Mile-Hi Jeep Club and CR 87

[Knobby Bobby]

(subject edited to better reflect the content)

There are some real idiots out there. Please respect ranchers and their private property rights. Idiots like the Mile-Hi Jeep Club is why more and more ranchers are locking their gates and closing ranch roads.
Read this and get pissed off!
http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

[ September 26, 2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Eric ]

[cj-freak]

I read that article prior to you posting this and I wrote them a nasty post on thier website which is www.mhjc.org (http://www.mhjc.org) if you would like to post in the thread that I did here's the link. mile hi jeep clubs post about this article (http://mhjc.net/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=485&forum=1&1) it's a bummer that this is happening. graemlins/flipoff.gif

[phyler]

Ok, while I don't have all the information, I do know that a friend of mine who works for the forest service as a hot shot told me that the trail is considered a PUBLIC road. Now, if that is the case then there is nothing wrong. But if for some reason the road has been deemed PRIVATE then we as responsible members of the 4-wheel community need to step up and act responsible.

I think a simple trip to the county courthouse could clear up any confusion of what is public and what is private. If you had legal documents saying you were on PUBLIC lands and he complained, I'd tell him to call the sheriff. Simple matter when you got to that point. The question, as the webmaster stated, is whether the road is PUBLIC or PRIVATE. I think before bashing a club, you need to determine this absolutly and then bring it up to them. Who knows, maybe they'd respond in a positive way?

Flame on, eh?

phyler

[Knobby Bobby]

Here is a fact sheet I got about the tresspassing and vandalism by the Mile-Hi Jeep Club.

------------
The following quotes are confirmation of the version of the
story as stated in the op-ed. Phone numbers are provided for
verification.

"THE MAJORITY OF THE ROAD, AS WELL AS THE SPECIFIC POINT
WHERE THE ROAD IS BLOCKED, IS LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH
BELONGS TO MARK BOSLOUGH."
Boulder County Sheriff's Department case report 20000626.
(available from Boulder County Sheriff: 303-441-4444)

"WE HAVE SEARCHED OUR STATUS RECORDS AND FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A FORMAL
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE PRIVATE
LANDS THIS ROUTE CROSSES."
Letter from Christine Walsh, Boulder District Ranger, Sept.7, 2000.
(Boulder Ranger District: 303-541-2500)

"MR. ROGAKIS [BOULDER COUNTY ROAD INFORMATION SPECIALIST] HAS INDICATED
THAT HE FOUND NO INFORMATION SUGGESTING THAT BOULDER COUNTY EVER CONSIDERED
THIS ROAD TO BE PUBLIC, OR THAT IT HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE ROAD."
Letter from Leslie Lacy, Boulder County Attorney, Dec. 24, 2001.
(Boulder County Transportation: 303-441-3900, Boulder County Attorney:
303-441-3435).

"THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HELD NUMEROUS PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE CLOSURE OF THE
FAR NORTH END OF COUNTY ROAD 87 AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY DO NOT
INTEND TO REOPEN THE ROAD TO MOTORIZED VEHICLES."
Letter from the Board of County Commissioners, Boulder County, Jan. 14, 2002.
(Boulder County Commission: 303-441 3500).

[Another YJ]

Maybe Mile Hi made a mistake . . . I don't know. But, I do know that they have an excellent reputation for adhering to the "tread lightly" motto.

Personally, I hate seeing knee-jerk posts that uses phrases like this.

Sorry, guys, but I simply don't believe Mile-High club members are that irresponsible.

Dave.

[Eryl Flynn]

Read the article wrote by the same person just below it. Land may be his, and the road may be private but the guy is a nut case. Prevent forest fires by not going into the forests. I never could understand the preserve by never even looking at or using mentality, not much point in having it if ou can't use it.

[phyler]

Knobby, good research. I guess that is truly a definitive answer, eh?

I agree that the guy is a bit extreme in saying no vehicles, c'mon, how many fires are started by humans period? I think he just wants private use and no one else. That's his opinion and it seems to be the opinion of many people in the Republic of Boulder.

phyler

[SamFromCO]

Hey there Knobby B.. You got a pretty slim profile and only two posts????? How about a little background? I have a hard time believing that MHJC was as guilty as the crowd on that Darkendeavors web site claimed. I would more suspect that somebody figured that a public road across thier property was thiers. I would have the same results if I went out in front of my house and tried to keep people from driving up and down the street.

[phyler]

Ok, well after going back and re-reading the site agian, turns out that you were just re-publishing the info. No new research.

The "lout" asks why the re-wording? Hmmm, maybe because MHJC is unfairly being attacked and is clairfying what really happened. They didn't change the wording, they added to it.

I don't know if I would entirely trust the info that the guy gave about the "trespass" but since he gave cases and phone numbers, maybe I'll have to do some calling.

The last quote from the commisioners calls it COUNTY ROAD 87. If it is a county road, wouldn't it be PUBLIC? Seems that the last statement contradicts the one from the Assitant DA right above it saying the Boulder County never considered it a public road or that it ever had interest in it. Is it County Road 87 or is it different?

phyler

[ September 21, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: phyler ]

[Bill]

I am not nor ever have been a member of Mile High Jeep Club and have no personal interest in vindicating them.

My understanding is that this is a longstanding and vicious controversy on both sides. It is not settled and Mile High Jeep Club has evidence and sources to cite as well.

Before you vilify them here or elsewhere you might want to check with them and get their side of the story. To post the quotes from their opposition as "proof" that they are wrong without hearing their evidence is prejudicial and hasty.

[ September 21, 2002, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Bill ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Sam, which part of "PRIVATE PROPERTY" is it that you don't you understand? Why do you mudfest types think a private ranch road is your personal playground!!? Didn't you learn your lesson after you got in trouble for tearing up that meadow at Caribou Flat? Maybe the rancher should just come down to the suburbs and change his oil and build a camp fire in your front yard. Yeah, let's have a weenie roast at Sam's house.

