cannot just be dropped or incorporated into private property. The Barking Dog Trail accesses both private and public land, and has been in use since the 1800?s and therefore meets and exceeds the requirements for RS2477 ROW regardless of how pieces of property it crosses. Its historical use has been documented up to and including the 2001.

However, and I think that this may be your point, is that the property on each side of the ROW is private and you can keep the public off of it. But a land owner can?t just close a trail because they want to. Also, the proof that the trail is not an RS2477 ROW falls to the land owner, not to the state or the public. The land owner has to prove it and just because isn?t good enough. There are plenty of cases in Colorado alone that will prove this point.

[Hairy]

Butthead, Sorry man, I did'nt mean to imply that where the motorcycles are going on your property is a row, but sometimes it's purty hard to tell. But if your 'ol lady is scarrier than a shotgun, I feel for ya and I don't want to get on her bad side.

[Hairy]

As for Barking Dog, yes it crosses both public and private land. The private landownership is increasing as mining claims are sold off. Barking Dog Trail at one time crossed nothing but public land. It wasn't until owners started buying land on both sides of the trail and proceeded to incorporate the trail/ROW as part of their property. As it stands now, if the trail is closed, then there are several pieces of property that will be land locked, including a small parcel of public property. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Snotty, I guess I don't get it, how is the land ownership increasing? are people still making mining claims and then selling them off? or maybe just subdividing old ones? As for the difference between claims and patents, what does it matter, if the row was already there then it's rs2477 reguardless of who owns the land or the mineral rights.

[Snotty]

What I meant by my comment, was that one land owner is buying up the land as it becomes available. They then consolidate the all the pieces into one large parcel. The Boslough/Erlick Land Trust is hell bent on this process as Mark has purchased the land adjacent to existing Erlick property or on the opposite side of the trail. It is my opinion that their goal is purchase all the land in question thereby eliminating the need for any access. From what I understand, one of the owners that was against the closure of the trail has passed on. I would believe that this particular parcel will now become available or the new owners to whom the land falls will not wish to take up the fight against the Boslough Erlick land trust and simply help to close the trail.

What I find quite interesting is that it is rumored that ButtHead is Boslough is disguise. Wouldn't that be fun!

The other interesting fact is that no one has pulled the maps from the forest service that show the trail as FSR. Which I have documented in some of the old posts on this subject and is documented on FS maps up to 1997. The FS stance is that enough land was purchased to warrant the abandonment of the trail. I find it quite amusing that some of the people from the FS say the trail never existed. Guess they don?t know how to read their maps?

The sad news that I have stumbled across is that the case may be settled and VB and the wheeling community will have lost the access to this trail. If there is a legal closure of the trail then I can stand by that. But if it is simply because of lack of support by the clubs and COHVCO then I have lost even more respect for these groups of people. I have seen to many clubs turn against a cause simply because they don?t like the people involved. If that is the case, then the MHJC and COHVCO suck ass and have further reaffirmed my position that clubs suck.

What I find most disconcerting about this issue, is the fact the more and more people are moving into the mountains. While this move may be a big boon for the small mountain communities, it is a death blow to all of the local trails. People will both try and stop the wheelers and weekenders from gaining future access to areas that have been accessible in the past, but some trails will be bulldozed flat. Kelly Flats comes to mind right off the bat.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Hairy:
Butthead, Sorry man, I did'nt mean to imply that where the motorcycles are going on your property is a row, but sometimes it's purty hard to tell. But if your 'ol lady is scarrier than a shotgun, I feel for ya and I don't want to get on her bad side. Thanx bro. thats the right decision.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
So let me get this straight.

You can?t sell a mining claim, but in case you do, it becomes a patent. At which point it becomes private property. At which point all access previous is now across private property and then the ROW ceases to exist. Thereby land locking any other claims that can?t be sold but can be bought and turned into a patent?

Butthead, you are indeed smoking crack.
Snotty you still don't understand. if you own a claim you have to proove it up before it is a pantent. it is alot like homesteading where you have to live on the land for so many years before you own it but with a mine you have to get gold or silver or whatever of a certein value before you own it. patent means you own it and then you can sell it. you can's sell a claim. it has nothing to do with roads.

and I don't smoke crack - just weed. graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:

The RS2477 legislation is not a one line law. There are several pieces to it. Including the definition of what is considered a roadway or highway and the said construction thereof, including something as simple as a man and shovel or a mule train trail.
i went back and read the Denver Post article that started this off and it says (quote)
"
The law is Revised Statute 2477, or RS 2477, which states in its entirety: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public land, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted."
"

so it looks like its a 1 line law -- well 1 sentence anyway. if you can tell me where i can read the whole law i will do that.

the thing is it says construction over PUBLIC land so how can you build a road on PRIVATE patents and then say its a ROW? so if them dirt bikes are following my driveway that I built with my own money before 1974 then you think its a PUBLIC ROW? i think your crazy.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:

What I find quite interesting is that it is rumored that ButtHead is Boslough is disguise. Wouldn't that be fun!
NO i'm not him. if he is blocking out other owners then he is more of a DICKHEAD than a ButtHead and you owe me a apology. graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Snotty]

http://www.rs2477roads.com/2primer.htm

If you're not KB, then I am sorry. But I said it was only a rumor. graemlins/thefinger.gif If you are KB, well then...

While the original law was only a liner, the implications caused congress to further define the meaning of the verbiage. Thereby creating a means to fully understand what is being defined by the legislation.

Now for your driveway, does it fall into RS2477 legislation? I have no idea since I haven't seen your property. But from "your" description then one could assume no, it does not.

The issue with the RS2477 is not whether or not trail exists, but was the trail there when the property was public. If you built the driveway after you purchased the property but before 1976, then no, it's not an RS2477 protected route. But if you bought the property and the route was there and serviced the area before the property was sold to a private holder, then yes, it can be applied. Thus the case with the Barking Dog Trail. The trail provided access when the entire area was public property.

In your case, if the route was not there before you bought the land then no, it's not an RS2477 ROW. The only way a RS2477 ROW can be applied is if the ROW was established while the land was public. Is any of this making sense? The issue with land owners is that the RS2477 ROW cannot be given up, ever. Even when the land is sold and converted to private, the RS2477 ROW stands and will stand for all time.

[DaJudge]

Originally posted by Butt Head:
if you can tell me where i can read the whole law i will do that.

http://www.utahwilderness.com/u11pts.htm

http://www.rs2477roads.com/

https://doi1.ios.doi.gov/cdirectives.nsf/d7833bf90eb1da67882569340079a8a1/6f6618f0f7f94b8688256ccd005eaade/$FILE/CAIB2003-023ATT2.pdf

http://www.freedom.org/prc/roadless/rs2477-tom.htm

http://www.heritageresearch.com/public_roads_access.htm

[Hairy]

So I guess what it boils down to is when did Boslaugh's land first go from public to private and was the road/trail there then? If so then can that be proved? What I question is what does the average joe do when you come upon a new gate or blockage somewhere that you used to go? I want to respect private property but can't spend the time or effort to become a full time researcher.