[OP]

Hey there Bobby, I am not a member of MHJC, but am definitely going to stand up for them, as you are bashing a group that consistently cleans up trails that are public, which they did not necessarily trash or dirty. Yet time and time again they are out there to make the lands that we all use clean and attractive as well as nature friendly. I don't know if you wheel at all, but if you do, and you opened your eyes you would see that they do tread lightly as well as go above and beyond just cleaning up trash. I also dont know if you are mad at MHJC for some reason and you are trying to just ruin their name, but I would first do a little more research before I put my name on the line, for something I read at the corner store.

[Knobby Bobby]

Jeff, did you look at the pictures on Dark Endeavors? Driving in a creek bed is in direct violation of Tread Lightly principles! So is driving on private property without the owner's permission. Spilling 6 quarts of oil into a creek just makes matters worse (pull out your own drain plug and see if you can fix it with silicone before the crank case is completely dry). And to top it off, they trespass and move a boulder off a private ranch road because the rancher made them mad for blocking them off his property after they trashed it. No thanks, I don't care how many public roads these jerks clean up if they have no respect for private property rights.

[Bill]

Ok. No I didn't look at the pictures but sometimes primative roads go through creeks.

Again you are jumping to conclutions without getting the other side of the story.

I don't know all the details but as I understand it the story goes something like this: Individual A is an environmentalist who doesn't like any mechanized use of public (or private) lands. This individual, in an attempt to stop such mechanized use buys a piece of property which is tranversed by a (assumed to be) public road which the Mile High Jeep Club and other motorized recreationists have used, unabated for many years. He then simply claims that since the road crosses his private property it must be his private road even though it hass not been used as such for many years. He then begins vandalising and obstructing the road to prevent the continued used by MHJC and others. MHJC takes exception to the obstructing of the public road and clears the obstruction out of the way. Political and legal battle ensues. Propaganda war on enviromentalist part ensues. Premature and uninformed slamming of MHJC ensues.

[OP]

Bobby, I agree that driving on private property and in stream beds is a direct violation of Tread Lightly procedures, but my question is if this incident happened in May of 1999 why is this being brought up three and a half years later? You are a newbie to this board, we have no background on you, yet you decide it is your call to deface one of the top clubs in the United States in terms of keeping public trails open for all outdoor enthusiasts, whether they be crawlers, backpackers or whomever. Have you personally tried to contact MHJC or are you just taking the word of someone else?

[Knobby Bobby]

Call me old fashioned, but I always thought when somebody bought private property it was private property. I understand easements and all that. If there is a public easement then it is a public road. If there is not, then it's not. Even an idiot like me can understand private property rights. If it's public, then get the county to open it. If the county says its private, then it is private. I don't care if the rancher is an environmentalist whacko or a green-hater. It is HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY and around these parts that is important!

Oh yeah, and here's what Tread Lightly says.
Travel only where permitted
Respect the rights of others
Educate yourself
Avoid streams and Meadows
Drive Responsibly

So those primitive roads that go in streams should be avoided by clubs that comply with Tread Lightly principles.

[Knobby Bobby]

Jeff, no I did not try to contact the Mile Hi Jeep Club, but the Boulder Lout says he will give them space on his web site to give their side of the story. I guess I can read it there if they want to respond.

Yes, I am taking somebody else's word for it:
(1) the owner of the PRIVATE PROPERTY.
(2) the Boulder County Sheriff's report.
(3) the Boulder County Attorney's office.
(4) the Boulder County Trasportation Department.
(5) the Boulder District Forest Ranger.
(6) the Boulder County Commissioners.
They all say the same thing.

[Snotty]

Knobby,

First of all, you are new to this board, have few posts, slam a club that has done more good for the environment and work with the NSF and BLM then I am sure you ever have. You are quick to defend one point view based on copied information and only one half the story while accusing everyone else of being ignorant when they simply question your data.

Your posts are filled with half truths, half the story and only one point of view.

I believe that maybe your true color of green is starting to show and your eco-extremist poltical agenda as well.

It sounds to me as if there is some confusion based on Private Property, Easement and or Right of way. Until that is hammered out by the powers that be, I think you are out of line for attacking a group of people when you don't even have the full story. Just because someone says something is true doesn't mean that it is. There are several roads up the mountians in the Boulder area that have private property signs on them, and most of them are not. They are Rights of Way.

The next time you go around bashing people like you did in the above posts I will make my personal mission to get you banned from this forum. If you wish to disagree with someone here, do it in a constructive intelligent manner or leave.

[ September 21, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[YuppyScum]

Snotty,
Right on! Very well put.

[Knobby Bobby]

Snotty,

Sorry you think I am a green eco-extremist. Actually I am a property-rights activist. I hate to see rural property owners bullied by people who drive up from the city and trash their ranches. They did it to that poor guy at Caribou Flat and they did it to the guy at Barking Dog. Hopefully, the other side of the story (if there is one, which I doubt) will appear on Dark Endeavors so we can sit back and read it there.

I'm also sorry you don't believe in free speech! If you are opposed to both property rights and free speech, why do you have that American flag attached to your message? It seems more like you should have a Cuban flag or something. Go ahead, ban me from speaking on this forum. I wonder if we will ever hear from the MHJC?! I'll keep checking back to see, even if you are successful in taking away my own constitutional right to speak.

Knobby

[cj-freak]

I deffinately agree with most of you in the effect that mhjc does do alot for our community, they adopt alot of trails,& keep alot of trails clean. I don't think that it was nessicary for them to move those boulders, unless they had known that it was some crazy guy saying it was his property that had put them there. I don't know if they had known that or not but if they didn't know who had put them there it was a bad decision on their part because it could have been the county that had closed it off for any number of reasons. I think that the person claiming it is his land has some outragous views about land use and who get's to use it. at first I had thought that mhjc was at fault but now I am not sure because there are all too many variables to which I have not looked for an answer yet. I can't say I really care that much because of how long ago that this happened. I don't even know what trail it was for that matter.I have heard of mhjc not treading lightly from other ppl but I have never actually seen it in all of the trail reports of theirs I have read or in any of the times I have seen them. accident's happen, it would have been nice of them to try to clean up their mess but oh it didn't seem to me like they could seeing that it was in a creek.instead of IGNORANTLY flamming one and other we should atleast get our facts strait and try to keep an open mind for BOTH sides. graemlins/idea.gif

[cj-freak]

oh and I was wondering knobby, what do you drive? im curious as to how you came about our site and why you did not join untill you started to bash a part of the off road community. why don't you give us some back ground knowledge about how long you have been wheelin(if ever), trails you have helped clean up, # of people you have helped get their broke wheeler off the trail, ect. im sure if you are a good part of this communtiy it will show through some of that info and maybe you will have more ppl on your side or atleast more open to your views.
ps. where ther hell is hobo willy and all of the rest of the mhjc members? they should be part of this post.

[ September 21, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: cj-freak ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Like I said, I am more of a property rights activist. I have been wheeling most all my life, both motorized and non-motorized. My favorite thing to do nowadays is to ride my mountain bike. I've probably done more for the environment than everyone in the MHJC combined. At least I've never dumped oil into a mountain stream on private property before. Oh yeah, Barking Dog is still open to mountain bikes because we've never trashed it.

Knobby

[Snotty]

First of all, I am very pro First Amendment. But what you fail to understand is that the first Amendment does not apply here. This is a private forum.. Something you profess to know something about. Private Property Rights. And trust me, you do not wish to get involved in a First Amendment argument with me. I know what it is, I know why it was created and I know why it does not apply here.

The Caribou Flat flats incident was misfortunate incident and one that MHJC offered to assist in helping to clean up. But I guess that little piece of information doesn't suit the needs of your agenda now does it. The MHJC was and has been a key player in several of the trail cleanups at Carnage/Left Hand as well. Then again, that does not suit your agenda either.

The reason that you won't see the point of view on the Dark Endeavors website is quite simple. They won't publish it. That is not the intent or purpose of that website. That does by the way, fall within the guidelines and intent of the First Amendment.

The bone I chose to pick with you is the arrogant, better then thou attitude in which you choose to represent yourself. You are hostile, angry and belligerent. You have failed to portray anything but an Eco Extremist point of view and nothing else. You have failed to even argue a valid point on the infraction that you imply that you know so much about. You simply parroted information without doing any real research on the subject at hand. You profess to be a Private Property Rights advocate and spew nonsense about the First Amendment when you disrespected the Private Property rights of this board, and displayed an extreme lack of knowledge of the First Amendment.

And lastly, you are a coward. By trying to call out my patriotism with your drivel and mock the American flag that I am using. The American flag that I have as my avatar as well as the majority of the people on this forum are using, is in respect and honor of the individuals that can no longer enjoy the freedom to post their point of view anywhere as of 9/11/01. You are also a raciest, and I find that type of behavior reprehensible. The Cubans who fly their flag with pride do not have a choice in the type of Government that they are held captive under. It has nothing to do with national pride or a group of people or countries. Your statement was a generalization, and I believe that you owe every Cuban and member on this forum an apology.

Now if you wish to continue this disrespect of Eric's Private Property, "Verbal" abuse of the members of this forum and disrespect of the Americans who lost their lives, then yes, I will take it upon myself to have you banned.

If I ever meet you in person I will, as calmly as I can, practice my First Amendment Rights and tell you to get the FAWK out of my Country. You have shown that you do not deserve the freedoms given to you in this great country of ours.

[Snotty]

FYI Knobby...

You Mtb Bikers are not the angels you would have us believe. I have experienced some extremely rude and less the Tread Lightly behavior from them.

http://www.colorado4x4.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001365#000006

Trail Etiquette and Right Of Way seem to be a huge issue with you guys. Or was that a generalization. Sorry about that... :rolleyes:

[Knobby Bobby]

Snotty,

I am just amazed that you are willing to disrespect the American flag by hiding behind it and using it to justify your un-American belief system that is more in tune with Fidel Castro's government. What an insult to those who have served our nation while you sit back and let them protect you and pretend to be such a patriot. You need to sit down and read the first amendment again. You also need to learn a little more about property rights. You said I am angry and hostile, but I actually think it is kinda funny that you are so protective of "property rights" of a web site but you don't care about property rights of rural western land owners whose ranches have been trashed by your friends.

[Another YJ]

Hey Knobby, you still haven't answered the question. All we know for sure is that you ride a mountain bike and that you have driven motorized vehicles.

What 4x4 rig do you drive. Does it have lockers? What size tires does it have?

Come on, prove to us that you've done your share of four-wheeling.

Dave.

[RockYacht]

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hold the phone. No body's kicking anybody off. Not yet anyway...

Robert, (Knobby) you need to understand that you aren't exactly credible at this point and that's why you're getting the flack you are. You log in here, a 4WD based Buletin Board, and your first post is like taking a baseball bat to a hornets nest, attacking one of the oldest and most active clubs in CO. I find issue with your statement that you do more than MHJC does for the environment. Maybe you're a great Philanthropist that none of us have heard about? If so, as others have asked, please identify yourself and establish your credibility. If you're a fun loving regular joe outdoor enthusiast like the rest of us, there is no way you can make that statement. One man cannot begin to do the amount of work that MHJC can and does accomplish.

Loose the attitude, present factual info that presents both sides of the story, not just the one meant to antagonize. Goes to credibility...