[Snotty]

In the barking Dog case, the general consensus is that the trail was there. It is documented in several court precedings dating as far back as 1904. There was a case that actually moved the road from location to another and that is a large portion of the argument. There is also information that shows one of the previous land owners actually cutting the trail in for access across and to several pieces of the property. Some have taken the stance that it was a single track trail but no proof can be offered up.

As for what to do, the best course of action would be to research it, if you can't take that route, then contact the land owner before you start opening gates. Beyond that, make sure you clsoe all the gates as you pass and respect the property and the land owner by sticking to the trail. Twin Cone trail is prime example of the public working with the land owners as you cross several pieces of property over the course of the trail.

[Hairy]

I'm not real big on research,(I guess that's why I never got very good grades in school) But last night I was lookin around and i googled on barking dog rs 2477 the first two sites that came up were in pdf format and I could'nt seem to get them to load on my computer but the third one seems to show an 1884 map with the private property and no road , not sure of what to think of this.

[Snotty]

Doesn't have to be on a map. And I have seen several maps of the area that show a trail crossing several pieces of property. My favorite map is from the Forst Service prior to 1999 when they show the trail and it's trail designation.

[Hairy]

ok...but to play devil's advocate then, if the trail was built in 1904 like you said and the property became private in 1884 like the map shows, would not the property pre-date the trail so that the trail was built on private property and rs 2477 would not apply?

[Snotty]

Nope. Not all the land was private and the trail crosses both public and private property. The trail serviced several mines, including the smuggler, barking dog and a several others as well as the small town of Balarat. The trail was put in place to provide access to Lyons CO. Remember, at one time the trail was petioned to be turned into a valid county road so the county would have to maintain it. However, the trail was used in the 50's or so to help garner federal road dollars and is on a County Tax Road map, the FS gave the trail a FSR trail designation as well.

The biggest contention in this fight is, is this road indeed the original trail? There are several people that say it is and people like the Bosloughs that say it isn't. There is proof that the trail was moved. But if it was moved, where is it? There is speculation on whether or not the Road map that the County used is the trail but Boulder County doesn't show it anymore. The FS maps up to 1997/9 show the trail and it's designation and then after 1999 don't show it anymore. (But heck, even the FS can't agree if it's theirs or not. You have one guy saying it is and should remain open and you have another saying that it shouldn't and they don't want it.)

Remember, it does not have to be on a map and therein lies the problem. The trail is part of CR87 that connects to Jamestown and on the 50's era tax map, shows the trail connecting to Hwy 7. Also, it was in place long before HWY 7, and was the only way from Balarat to Lyons without having to head down to Boulder first.

The data to date shows that Boulder claims the trail from Jamestown to Balarat, but dropped the rest of the trail to the city of Lyons. Lyons saw no need to maintain it, thus the suite brought on by the owners of the Smuggler and the small town of Balarat to get Boulder to take care of it. Boulder having no interest in it declined and actually won the suit. But if the trail did not exist and a valid ROW, why would they take such drastic measures?

This is case that doesn't really add up no matter how look at it or the history of it. The only thing that can be said for sure is that a trail did/does exist. I doubt if it could actually be proved one way or the other if the current trail is indeed the original or the one that was moved. The only thing that is known for sure is that people have been using the current trail for years with zero problems until Boslough came in and decided that it was his, regardless of what other owners have said or expressed.

[Snotty]

Oh yeah, the current information has no date on when the original trail was built. There are several references prior to 1904. There was a court settlement in 1904.

[Hairy]

Snotty, One thing that yer for sure right on about is that there was zero problems before this charactor bought up the land up there. In fact there was a rock at the bottom that basicly gave permission to drive up there as long as you stayed on the road. I got a feelin that were gonna need people like you to keep doing research as this happens with more and more places. Where do you find out about old lawsuits and stuff like the 1904 case you refer to? I'm not much on libaries but I do surf the web alot.

[Snotty]

Most everything I have found can be found on the internet. Some of the specific information has been found by talking to people and asking the right questions without tipping your hand. Boulder COunty is very tight lipped about this issue. I also had help from people willing to head up there and research. Everything is public record and can be had if the right questions are asked and you know what to ask for.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Hairy:
I'm not real big on research,(I guess that's why I never got very good grades in school) But last night I was lookin around and i googled on barking dog rs 2477 the first two sites that came up were in pdf format and I could'nt seem to get them to load on my computer but the third one seems to show an 1884 map with the private property and no road , not sure of what to think of this. Would somebody mind telling me how to find a copy of that 1884 map on the web? does it show ward too or just barkign dog road? I tried to google on "barking dog rs 2477" like you said and all I get is a message that says Your search - "barking dog rs 2477" - did not match any documents. what am i doing wrong?

[Snotty]

There are only two maps that can be found on the internet that show the Barking Dog area from that time frame. Neither of them show any trails other then the road up to Jamestown and nothing about Balarat. You can find the info by foot research via some old map places. You can also find some info from the USGS map place on 6th and Kipling. Some of it can be found in the Boulder County records building as well. The FS aslo had it marked as FS297 but you will need to find a FS map of the area prior to 1999.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
There are only two maps that can be found on the internet that show the Barking Dog area from that time frame. thanks Snotty. I can't seem to find them with google. can you tell me the www adresses please. i am also looking for other old maps of boulder county but not just Barking Dog road.

[Hairy]

All this research is way too much for me, I think I'll just start carryen my big bolt cutters.

[Snotty]

I'll have to search for them again. I will post when I find them. Neither of them show the trail, just the area.

[Hairy]

butthead, man I thought i was bad at reaserch.
don't put the words bewteen quotes, dude. or you can just type in
http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/ranch.html in the little box at the top.
He has the map on there, what I'm wondering is it for real? He has a bunch of other crap too he even has that picture of vb's butt on his web page now.

hairy.

[Hairy]

butthead, man I thought i was bad at reaserch.
don't put the words bewteen quotes, dude. or you can just type in
http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/ranch.html in the little box at the top.
He has the map on there, what I'm wondering is it for real? He has a bunch of other crap too he even has that picture of vb's butt on his web page now.

hairy.

[Hairy]

oops, sorry for postin twice...duh

[Snotty]

The trail crosses the creek, but does not run through the creek. I like the fact that they take verbiage from the MHJC website and letters stating the club is family oriented and stock vehicle friendly, but then shows a pic of Jeep with wheels high. Nice little spin. I guess if you are friendly to stockers and families, you can't have any modified rigs in your club then.

By the way, have you seen the camper and Smokey the Bear commercial? I thought it was crazy wheelers that started all the forest fires... :rolleyes:

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Hairy:

http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/ranch.html

hairy. :eek: is this for real?

[Snotty]

Yes, and there are many more sites like it.

[vb]

snotty has done perty well at the outline of the facts. just thought id stepp in and hit some highlights
there are court cases that have handled the fact that in some cases in mountainous regions that roads do change their physical location somewhat do to natural causes (floods ,landslides etc)
in general the courts have held that even if the exact road is not now the same as it was that the route still exist and it remains public and still qualifies as a 2477 row
so the balart road ( as it was know from 1875 on) was not changed. it actually had two parts on the south end. one route was more of a straight line but harder to travel the other was longer but easier on the stock carrying loads. the harder line was also more suseptable to damage from floods etc
the road to the town of balarat is a well astablished and documeted fact. bouslough has lied in the past and claimed that there was not a road to the town and the the postman and the ocupants of the town had no way to get there etc. but we all know that redickuless (har har) the only slightly gray areaa is the property that boslough bought in 99 it is the highland placer which is the property that is at the very north end. the one where the rocks are after crossing the bridge. the highland placer was patented in i believe 1906 but id have to check. there were folks from lyons that were interest in building a road up the long gulch (the creek that flows next to b d) the reason that they wanted to get a road up the is the smuggler mine. the smuggler is now owned by boslough (it came through his wifes family i believe) the smuggler was a very rich and large mine in the late 1800s. the road was built and wased out and then rebuilt and it existed to be washed away in 1892. again the road where 7 now is was built for the sole purpose of geting to long gulch and the smuggler mine in the town of balarat. so if they made it the 12 plus miles up the saint vrain do you think they stoped for the last 1/4 mile to the smuggler? no. there are maps showing the route used in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. it sorta follows the creek. today on maps you will see a j hook in the road that goes to the federal built bridge there at hiway 7. so the thought in the boslough camp is that that j hook is not the original road. there is no contention on any other item of fact. he has lots of smoke screens etc but when setin there with the lawyers all that boils do to is that j hook in the road.
the deal is this. in order to patent or even make a claim an intry person has to travel a route. if you look at the lay of that land and the cliff that is on both sides of the j hook in the road you will come to the idea that there was not much of a chance that there were many "other" routes that a feller could travel. that travel constituted construction in those days (rocks had to be moved etc just to pass) so what you have is a route astablished under the 2477 grant through public domain. that route predated the patent by the defanition of the claim and patent. so there is the answer.
boslough nor his lawyer nor any person any where has ever been able to show me one reason why this road is not a public road. this is an open challange.(since his lawyer conoy do it i doubt anyone else will either) there is a reason that boslough is running all over the web and papers and every where other then court. he knows it is a public road. in fact when i last saw him and his brother when we all parted there was no question in anyones mind that this is a public road.
for a period of time till 1953 this road was county road 81. in 53 the road was renamed 87 also in 53 the hiway user tax fund was esstablished. what this was was federal money paid to counties for every mile of county road that the had and the amounts were determinded by the condition, use, width,survice etc. the very first county map that boulder submitted to the feds has county rd 87 going all the way from jamestown to hiway 7. then in 54 boulder county used the same map with a revisions table to denote any changes to the roads. all the way till 68 the used the same map with table. there NEVER were any changes to county road 87. cdot today says that there is no way that boulder county did not recieve federal funds for that road. however boulder county holds that they did not. someone is lieing .what makes since to you? here is a chance for the county to get federal money. do youn realy think that since the road is shown as going all the way through that someone in washington knew full well that they should not send money for what is shown on the map for the purpose of explaination to them. talk about tellepathy. boslough is way to used to the martians down the in nm.
as for the previous court case
in 1914 boulder county curcuit court heard a case (obstruction of a public road) that involved the same road. not a road like it or near it, but this road. the defendents did not contest that this was a public road. what they wanted to do was put a gate across the road. they tryed to so that the custom of the area was that others had erected gates and they should be able to also. the judge said no and the thing was appealed to the state. the thing worked untill 1919 at which time the state supreme court said that there was no such custom. there were 4 boulder county official that testified that the road was a public road and the row of the road was between 40 an 60 feet. which in mountain regains was common for that day. ther ewere only to exhibits in the case one from each side the one from the defendants (those blocking the road)should the balarat road (amoung others )and the road went all the way to where hiway 7 now is. all those in the case agreed that all the roads on the map were a network of the local roads. in the past boslough has pointed out the lat and long grids on that map and claimed that there must have been an exactly parralell road just a 1/4 mile away since the grid is wrong as we know it today. a trip to the area shows how obseurd that thought is
not one of the witnesses in that case ever said that those roads up there were not public.
interesting note is tha mark twains nephew was one of those that testified and he worked for the smuggler mine.
2477 is just one part of this
to be a public road all that has to happen is that an individual (1 individual) travels a route over private property for 18 years and over public property for 20 years ( its called a perscriptive easememnt) since all of the folks from the 1800s and early 1900s are now dead or at least have fuzzy memory there are folks like boslough that are trying to rewrite history. so skip that and go directly to eye witness testomony. i have a lst of about 50 folks plus that personaly have used this road as it excits today for well over 20 years. in fact the outgoing sherrif used this road as it exsits today back in the 60s. the fs still views this road as an important part of their travle management and if any of them ever said anyhting about abandonment i want to know their name because not one of them have ever exspressed anything close to that to me. in fact at the hearing for the county gate at the south end the forest service was very infatic that they did not want the road gated or closed. and there is an intire can of worms over that hearing and i will one day go to the comissioneers . i believe they broke several laws and at some point it will come back to em.
as far as i still know we can still remove the obstructions and use that road. without any fear of tickets or whatever because the county has refused to take a stance on this and no judge has ever made a ruleing . and as for an agreement. last week i talked to someon that knows and there is none. its being worked on. but there is none. now is the time to stand up and fight for this.
i have not proof read any of this since its long and im tired and dont cre if its a literary work of art.

[vb]

the road is not bosloughs. i just want to use the road to acess the forest and to travel . i have never had a problem staying on the road and not bothering the property tha boarders the road. the old sign said it well. PRIVATE PROPERTY NEXT 2.5 MILES PLEASE STAY ON ROAD
just fer grins i went to the linked site. the folks that put that together have spent a great deal of time on it and sure do lie. i dont need to put together money for equipment and the idea is not to bulldoze any creek . it just takes alittle equipment to move the roacks and i can do that any time. what a load .
but again these folks will do anything as long as it does not involve standing in front of a jugde and descusing the truth. and the facts.
kinda looks like these folks have it in for me. spoze that why boslough threatens me perty often??
looks as though mile high is hireing a lawyer to tell boslough to erase their name from the deal.(seems they wont spend money or time to win a legal battle for the road, but sling mud at em and they get rufled, humm) looks like mule and i are on the same plain, too. kinda odd but coolish in a diranged way
btw another boslough lie would be that i have represented mile high jeep club in any of this. some of the club has suported me amd my legal efferts. i was not a member of the club when i removed the illegal obstruction boslough had placed. i have represented the club a state meetings and cohvco and i dont represent cohvco in the issue either yet the bosloughs like to tell lies to suit the rest of their lies

[ September 13, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: vb ]

[vb]

the clint talbot piece
i called clint and talked at length. this piece is a personal opinion piece and has no facts in it. he had no idea where he got any of the quotes atributed to me or the fs personal. id bet he got it from boslough the clown. now clint did mention that i call boslough a lier- im simply stateing the obvious (or identifying the caractor of boslough.)there is nothing in the piece that adresses the road being public other then he says i say it is. more important i have a whole list of folks that certify to me that it is, which is why i say it is so again --more nothing
clint did extend the offer that i could write a rebuttle but then said he could not garrunty that it would make it to print hummmm

[ September 13, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: vb ]

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
Yes, and there are many more sites like it. snotty can you please post the www adresses of the other ones. are they about barking dog too or other places?