What about our, tax paying American citizen's, property-rights? Public land is everyone property! This question must be answerred, is this an actual private road meaning he built it, maintains it and pays taxes on it as part of his property or is it a public road meaning we the citizens paid for the construction and pay for the maintenance on it and he just thinks it's his because it runs across his property but doesn't want to be bothered with traffic? Big difference!

Can anyone independently verify the status of this "road"? The county court house assayors office is the place to start. If in fact it is this man's private road the tax records will show it. It's all public record so don't let some knuckle head clerk tell you otherwise. If he's not paying taxes on it, then maybe we can help him out. ;)
Another place to check is the county roads department. Find out if the guys ever run a road grader or do any maintenance there. As a tax payer I would have issue with the county maintaining a "private" road with out some sort of ROW agreement.

I've run across this exact thing in WY a couple times. These ranchers/landowners think that because their land borders public land that it belongs to them by "closing" the road leading to it. They think they can keep the public off public land... It can be an ugly standoff, especially if the local sheriff is his buddy. BTDT.

[ September 22, 2002, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Bob Levenhagen ]

[cj-freak]

I have not had to deal with mtn bikers but I have had to deal with road bikers, I think they all have the same attitude, they have right of way no matter what. I live up hwy 103 in evergreen and it is a very popular road to ride up for road bikers.I have nearly hit them numerous times because they lack the courtesy to give me even half a ****ing lane.I remember just the other day there were 2 in my lane taking 1/2 the space, I tried to pass them and there are 4 side by side in the other lane, I nearly killed a couple of them but luckily for them I am used to dealing with such stupidity and know how to manuver around them. we have sighns all over our road that say "share the road" I see no sharing from byciclists. most ppl that live up here hate the byciclists for this reason, lack of respect for others and lack of courtesy. they could atleast ride single file when they hear a car comming, especially mine because I have an exhaust leak and you can hear me comming from far away. I think that knobby should read the post that snotty linked to and try to defend himself.

[ September 22, 2002, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: cj-freak ]

[jeepinaround]

I don't know if this will help any but I think I read some where in that article on Dark Endeavors that the property in question was public and then the guy bought it. If this is true then this might shed some light on the MHJC stance against this guy. Let see what everyone thinks.

How To Determine If You Are Being Mislead Or Lied To!
>
> Compiled by The Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute
> Box 27514, Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0514
>
> The recent increased public attention given to RS 2477
> rights-of-way also has been accompanied by an increase in
> misinformation being spread by some anti-access environmental groups
> and federal bureaucrats. Sometimes this is because they simply do not
> understand the issue themselves. Often, however, it is a clear and
> deliberate effort to deceive.
>
> The following are the fundamental facts on RS 2477. If you
> encounter anything contrary, you can be certain you are either being
> misinformed or intentionally mislead. For more detailed information,
> you should check out the Official RS 2477 Internet site,
> www.rs2477roads.com. (http://www.rs2477roads.com.) (See for yourself why eco-terrorist tried to
> destroy this web site in July of 1997!)
>
> A word of caution! If those supporting continued public access to
> the public lands don't discuss RS 2477 accurately, they are just
> playing into the hands of the lockout crowd. You might want to
> double-check yourself on the facts, too!
>
> 1. RS 2477 is a simple and straightforward law.
> This is the entire text of RS 2477: "The right-of-way for the
> construction of highways across public lands not reserved for public
> purposes is hereby granted."
>
> 2. Congress specifically and clearly reaffirmed the validity and
> intent of RS 2477 in 1976. Because RS 2477 became law in 1866,
> anti-access extremists argue that it is now somehow inconsistent with
> modern public land management policy. But just 22 years ago, when
> Congress repealed RS 2477 and replaced it and many other laws with
> the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it specifically and
> explicitly reaffirmed all RS 2477 grants previously made.
>
> 3. RS 2477 was a self-executing law.
> When the conditions were met, the right-of-way grant was made. No
> further action by the grantee or by Congress was necessary to
> validate it.
>
> 4. Congress specifically by-passed the Executive Branch of the
> Federal Government in making RS 2477 grants. Under our Constitution,
> Congress has the exclusive power to manage and dispose of public
> lands and property (Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have
> Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
> respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
> States;"). In 1976 when Congress reaffirmed the RS 2477 right-of-way
> granting process established 110 ten years earlier, it had the total
> power to do so. The federal land management agencies have no
> independent power or authority over RS 2477 roads (or anything else
> to do with public lands). Their only authority over public lands is
> what Congress delegates to them.
> 4. The RS 2477 right-of-way grant is a property right.
> Therefore, it enjoys the same constitutional and legal protections
> as any other property. Legally, when the grant was made, the federal
> government's interest in the land underlying the right-of-way became
> the "servient estate" and the interest of the right-of-way grantee
> became the "dominant estate." That means that while the federal
> government is protected against unnecessary or undue damage to the
> land underlying the right-of-way, it cannot interfere with the
> grantee's exercise of its rights.
>
> 5. The RS 2477 grant also conveyed a bundle of associated rights.
> These include the right to maintain the road and even upgrade the
> road. This federal law also is unusual because state law plays a
> major role. It can partially determine the scope of these associated
> rights, how the requirements of the grant offer were met, and the
> width of the right-of-way granted.
>
> 6. It is legally incorrect to call RS 2477 assertions "claims."
> The term "claim" suggests that there is some process which must
> still be followed before the RS 2477 right-of-way is fully granted
> and valid. In reality, the grant was either validly made before RS
> 2477 was repealed in 1976 or it was not. If it was, then it is not a
> claim but a valid grant, and the grantee asserts its validity. If it
> was not, then it cannot be asserted under a repealed law. The
> anti-access activists and some federal bureaucrats like to talk about
> "claims" to confuse the issue. When someone talks about RS 2477
> "claims," they are either confused or deceptive.
>
> 7. Congress granted a right-of-way, not a road.
> In fact, RS 2477 rights-of-way can host a number of things besides
> roads. The legal definition of "highway" in the law means not only
> the frequently-traveled, periodically-maintained roads commonly
> associated with it, but also other kinds of public ways, including
> carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, trails, bridges, and even
> railroads, canals, ferries and navigable rivers. The essential
> element in defining "highway" is that whatever the means of
> transport, the public has the right to come and go at will.
>
> 8. 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.
>
> 9. A valid RS 2477 road can be established merely by the passage of
vehicles.
> The case law and federal policy for over a century are clear:
> construction by machinery is not required to do so. Anti-access
> forces are frantically trying to convince the public otherwise. Don't
> be mislead.
>
> 10. No federal land management agency can determine the validity of
> an RS 2477 assertion.
> The agency can only determine for its own administrative purposes
> whether or not it will recognize the assertion as valid.
> Constitutionally, only a court can determine the validity.
>
> 11. No federal agency has the authority to close an RS 2477 road
> for any reason, period.
> This follows logically, but many federal bureaucrats think they
> have this authority and try to act accordingly. When next you run
> into one, outline the points listed here and ask them to cite the
> legal authority by which they claim they can close an RS 2477 road.
> Ties them in knots.
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
<http://www.ufwda.org>
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
<http://www.4x4wire.com>
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
<http://www.tds4x4.com>
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net <http://www.jeep-l.net>

[ September 22, 2002, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: jeepinaround ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Dave: Sorry, but I'm not going to play your little game. I don't have to prove anything to anybody, especially you. You seem a little hung up on "size". Do you have some kind of size inadequacy complex? I know a lot of you "big-wheel" types are just compensating for something.

Bob: Thank you for standing up for the First Amendment. I did present factual evidence, like the phone numbers of the Boulder District Ranger, Boulder County Attorney, Transportation Dept., and Sheriff, so anybody who wants can verify that the owner's story is true. See my earlier message for the numbers. You ask for independent verification. Call those numbers. They are listed at this site:
http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp
Was there something else you wanted me to find out?

C-J Freak: Why do you think that the bikers are the only ones who need to have courtesy? Why do you need to pass them immediately, anyway, and why should they not get the full lane their taxes pay for, just like your exhaust-spewing junk-heap does? Just fall in behind them and wait for an opportunity to pass, just like you would if you were stuck in back of a logging truck.

Jeepinaround. It is not an RS 2477 right of way. You are bringing up that red herring out of desperation. Ask the county or the district ranger if you still don't believe me (numbers provided by Dark Endeavors at http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp).

[Snotty]

Dude! Again with the attitude! What is your problem?

Like you said above, you are a MTB Biker. This is a 4x4 forum. See the difference there? Now that does mean that you can't visit here, read and even participate in the forum. But add in your arrogant attitude and blatant disrespect of the members of this forum is out of line. That is what will get you kicked off this forum.

While it may seem that Bob stood up for the first amendment, he didn't. I really think that you need to re-read his post. He is giving you a chance to change your position, not your opinion. Become a credible supporter of the cause you are trying to defend. You have been asked several times. Bob even gave you the direction and some instruction on where to go. Yet you simply go back to the information as quoted on the DE website. You have not provided anything new. The website simply has stripped out quotes from what it is trying to portray as credible sources. But when we question you on this and ask for something more then what we can read on the DE website you cave and resort to personal insults and fail to provide anything new.

That attitude and behavior is what is getting you into trouble here. This is our sport, hobby and lifestyle. You come in seemingly wanting to destroy that. But you have missed is that we are very active and work with the Law Enforcement, NFS, BLM and local land owners to keep the areas open.

You spout out blatant lies, act like you are better then everyone else on this forum and resort to insults. How are you improving your position in this topic? How are you trying to get us to change our stance and maybe even see the "right" of your argument?

We provide you with information and you discount it. We provide with legal verbiage, word for word as it is written in legislation and you say it is a red herring. But you have nothing but a link to page that is questionable at best as your proof.

Stop making insults, do more research, go check it out, get the story from both sides, and then present the facts the as you have found them. Try to do it with an open mind and from an unbiased point of view. Stop making statements that you pull from ass, it would be impossible for you to even come close to the level of help that the MHJC has provided to the Private Land owner, NFS and the BLM. What organizations do you belong to? Most of us belong to one if not more national organizations that provide support and lobby for the rights of everyone. Blue Ribbon, Tread Lightly and the CO4WDA are the three that I belong to.

Your credibility is at stake here. You have the chance to do some good for the cause you support, but acting like a child having a temper tantrum and resorting to belligerent insults is not helping you.

[Robert S.]

I know I have not posted much here but since I am a member of MHJC I had to respond.
I have not been on the trail that is in question but I know that our club does the best it can to make sure we are only using areas that are legal to be in. Even a large club can have people that make mistakes. Before bashing our club, check it out and find out who you are bashing. We do the best we can to maintain trails and tread lightly. We contribute to our community and charities.
I am sure you have never found yourself in a position of being wrong.
Robert Schlegel Patrol#12 MHJC

[Knobby Bobby]

Snotty, Can you be specific about a single thing I said that was a lie? I didn't think so. I've gotten all sides of the story:

1) The Mile-Hi Jeep Club's side: We are so sure we are right that we take pictures of ourselves driving in a stream bed on private property, spilling oil, trespassing, and moving rocks off of a private ranch road. (We don't give a damn about private property).

2) The owner's side: It's private property.

3) The sheriff's side: It's private property.

3) The county attorney's side: It's private property.

4) The county transportation departement's side: It's private property.

5) The U.S. District Ranger's side: It's private property.

The information is out there for anybody who wants to verify the facts. The phone numbers are here:
http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp
Why don't you just call them instead of expecting me to do all the legwork for you?