[Butt Head]

Vernon I read everything you wrote and it seems to me like the old timer might have a really good case but not for the reason you think. did you know that it is against the law to block somebody from their property? you can NOT land-lock an owner by cutting off access even if the road is private - if you try then you are BRAKING THE LAW and the guy that gets blocked can sue you for a easement of nessessity which basicly means that whoever is trying to block you out has to give you a driveway or whatever. This is a time tested law and is part of CO law. so if Boslaugh is blocking out the old codger then not only is Boslaugh is a A$$HOLE but he is going to lose the law suit - but I would also say that if there is any truth at all to the Ranch's web site and the maps are not faked then it looks to me that the road was built on private land and if true then it can't be a RS2477 road. that still does'nt mean that Boslaugh is allowed to keep the codger from driving to his land. if it is a couty or forrest rd. then it is public so it not of the other stuff matters anyways. If I was you i'd get copies of all the title deeds for everything that Boslaugh owns and if it is a county road or a forrest road it will show up on the title. If you go up there i'd take the sheriff along and if the a$$hole tries to stop you just show him a copy of the title. If the road was blocked in 1914 and had to be unblocked it sounds to me like its a county rd so I would get a copy of the court case too. In his letter to the paper Gregg Mackay said there is also a 1903 court case over this same road - that means there are two court cases and if I was you i would go get the rocords of both of these cases. the most improtant thing for a easment by nessesity case is that the owner has no other way into his property. If the old guy has another way in then he will probly lose but if its his only way in he will probaly win. Do you know if he is completely cut off? If he is completely shut out of his land than that is realy fawked and then I would be willign to send some money to help with the law suit.

[vb]

i cant speak for the ramey case completely . there is more than one issue and he has a very sharp lawyer , and yes we are all aware that boslough cannot lock him out. boslough has in the past blackmailed him. but i do my best to stay clear of their business (its not mine).
mine is that this is a public road. i would say that the ranch site has basically very little of the truth in it and what truth there is is misrepresented
id like to here about the 1903 case fer sure.
id like to re-point out the fact that wheather or not the road was original astablished over privite land the the law is clear that it takes 18 years to establish a perscripted easement. in other words all the old stuff is good info.but is trumped basically by the fact that folks ( the public) have used that road since its creation
and again any use over 18 for private and 20 for public land makes it a public road.
its way simple, dont let anyone muddy this up it is a public road

[Snotty]

http://www.darkendeavors.com/forum/forum-view.asp?forumid=3

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/news_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2421_2165019,00.html

My personal favorite is this person who can't even put a web page together. Frontpage, get it and use it...

http://home.comcast.net/~roadripper/DogWalk.html

http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/BarkingDog.pdf

http://www.leaveitwild.org/takeaction/rs2477_property.html

http://www.highway-robbery.org/documents/Private_Property_examples.pdf

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11~1578388,00.html

Had enough? Depending on what you type in and the order of words you can find even more. This was a simple google search: barking dog trail

[Snotty]

The individual in question is not land locked. There is an alternate route, but it goes way out of the way. Colorado made a provision for this law with this loop hole. Basically, all the Boslough's have done is to block a shorter faster route, but they have not land locked him.

From my understanding and maybe VB can clear this up, is the 'Ole' Codger' used to use this route as faster access to and from Lyons. I think that is the premise of the issue between the 'Ole Codger' and the Bosloughs. Now the 'Ole Codger' has to run to Jamestown and take Hwy 93 up to Hwy 7 and then over to Lyons. I think this adds about 10-20 miles to the trip each way, maybe more.

[vb]

its more like 50ish miles . and they have some other issues with boundries and some other properties that overlap , like i said im not all that clear on their stuff. but i think thats kinda sorta the story.
followed the link you liked to the feller that cant use frontpage and i dont recall ever talkin of getin drunk to do anything. most of the links i have followed all have the same common theme and not one of them has much truth to em. but at least that site did have it right that a backhoe and bob cat and some rebar is what i talked about and not a dozer. gotta give em some credit
so all that evert?????? and still
why not make it easy to go to a judge that is capable to make a ruleing once and for all?? why all the publicity and lies and junk and legal manuvering. why not just take their case to court . if they were sure. you know they would. the very fact that boslough has done everything to stay away from a judge and the very faact that he has behaved as he has should be proof in itself that this guy is WRONG

[vb]

my name sure gets used alot??? :confused:
wonder what thats about? i dont think these clowns like me much. seems that instead of all the lies and web pages and such that the best way to prove me wrong (and the least time consumeing) would be to get to court with the facts. lay out their side . i'll lay out mine. it should be real simple. id say if bosloughs lawyer is skerd to go up against a yahoo like me that these clowns are just plain envious,eh
i notice that they have me lumped in with a plan by the president and the one site has congressional stuff 2003.
they sure like to make stuff up. in a court of law they could not use much of what they put in these sites since most are lies and fiction.
have have mentioned it before but boslough is so impressed by me and my post and my life that he copies everyone of these threads and prints them

on the ranch site i remember seeing something about eletism on my part etc in referance to some post about indy. his lawyer tryed that line of crap unsuccesfully when setin in front of me. guess the clown figures it works best when im not there.
whatcha wanna bet i get a threat perty soon??
what weak people

[vb]

btw snotty on the clear up . i believe that mr ramey has doins and a place up in estes besides the direction from lyons. it was tough for mr tallman since he lived in raymond. but he passed earlier this year.
and to further this private property thing for the shelf road being done by the caretaker. glenn tallman was the care taker and he told me that that part of the road had been there long prior. also the bridge (federally constructed) was built in 63 and again 18 years across private and 20 across public land creates a public road.
any way folks want to slice the issue
THE ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD
and as i said bosloughs lawyer sat right in front of me and tryed to show me just one thing -anything that would show that this road was not public and he failed to provide anything.
the reason that they operate as they do is they have nothing becuse
THE ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD

[vb]

seems that someone reads this stuff we put up here
i went back to the roadripper site and sure nuff shes all cleaned up!!!. oddly though there are still plenti of lies
take for example the spray paint deal . noone in our group carriers spray paint and not one of us did any painting . mark boslough long before had painted over the original small sign on the rock and after we removed the obstructions he cam through later and spray painted and taged and damaged all kinds of stuff to try to say that it was done by myself and the rest in the group. sadly though the sherrif had walded that intire road just after we had gone through there and he noted that all was well and that we had done no damage.
again what a liein scemin bunch of weak individualls
these sites should be labeled let lie about vernon
wouldnt it be cool to find out how much of the website work was done on employer time?????