Did the MHJC ever even ask the land owner for permission? Somehow, I doubt it. You say how much they have done for land owners in the area. Can you name one land owner who lets them drive in his private stream bed, spill oil, and come on his property with winches to move big rocks. I didn't think so.

And to the guy who is a member of the MHJC: I'm glad there are decent members of your club. You should probably think about kicking the bad apples out to restore credibility to your organization.

[Snotty]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Snotty,

I am just amazed that you are willing to disrespect the American flag by hiding behind it and using it to justify your un-American belief system that is more in tune with Fidel Castro's government.

That the best you can do? You can't even make point with this. Guess you're hoping to get me all riled up.

What an insult to those who have served our nation while you sit back and let them protect you and pretend to be such a patriot. You need to sit down and read the first amendment again.

While I am sure this stance has done well to unbalance conversations that you are obviously on the losing side of, this is not one of those times. My patriotism is not in question here. Your attitude, behavior and inability to present a point of view with the facts and without resorting to Jerry Springer tactics are.

I have read the first amendment, and several others. I also know the legality of the issue at hand. Private Property rights and the first amendment and what that means to you. This board is Private Property and you agreed to the rules of this forum as specified by the owner of the forum. Comply or leave, the Law and the First Amendment are quite clear on this. I guess you still failed to understand that key point. If that is the best that you can do, then I feel very sorry for the people that you say you support. They would be better off without you.

You also need to learn a little more about property rights. You said I am angry and hostile, but I actually think it is kinda funny that you are so protective of "property rights" of a web site but you don't care about property rights of rural western land owners whose ranches have been trashed by your friends.

You are Angry and Hostile and so far have not offered anything substantial to your original post. Instead, you have chosen to get into a war of the words with me, a guy that goes by the name of Snotty. And much to my delight, you tried to parrot my own information, yet even failed at that. I implore you to find and show anywhere in this thread without editing my verbiage where I said I did not care about the property rights of rural western land owners whose ranches have been trashed by my friends. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Indeed, my posts are nothing more then stating my disgust with how you behaved and treated members of this forum.

[ September 22, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[HuskerTJ]

"cant we all just get along" graemlins/thefinger.gif :D

[Knobby Bobby]

o.k. Snotty, you get me kicked off of this forum, and I will help the ranchers get you kicked off of THEIR private property. Are we even? Good! Nighty-night.

[The Man With The Plan]

Since this is an awfully long thread, I don't have the time to read it all right now.

However, I do have some information regarding the incident in question. I WAS THERE. MY JEEP IS THE ONE THAT BROKE DOWN. I can tell you, with certainty, that the mess was cleaned up appropriately. Also, I can tell you that even though Tread Lightly does say to avoid stream crossing (for good reason), this particular trail crosses the stream, and there is no other way, and that does not violate Tread Lightly's rules.

As for the private land issue, I was not aware that it crossed any private land at the time. It wasn't until the next year that the guy put up the barricade.

[ September 22, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: The Man With The Plan ]

[OP]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:

C-J Freak: Why do you think that the bikers are the only ones who need to have courtesy? Why do you need to pass them immediately, anyway, and why should they not get the full lane their taxes pay for, just like your exhaust-spewing junk-heap does? Just fall in behind them and wait for an opportunity to pass, just like you would if you were stuck in back of a logging truck.
Hey Bobby, its really interesting that you would say this to CJ-Crawler. Since you are the "expert" on all matters, you should have realized that bicyclists do not pay taxes for roadway use. You can buy as many frames, bicycle tires or wheels as you want, yet you will never pay a roadway tax. Vehicles on the other hand pay fuel, registration, tire, as well as many other taxes specifically stated for roadway use. This is what keeps our roadways paid for, not you and your eco-extremist friends riding their ten speeds.

[Snotty]

Okay Knobby?

The information that you have provided is from a Liberal, Eco Extremist and very biased source. DE.

Phyler provided you with information from a source inside the NSF:

By Phyler:
I do know that a friend of mine who works for the forest service as a hot shot told me that the trail is considered a PUBLIC roadIn your second post in this thread, you again only provide source quotes from DE. Without the entire body of the letters and the minutes recorded from any meeting, valuable information is missing. You have portrayed these quotes as the god?s honest truth and closure on the subject. Anyone can take a passage from documentation and imply a meaning to suit his or her cause. It?s done everyday. Something of this magnitude with no real resolution in site cannot be blown out of proportion to suit one side or the other?s needs. You should provide all the information by all sides, full documentation of letters written and meeting minutes. You won?t do this because in your mind, DE is the source, which suits your agenda. The last quote provided by even states that was/is County RD 87. So the issue becomes, did he purchase the property and the road or not? That has yet to be answered. Several of the quotes imply that Boulder and the surrounding counties have no interest in the road. Is this a maintenance issue? Again, there is quite a bit of information missing from the quotes. Part of the issue at hand as well is, City vs. County. If Boulder expresses interest in the road, then are they responsible for it?s upkeep? If the County is responsible for the road, then they are required to maintain it. By simply stating that is or crosses private property then neither side can be forced to maintain it. This key piece of the argument needs to be clarified. I think that monies spent to maintain this road are driving the quotes more then the issues of private property rights.

Your third post is a generalization of all wheelers based on an extremely unfortunate incident. You blast Sam and are very hostile in your response to him. This seems to be your MOD. Sam merely asked that you provide valid credentials and more information then what you have provided on this issue.

Your forth post muddies the water even more by lumping two different trips into one. The two trips are one year apart. A misleading comment like this is, and can be considered a lie. Clear the air hear. Was this one or two incidents?

By Knobby: Driving in a creek bed is in direct violation of Tread Lightly principles!Now, you need to re-read the Tread Lightly verbiage in regards to creek crossings. While they discourage water crossings, they state to avoid them unless all options have been exhausted. Then if you must cross a stream, do so in a slow cautious manner to keep from disturbing the silt and creek bed to a minimum. Nowhere in their literature do they say, never under any circumstances, cross a stream if you can?t walk across it. Again you have provided misinformation to further your point, which in my book is a lie.

Your fifth post would make sense had you not already contradicted yourself. While you do mention it, the only real incident you can pull information from is the Caribou Flats incident. Next, which is what we have asked you to provide is the answer to the private property issue. You keep quoting a questionable source as the be all and end all the issue. The question to whether this is private property or not has not be settled and will not be settled by the view of one website. Then you go on to take an eco-extremist view. You basically take a statement from Tread Lightly and apply an extremist point of view.

Your sixth post says that you are taking everyone else?s word for it. Quite simply that is ignorance of the highest accord. You have not researched the issue from both sides and say that you won?t. You are telling MHJC to defend its self, based on information that again, does to paint the whole picture. Only the picture that they want to portray and that in and of it?s self is a lie.

Your seventh post states that you are a private property rights activist, yet you disregard the private property rights of this forum and imply that first amendment gives you the right to speak in a manner that you see fit. After that, you attack my patriotism and slander me by comparing me to a Fascist, Communistic regime. This is how try to prove your points when you cannot defend you position. Attack others and make them question what they are saying. I provided you with the information you needed in regards to the first amendment and how it impacts the internet and private forums.

http://www.geocities.com/louisworthjones/essaysmain.html

http://www.phillipsnizer.com/int-firstamend.htm

Your eighth posts has a blatant lie:
By Knobby: I've probably done more for the environment than everyone in the MHJC combinedNeed I say more here?

Your ninth post is again, derogatory, inflammatory and slanderous. Besides the general feel of the of that particular post, you state:

By Knobby You said I am angry and hostile, but I actually think it is kinda funny that you are so protective of "property rights" of a web site but you don't care about property rights of rural western land owners whose ranches have been trashed by your friends.While you are correct in the fact that I called you angry and hostile, you state that I don?t care about the rights of the ranchers and land owners. This is an assumption and slanderous statement on your behalf. Not to mention another lie simply based on the fact that I never said that. In fact I said that you had no respect for the private property of this forum. If we work off of assumptions such as you have, then one could assume, if I respect the rights of this Forum and it?s members, then I would respect the rights of land owners and ranchers.

Your tenth post is useless?

Your eleventh post again is useless, but contains even more un-truths:

By Knobby; I did present factual evidence, like the phone numbers of the Boulder District Ranger, Boulder County Attorney, Transportation Dept., and Sheriff, so anybody who wants can verify that the owner's story is true. See my earlier message for the numbers. You ask for independent verification. Call those numbers. They are listed at this site:This is not factual evidence; you merely provided links to phone numbers for us to call to get the entire story. You do link back to DE, which again, is only providing questionable quotes to further its agenda.

Your twelfth post is really the best. It is all opinion, conjecture and speculation on your part. It provides no new information on the incident in question and does nothing to further your cause or provide clarity to that cause. You have not anytime during the course of this thread, provided any useful information. The only thing that you have as a source is liberal Boulder rag that provides an eco-extremist point of view. You have slandered members of this forum and myself, which does not help your cause.

We have an eyewitness account of an individual on one of the trial rides in question, which states that there were ?NO? private property signs or gates on a road that has a county designation to it.

Now I have taken the time to point out to you the flaws and lies in your argument per your request. Will you take the time to address this forum in constructive, non-confrontational manner?

Sorry for such a long post?

Snotty

[ September 22, 2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Hey Snotty. The road has been completely shut off to motorized vehicles for more than 3 years. The best evidence that it is private is the fact that it is still closed. Oh yeah, and it has been posted as private for at least 30 years. Go look at it the sign painted on a rock at the bottom. It says "private property for the next 2.5 miles". All the old timers will tell you that the sign has been there forever. I rest my case :)

[jeepinaround]

Knobby,
We as outdoor trail users need to bond together whether it be four wheelers, atv riders, dirt bike riders, or mountain bikers. These people you refer us to are out to get us all including you. Yet you defend them and are trying to tear us apart for them. If you are a true mountain biker yourself and not the eco-terroist that you are coming across to us as, then we need to stand together with constructive critiscm not ripping eachother apart. I said at the beginning of my last post I was not sure if the RS 2477 fit for this or not but it obviously does not. But if this road was an access roed to the National Forrest at anytime it is illegal to block access to the National Forrest even though it crosses your private property.

[Knobby Bobby]

Jeepinaround,

I don't agree that ranchers and private land owners are out to get us. They probably think we are out to get THEM. The fact is that Barking Dog is still open to mountain bikers and hikers. I think the only reason it was closed to jeeps was because they were trashing it and not bothering to ask permission. I really don't see how my helping to protect private property rights could ever be construed as eco-terrorism! You are correct that RS 2477 does not apply. The road is not legal access to the National Forest, according to the District Ranger:

"WE HAVE SEARCHED OUR STATUS RECORDS AND FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A FORMAL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE PRIVATE LANDS THIS ROUTE CROSSES."
Letter from Christine Walsh, Boulder District Ranger, Sept.7, 2000. (Boulder Ranger District: 303-541-2500)

[Snotty]

Knobby,

Then you have not seen the Twin Cone Trail I take it. You have to open and close two gates to traverse the trail. Both gates say private property in them. But the road is right of way meaning that the public can use the trail.

Chinaman's Gulch is another such trail. It is listed as private property and actually crosses prison property. But the trail head is in a ROW.

I have also been all over the place up in mountains behind Boulder and there are private property signs on several of the trails. However, the trails are ROWs and therefore open to public access. The backway to James Town from Lee Hill Drive is an example. The trail cuts across private property, but the trail is a ROW. Now the Jamestown side of the trail is closed and is appropriatly marked as such. But just because an owner does not want traffic across his land, does mean that he close a ROW.