[vb]

btw if ya'll remember i think that when eric did a search for who kb was that comcast wast their carrier. hummmmmmm
anyone with some computer savey wanna figure out who the nameless coward is that writes this stuff up. and do you spoze they realy showed that drivel at a congressional meeting? and why in the world would a congressperson only listen to one side of a story like this?
more bs i say
will wonders never cease?
if you go to the pdf you see that it looks like a copy of a letter that someone sent to congresspeople !!!!!! who do you spoze sent the letter? and what do you think the congressfolks will think when they find that this is all fiction??
stay tuned cause i know the answer

[ September 16, 2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: vb ]

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
http://www.darkendeavors.com/forum/forum-view.asp?forumid=3

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/news_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2421_2165019,00.html

My personal favorite is this person who can't even put a web page together. Frontpage, get it and use it...

http://home.comcast.net/~roadripper/DogWalk.html

http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/BarkingDog.pdf

http://www.leaveitwild.org/takeaction/rs2477_property.html

http://www.highway-robbery.org/documents/Private_Property_examples.pdf

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11~1578388,00.html

Had enough? Depending on what you type in and the order of words you can find even more. This was a simple google search: barking dog trail Man thats alot of information. good job snotty. I went to the darkendeavors site and they have a forum and i got an acount. I think we should all do that and get the information out because the only way people are going to know about this is if poeple like us let it be known to the liberals and greenys. there is a lot of mis information and even bullsh*t about this case and i for one would like to see all the facts put down. i think everbody should just lie thier cards on the table. i see a list of maps on that ranch site but i want to see pictures of the maps. how do i know this is not jsut a bunch of bs i tried to follow the links but some of themn are dead and i don't know if stuff isn't just made up. the only map on the site is that old 1884 map but are there other maps from that era that show a road. anyways i guess what i am saying is that both sides should just stop with the name calling and put all their facts out and let the people decide.

[Snotty]

Just remember, one crucial fact about RS2477 is that a road in question does not have to now or have ever been shown on a map. All it needs is implied usage over (x) amount of time. The argument that it was ?never on map so therefore was never a public road? is a misleading statement at best. What I find interesting about this, is to date, that is the only argument that the Boslough's and others have used to prove their point. They did try the wetland route but the state and local authorities, including the FS have not and do not intend to assign it wetland status. You can look on all the current maps for designated wetlands in the State and you will notice that this area is not included. It?s not even on the ?To be considered? list. It is a stream and nothing more, and on top of that, it doesn?t even run year round.

As for tossing everything on the table, the source that I have says everything has been put on the table and the Bosloughs have thus far been unable to counter. I have no idea if this is valid information so I have refrained from putting it out there as fact. Getting information about this issue, other then a very distorted view from the Boslough?s and green sites everywhere is extremely difficult. So it is a challenge at best to decipher all the misinformation out there. I would be very interested to hear what the courts have said to date.

[ September 18, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[vb]

all info from the court would be public record

[Snotty]

VB, What has happenend to date? I am curious about any court proceedings in the last year. Have any come to any conclusions yet?

[Hairy]

Wow, just got back in town from a road trip and read all this and am more confussed than ever. Who the hell is suein who? There seems to be alot of side issues goin on with this, has a judge ruled on anything?

[vb]

there is a judge that is hearing ramey vs boslough
no ruleing

[Butt Head]

I tried to lookup the 1903 and 1914 court cases about Baking Dog and I can't find anything. how do I find ouit abouit these cases with out hireing a lawyer?! If the road was declared public in 1903 then why was there another case 11 years later. Is any of this stuff on the web or do I need to go to the court house.

[vb]

i doubt that any case was listed under barking dog.
best place for you to start is to go to the law library at cu and ask for help. there is a system for finding cases. and it has basically three steps and alot of work in each.
the case in 1914 was an obstruction of a public road case.
anything that old will most likely find you siting at 1313 sherman in denver . the basement is the arcive.
once you learn the system for finding case law its perty coolsheperdizeing is basically where yer headed and then you might run across something for county road 81, or balarat road. smuggler mine?? maybe

[Butt Head]

vb your goin to be proud of me!
sorry it took so long to do this but i been on vacation.
I had real trouble at the CU place but i got alot of real good information at the 1313 sherman place in Denver. Theres good news and bad news but the good news is really good. the good news is that there is a 1914 road opstruction case and the lady that blocked the road lost. tha bad news is that it was'nt barking dog road but another road about 5 miles away from it - but heres the really good news--there's old roads all over the place around jamestown. they charged a arm and a leg to make copies at the arcive place so i only made a few copies but one thing i got was a map from the case that shows where the road was blocked and it shows roads all over that i guess must be public roads. it got it tacked up on my wall and i want to go try to find some of these roads cuz thay ar'nt on the reguler usgs quad maps. they must be public becaue the map was made in 1913 and i am tgold that the national forrest did'nt start untill 1917. the place where the road was blocked was right there at that place where county road 87J splits off of county road 87. whats really good is that the map shows another back way up from jamestown that might be the place where that guy knocked down trees - and thres another back way to balarat. theres a road in central gulch that i never knew was there and a road that follows somethin called sherman creek which i never heard about. i'm wonderin if some of these roads are behind locked gates and how we can get to them if they are.

[Butt Head]

I forgot to say the name of the law suit was
Chaarles E. Kohler, Plaintiff, -vs- Mary A. Dunbar and Felix Holt Dunbar, Defendants.

I could'nt find no 1904 case - only this one.

[Butt Head]

oh and i wnet to the lakewood BLM place and got more old maps too. if you like old maps go there. there was more roads i did'nt know about but i was glad that the short cut across my property was't on there so now i know for sure it ain't a rs 2477 road.

[vb]

i am proud of you
the dunbar case is barking dog. i have the intire case as a certified copy. the case was heard in boulder curcuit and the state supreme court and even the defendents said that the road was public. they just believed that they could erect a gate. in the end it was two gals trying to be mean to kohler since he was mean to them.
the road was refered to as balarat road. and the town of balarat is right smack in the middle of what boshlough claims is private.
again.
it is not 5 miles away. it is the road we are descussing

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by vb:
i am proud of you
the dunbar case is barking dog. i have the intire case as a certified copy. the case was heard in boulder curcuit and the state supreme court and even the defendents said that the road was public. they just believed that they could erect a gate. in the end it was two gals trying to be mean to kohler since he was mean to them.
the road was refered to as balarat road. and the town of balarat is right smack in the middle of what boshlough claims is private.
again.
it is not 5 miles away. it is the road we are descussing I am a little peeved that you sent me on a willd goose chase if you know this all along. why didn't you tell me the case name and that you already knew about it and have a copy. i spent alot of time on this not to mention money makeing copies.
i have the map and it shows where the blockage was and it is the top of balarat hill right where the school camp is, not on barking dog which is miles north. i don'[t really see how this helps your case. i was pretty exited to find all those rs2477 roads and wanted to go explore them but now it looks lke there mostly burnt up.
I never did find the 1903 or 1904 case. do you have that one to?

[vb]

i think thats what got this started any way. i know of no case in 1903. and the gate was on barking dog/balarat road/county road 87
at that time there was also a road that was somewhat east that also went to the town of balarat and if you read the case one road was used with light or no loads and when the wagaons were heavy they took the other. the two roads met at where the county now has the gate. there also was a road that went straight east from that point down to gier. kohler had blocked that road and the two gals were mad at that since it was the oldest road in the area . they then blocked the portion of the balarat road that went through their property.
one of the many ways it helps the case is that the two judges both talked of how the road had been establish under the 2477 grant 40 years prior to 1914
which tells us that THE ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD also the othe map that the defendents supplied shows the intire network of roads in the are that were public roads. the intire barking dog road right down to where 7 now is was shown and noone objected to any of the roads on that map as NOT being part of the network of PUBLIC ROADS
had you told me you were headed toward the kohler/dunbar case i certainly would have saved you the trouble
i think if i remember correctly there was something said of mules letter referanceing a case in 1903. he must know something i dont are possable might not know a thing about what hes talking of

[vb]

sorry btw for any confussion. i had referanced the 14 case in such a way that i thought it would be clear that i knew it well. in fact on knobbies site he referances it as well and aparently is unable to understand what he reads since his remarks are not consistant with the printed words in the case

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Butt Head:
oh and i wnet to the lakewood BLM place and got more old maps too. if you like old maps go there. there was more roads i did'nt know about but i was glad that the short cut across my property was't on there so now i know for sure it ain't a rs 2477 road. Butt Head, Just because a road isn't or wasn't on a map doesn't mean that RS2477 doesn't apply. You have to show that isn't wasn't historical use of a route. What that means to you is that you have to prove the road wasn't used prior to 1976 for public access. That is one of the pitfalls of RS2477 and really the one issue that MB can't get around with his road. It was used and it's use is well documented.

Your road on the other hand may be easier to prove. First, it isn't on any map. While that doesn't matter to RS2477, it is one step in your direction in proving lack of public use. Barking Dog trail has a FS designation of FDR297.1. Kind of screws MB right there.

Can you prove the age the road or construction? While a road may not fall into RS2477, Colorado Statues say a public ROW can be had if there has been 20 years of uncontested use. Was the trail there when you bought the property? If so, for how long? If the public has been using the trail, Colorado law says they can continue. But if you can prove the trail wasn?t there for 20 years that is your key. If you didn?t own the property, then do a search for permits of any type that might date the trail. That could be your only real hope.

Does the trail connect any other type of property, Public or Private? Is there any other access point to the other property if there is any? Does your trail terminate on your property? Is it a true access point, or is a public road that terminates on your property?

You have to deal with RS2477 first, then deal with Colorado Statutes second. Good luck and keep us up to date on what you find.

[vb]

what maps were you looking at also? if you were looking at patent surveys their pupose was not to show roads but the boundries of the patent , they often did not have roads and other land marks in them simply to reduce work for the surveyor

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by vb:
i think thats what got this started any way. i know of no case in 1903. and the gate was on barking dog/balarat road/county road 87
at that time there was also a road that was somewhat east that also went to the town of balarat and if you read the case one road was used with light or no loads and when the wagaons were heavy they took the other. the two roads met at where the county now has the gate. well now i'm really confused. I thgouth that barking dog was in Long Gulch which runs down to the south saint vain according to my maps. are you saying that barking dog road runs all the way south to the top of Balrat hill? I ahve been poring over this map for a cuple weeks now and I don't see how a blockage at the top of Balrat hill has anything to do with Barking Dog road.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by vb:

i think if i remember correctly there was something said of mules letter referanceing a case in 1903. he must know something i dont are possable might not know a thing about what hes talking of there was a guy who wrote a letter to the denver post about that. I could'nt find nothing about any 1903 case at all that had anything to do with roads in that area.

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
[QUOTE]Butt Head, Just because a road isn't or wasn't on a map doesn't mean that RS2477 doesn't apply. You have to show that isn't wasn't historical use of a route. No snotty i don't agree with you. I dd not believe that it is me that has to proove anything. If somebody thinks there is a legal road across my property then THEY are the one's that has to proove it. Other wise anybody could say that there is a road anywhere and nobody could ever proove that they are wrong. How can somebody show that something was never there . that would be impossible and nobody should have to do that.

[vb]

yes in general barking dog is another name for the balarat road and also county road 87 and prior to 53 87 was 81. and the obstruction that the case involve was right around the denver public school property today. which map do you have ? there were two in the case. id be more then happy to meet with you and compare notes

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by vb:
yes in general barking dog is another name for the balarat road and also county road 87 and prior to 53 87 was 81. and the obstruction that the case involve was right around the denver public school property today. which map do you have ? there were two in the case. id be more then happy to meet with you and compare notes So where does barking dog road start at the South end? did they close it for the fire. is it open again? i want to try to drive up it and see how far it goes and where the turn off is for the place that was blocked off in 1914. I have a map that shows all the way from james town to the town of balarat. i am realy interested in finding the back way up from jamestown. do you know where it comes out of town? i am thinking about going down there tomorow to look at the fire damage anyways and want to see where those roads are

[vb]

just west of jametown on the right. 1st road you come to. you'll head up the hill and just keep bareing to the left. they might have it blocked however cause that is exactly where the fire started

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Butt Head:
No snotty i don't agree with you. I dd not believe that it is me that has to proove anything. If somebody thinks there is a legal road across my property then THEY are the one's that has to proove it. Other wise anybody could say that there is a road anywhere and nobody could ever proove that they are wrong. How can somebody show that something was never there . that would be impossible and nobody should have to do that. You don't have to agree with me, but it is the fact of the matter. I am looking for a story on two mines up in that area had the same problem you do right now. Boulder County ended up trying a few illegal things to keep an area closed along with some other owners. But they were unable to prove that road wasn't used and the people that wanted access were granted access. If it was as simple as you think it should be, then MB and VB wouldn't be in the issues that they are. I'm not ttrying to rattle your cage, but provide you with information that was hopefully valuable to you in some fashion.

Will post more as soon as I can find the cases.

VB, do you still have that info I sent you about a mine a while back? I think I bombed it off my server. It was about a couple mines and one was on a land rights issues website.

[vb]

http://www.landusecoalition.org/

i think you mean nancey mine

[Snotty]

Groovy VB! That is one of the two, but I think the other Mine that I am looking for is in there as well.

Sounds like you and MB are going at it again. What can I help with?

[vb]

letters to udall and the county would be a start.
letters or calls to all the papers that mb has lied through maybe.
the last rangers in the boulder district felt that the road was an important part in their travel management. lets let them know that it still needs to be
congressman pombo would like to here more of whats happnin with this too i believe and i think that many in the politcall arena should object to a nm congress person reading the riot act to folks in this state

[Gunter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vb:
[QB] http://www.landusecoalition.org/

i saw some home building issues there,and
i dunno,but i really think boulder should be scraped off the face of old mother earth,and just get over it.and build a GIGANTIC off road rec park.with atv and motorcycle play grounds too. graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by vb:
just west of jametown on the right. 1st road you come to. you'll head up the hill and just keep bareing to the left. they might have it blocked however cause that is exactly where the fire started it started right at the corner of barking dog road and overland road! to bad they did'nt call it the Barking Dog Fire!!! bd was still closed to all but local residence so you could'nt drive up it over the week-end

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
You don't have to agree with me, but it is the fact of the matter. I am looking for a story on two mines up in that area had the same problem you do right now. Boulder County ended up trying a few illegal things to keep an area closed along with some other owners. But they were unable to prove that road wasn't used and the people that wanted access were granted access. If it was as simple as you think it should be, then MB and VB wouldn't be in the issues that they are. I'm not ttrying to rattle your cage, but provide you with information that was hopefully valuable to you in some fashion.
you don't understand. i don't agree that you know the facts. nobody can proove that something isn't! when i got divorced my old old lady tried to say a bunch of crap about me that was'nt true and i could'nt proove it was'nt but i did'nt have to becasue she could'nt proove that it was. who ever is saying the crap has to have the proof so the bikers can't just say yeah theres a road thrugh this dudes property and then make me proove that there is'nt. how could i even do that if old maps don't always show roads like you said. it think it iw the other way round.

[Snotty]

Right of Way doesn?t mean it has to be a road. RS2477 applies to a single track as well. You don't have to believe me or like what I am saying. There are ROW's that are in excess of 100 years old that have never been on a map and are still considered to be a ROW. The reason is that the old miners never mapped out where they went. They just started using a trail and boom, instant RS2477.

Your wife doesn?t have a congressional right behind her and could be considered hostile to you. That has nothing to do with this type of scenario and you know it.

From http://www.rs2477roads.com/2eleven.htm

The present physical condition of a road is totally irrelevant to whether a valid RS 2477 right-of-way exists.
This should be obvious, but this is the point on which the anti-access folks are spreading the most misinformation. Whether a road is barely visible on the ground or even has been obliterated for any other reason, the legal status of the right-of-way is not affected. The grantee can legally re-establish the road even if it has totally disappeared. It follows, then, that it also is impossible to determine whether a valid right-of-way exists simply by looking at it. A right-of-way can only be relinquished or abandoned in accordance with state law. In short, the use of an RS2477 ROW is granted no matter the state of the ROW or lack of documentation. Your issue is that the road is visible and has been for some time. It is now up to you to prove it's non-existence and use.

I only gave you the primer to and info on where to look to establish a time line to determine if the row exists. If you wish to be ignorant of the info that I have given you and remain defiant, well as they say, ignorance is bliss. You now also have to deal with Colorado Statues as well that say it is a public ROW if used for 20 consecutive years uncontested. You seem to want to be like mark and say it ain't so just because. Ask Mark about use and maps and see what he has to say and then ask why he hasn't gone to court over the issue and or pursued trespassing violations. It's because he and you don't seem to have a leg a stand on.

If you want to be an ass about it, stop wasting my time and do the damn research yourself. I tried to help you but true to your name, you are being a butt head.

I really like this one and one that maybe Mark needs to be made aware of since it is one of his arguing points.

From: http://www.rs2477roads.com/2plcshul.htm

State Law Can Allow Some Deviation from a Fixed Physical Location for R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way
The National Parks & Conservation Association (NPCA) advances an argument which is quite similar to the one that Sierra Club lost in Sierra Club, namely that once a right-of-way is physically located on the ground, there can be no deviation from the precise physical location. In Sierra Club the Tenth Circuit rejected the argument that the repeal of R.S. 2477 in 1976 caused the "freezing" of the rights-of-way to their precise 1976 widths. 848 F.2d at 1081. After determining that state law should prevail, the court responded by quoting the District Court's finding that the Utah Supreme Court had held that the rights-of-way "`should not be restricted to the actual beaten path, but should be widened to meet the exigencies of increased travel.'" Id. at 1083 (quoting Whiteside v. Green, 44 P. 1032 (1896)). Furthermore, "`the proposed deviations [from the established roadway] are minor in relation to the realignments which have been made in the past in response to flooding and rock slides.'" Id. at 1084 (brackets in original; citations omitted). In Hemerly v. Denton, 359 P.2d 121 (Alaska 1963), the Alaska Supreme Court held:
But before a highway may be created, there must be either some positive act on the part of the appropriate public authorities of the state, clearly manifesting an intention to accept, or there must be public user for such a period of time and under such conditions as to prove that the grant had been accepted.
Id. at 123 (emphasis added). In Hemmerly no highway was found because the facts were not well established. It was not enough to have a mere "dead end road or trail, running into wild, unenclosed and uncultivated country." 359 P.2d at 125. However, in a later case, Dillingham Commercial Co. v. City of Dillingham, 705 P.2d 410 (Alaska 1985), a highway was found, because rather than a dead end trail, "the road connects two essential transportation arteries." Id. at 414. The road was found on facts not any stronger than in the present case. Thus contrary to the government's assertion, Alaska has not been miserly in recognizing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. There Is No Conflict with Adams v. United States
The government and their amici try to argue that the present case is in conflict with Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1993). Different fact-based results, however, do not imply different law. In Adams this Court noted that "whatever road existed in 1881, the Clark Canyon Road is no longer in the same location as that historical road. The modern road was built in the 1960's." Id. at 1258. The most obvious distinction here is that Adams arose in Nevada, a state with different laws regarding highways and with none of the adverse conditions such as permafrost which necessitate changes as in Alaska. More to the point, it is clear from the facts in Adams that the Clark Canyon road was really a brand new road upon which the proponents had tried to tack an R.S. 2477 label based on the existence of an old road. In the present case "[a]ll the evidence points to the existence of a publicly used land route." Shultz, 10 F.3d 649, 659 (9th Cir. 1993).
In any event, once the R.S. 2477 right-of-way is established, it remains forever. Even if it were not the law in Alaska that the route can change course, at least the original right-of-way would still be available.(4)
Either Shultz has the right to use the road in its present configuration or he has the right to go back and reconstruct the road at its original configuration. Surely the former alternative makes more sense, logically and ecologically.

[vb]

hey mark--(not butthead)
can you keep up with this discussion??????

[Butt Head]

Originally posted by Snotty:
Right of Way doesn?t mean it has to be a road. RS2477 applies to a single track as well. You don't have to believe me or like what I am saying. There are ROW's that are in excess of 100 years old that have never been on a map and are still considered to be a ROW. The reason is that the old miners never mapped out where they went. They just started using a trail and boom, instant RS2477.

Your wife doesn?t have a congressional right behind her and could be considered hostile to you. That has nothing to do with this type of scenario and you know it.

From http://www.rs2477roads.com/2eleven.htm

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The present physical condition of a road is totally irrelevant to whether a valid RS 2477 right-of-way exists.
This should be obvious, but this is the point on which the anti-access folks are spreading the most misinformation. Whether a road is barely visible on the ground or even has been obliterated for any other reason, the legal status of the right-of-way is not affected. The grantee can legally re-establish the road even if it has totally disappeared. It follows, then, that it also is impossible to determine whether a valid right-of-way exists simply by looking at it. A right-of-way can only be relinquished or abandoned in accordance with state law. In short, the use of an RS2477 ROW is granted no matter the state of the ROW or lack of documentation. Your issue is that the road is visible and has been for some time. It is now up to you to prove it's non-existence and use.

I only gave you the primer to and info on where to look to establish a time line to determine if the row exists. If you wish to be ignorant of the info that I have given you and remain defiant, well as they say, ignorance is bliss. You now also have to deal with Colorado Statues as well that say it is a public ROW if used for 20 consecutive years uncontested. You seem to want to be like mark and say it ain't so just because. Ask Mark about use and maps and see what he has to say and then ask why he hasn't gone to court over the issue and or pursued trespassing violations. It's because he and you don't seem to have a leg a stand on.

If you want to be an ass about it, stop wasting my time and do the damn research yourself. I tried to help you but true to your name, you are being a butt head.

I really like this one and one that maybe Mark needs to be made aware of since it is one of his arguing points.

From: http://www.rs2477roads.com/2plcshul.htm

State Law Can Allow Some Deviation from a Fixed Physical Location for R.S. 2477 Rights-of-Way
The National Parks & Conservation Association (NPCA) advances an argument which is quite similar to the one that Sierra Club lost in Sierra Club, namely that once a right-of-way is physically located on the ground, there can be no deviation from the precise physical location. In Sierra Club the Tenth Circuit rejected the argument that the repeal of R.S. 2477 in 1976 caused the "freezing" of the rights-of-way to their precise 1976 widths. 848 F.2d at 1081. After determining that state law should prevail, the court responded by quoting the District Court's finding that the Utah Supreme Court had held that the rights-of-way "`should not be restricted to the actual beaten path, but should be widened to meet the exigencies of increased travel.'" Id. at 1083 (quoting Whiteside v. Green, 44 P. 1032 (1896)). Furthermore, "`the proposed deviations [from the established roadway] are minor in relation to the realignments which have been made in the past in response to flooding and rock slides.'" Id. at 1084 (brackets in original; citations omitted). In Hemerly v. Denton, 359 P.2d 121 (Alaska 1963), the Alaska Supreme Court held:
But before a highway may be created, there must be either some positive act on the part of the appropriate public authorities of the state, clearly manifesting an intention to accept, or there must be public user for such a period of time and under such conditions as to prove that the grant had been accepted.
Id. at 123 (emphasis added). In Hemmerly no highway was found because the facts were not well established. It was not enough to have a mere "dead end road or trail, running into wild, unenclosed and uncultivated country." 359 P.2d at 125. However, in a later case, Dillingham Commercial Co. v. City of Dillingham, 705 P.2d 410 (Alaska 1985), a highway was found, because rather than a dead end trail, "the road connects two essential transportation arteries." Id. at 414. The road was found on facts not any stronger than in the present case. Thus contrary to the government's assertion, Alaska has not been miserly in recognizing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. There Is No Conflict with Adams v. United States
The government and their amici try to argue that the present case is in conflict with Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1993). Different fact-based results, however, do not imply different law. In Adams this Court noted that "whatever road existed in 1881, the Clark Canyon Road is no longer in the same location as that historical road. The modern road was built in the 1960's." Id. at 1258. The most obvious distinction here is that Adams arose in Nevada, a state with different laws regarding highways and with none of the adverse conditions such as permafrost which necessitate changes as in Alaska. More to the point, it is clear from the facts in Adams that the Clark Canyon road was really a brand new road upon which the proponents had tried to tack an R.S. 2477 label based on the existence of an old road. In the present case "[a]ll the evidence points to the existence of a publicly used land route." Shultz, 10 F.3d 649, 659 (9th Cir. 1993).
In any event, once the R.S. 2477 right-of-way is established, it remains forever. Even if it were not the law in Alaska that the route can change course, at least the original right-of-way would still be available.(4)
Either Shultz has the right to use the road in its present configuration or he has the right to go back and reconstruct the road at its original configuration. Surely the former alternative makes more sense, logically and ecologically.</font>[/QUOTE]just tell me how i can proove that a path across my proerty is NOT a rs2477. what would i need to do to proove it&gt;

[Snotty]

You, have to date the ROW. Pre or post 1976.

Be careful here because recent legislation has deemed some post ROW's to be RS2477. But from what I have found, it must cross or connect to federal land.

If you can date the road post 1976 and it doesn't cross or connect to federal land, then it can't be grand fathered into RS2477 protection.

The second step is to deal with Colorado. Colorado says that an ROW used for 20 consecutive years regardless of the in service date can be claimed as a public ROW. Colorado Law supercedes Congressional Legislation here. If you didn't own the property for 20 years, check with the city and county to see if there are any permits pulled to build it.

Lastly, and a questions that I asked before, where does the road go? Does it connect to another piece of property? Does it connect to public land? Does it terminate on your property? Is it a main road that terminates on your property? Is it a cherry stem off the main road onto your property? Your best bet is to hope that it terminates on your property. If it does, you can get the designation eliminated, but only with court approval. You have to do it legally, not because you say so.

Mark Boslough's problem is that of all the ROW's that existed, the one that crosses his property is the only one left. An RS2477 ROW can move. It also connects to major arteries. It was used for more then 20 consecutive years. It has an FDR designation. The address is listed as CR87. The trail is documented. It's use dating back into the 1800's is documented. The trail crosses several pieces of property including some that are land locked. I would say that Mark stepped into a world of shit.

He can wait out the 20 year requirement for Colorado, but the RS2477 ROW will never go away. As shown by the court cases listed above.

[Willie G]

Originally posted by Snotty:
...He can wait out the 20 year requirement for Colorado, but the RS2477 ROW will never go away. As shown by the court cases listed above. Actually, Snotty, I think events in Boulder County are fast overtaking Mr. Boslough - the light at the end of his tunnel make be a fast moving train!

:D

[Snotty]

If Udall has his way and the 4 year time frame is implimented, Boulder County may just grab the land from MB and finish CR87. Under the current legislation, they can do so and not even pay him one freaking cent.