Slaughthouse Gulch in the Left Hand canyon area crosses private property several times. But it is part of the NFS trail system. It too, has private property signs all over it as well. But it is a ROW. So the owners have an uneasy truce to keep people on the trial.

I have also been on trails were the property on each side is private and posted as such, but the trail was owned by the BLM or federal land.

Anyone can toss up a private property sign, but that does mean the trail is or that they have to the right to block a trail system.

From what you are saying, I can assume then that the land around the trail is private, but the verbaige and fact that the road is labeled as County Road 87, it is a ROW or not owned by the property owner. This is based on my interpretation of the qoutes provided by you from DE.

If you are really a proponant of the wheeling and MTB community, then your goal should be education. Not slamming a club that may or may not have made a mistake. And you are most certainly not winning any friends here with your hostility.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Jeepinaround,
"WE HAVE SEARCHED OUR STATUS RECORDS AND FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A FORMAL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE PRIVATE LANDS THIS ROUTE CROSSES."
Letter from Christine Walsh, Boulder District Ranger, Sept.7, 2000. (Boulder Ranger District: 303-541-2500)This coming from that same group of people that have several of their own putting up signs on trails that say "Closed", when indeed they are still open. The same group of people that one of their own starts the largest fire in Colorado's history and then lies about it. The same group of people that had they used the local fire resources at all could have saved us thousands of charred forest land.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you read. The court house will have public record of the land in question. Unless it is actually documented, I believe none of these people. The only solution to this will need to be determined in a court of law. Then and only when I believe that is not open. Because by then, all the documentation will be reviewed and a decision made based on facts, not heresay, half quotes or he said she said.

[ September 22, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[cj-freak]

C-J Freak: Why do you think that the bikers are the only ones who need to have courtesy? Why do you need to pass them immediately, anyway, and why should they not get the full lane their taxes pay for, just like your exhaust-spewing junk-heap does? Just fall in behind them and wait for an opportunity to pass, just like you would if you were stuck in back of a logging truck.

here is the problem, I don't think that I don't have to show them courteousy as well, if the person is nice and trys to make an attempt to get out of the way I am more than happy to wait for a good oppertunity to pass, I always do so, but I live on a very curvy mtn road. It get's rediculous when it takes you 1/2 an hour to go down a road that normaly takes 15 minutes due to bikers, especially when your are trying to be somewhere on time. if you really think "should they not get the full lane their taxes pay for", why can't they ride on I-70 then, hey let's all try to ride our street bikes down I-70 and see how fast we get our asses arrested. I would like to see one of them on I 70 and run them over. are we allowed to ride a skateboard on the road because I pay for a lane? I think not. I pay for sidewalks in tax but am I allowed to drive my jeep ignorantly down the sidewalk and piss ppl off? I think not. maybe if you had to deal with the shit I do every ****ing day you would understand but untill then im not even going to care what you think of the matter.1st proof of your ignorance is that you just belive what you are told by the DE site. I never heard once that YOU called any of those numbers to verify that it is true, I really don't care that much but if you are going to insult ppl you atleast better have your shit strait and not just go off of hear say. graemlins/flipoff.gif take your ****ing bike and jump off a cliff. graemlins/flipoff.gif :D ok done venting. sorry about the foul language. :(

[ September 22, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: cj-freak ]

[Eryl Flynn]

Well I learned some things on this thread. And I mean other than some bikers are jerks.

Good job Snotty, keep up the good work.

Oh and Bobby, he is right you need to back up your posts with real information. Second and third hadn information, that do not even include names can not be trusted. If you choose to be disruptive, and not add to the forums but choose to attack and disrupt then your rights to that or any other forum may be revoked. There are rules and common courtesy that are expected here, if you break them do not whine about freedom of speech. You never had it here or on any other private forum.

[Knobby Bobby]

Snotty:

You really sound like a socialist to me. I really think you need to trade in the stars and stripes that Cuban rag. When people buy land they expect to have some rights. They don't expect to have people like you driving their big-wheeled oil-leaking stinky noisy vehicles up their stream beds. You seem to think that unless they can prove that there is no right-of-way across their property, then there IS a right-of-way. I don't know where you are from, but that is just not the way the law works in our country. Any right-of-way must be recorded at the county courthouse. If it is not recorded, there is no right-of-way. That's what we Americans mean by PRIVATE property. But socialists like you do not seem to accept this fact, which is based on English Common Law. You seem to think that if you can drive somewhere, then it is your God-given right to drive there. That is socialism and I am against it.

Since you say that you are so intent on finding out the facts, please call the courthouse and find out. Please get parcel numbers and tax ID numbers, and find out what rights-of-way are recorded. I don't believe that you will bother to do this, because I don't believe you really care about the facts.

And how dare you criticize the federal employees who put their lives on the line to protect you from fires? The woman who started the Hayman fire was NOT representative of firefighters. Her colleagues and coworkers are appalled at what she did, and have said so publicly. Unfortunately, a couple of careless jeepers started the Big Elk fire and killed three of the firefighters you have so much contempt for. As far as I have heard, nobody from the off-road community has criticized THOSE fire-starters. Got to stick together and defend your own, I guess.

C-J Freak: Thanks for sharing your fantasies about committing vehicular homocide against bicyclists. It tells me a lot. Fortunately, I don't ride a road bike, and tend take my mountain bike to trails (like Barking Dog) where motorists like you are prohibited. So good luck trying to run over me.

[jeepinaround]

Knobby,
I was not talking of the private property owners attacking us. I am talking about Eco-terorists and there publications attacking us and you defending them. I was not talking about just the Barking Dog trail. You may have access to it now but if you win in helping them who's to say they won't attack mountain bikers next because they do a lot of damage also. There are other trails that have been closed to all of us including you, IF you are a mountain biker. You should know this if you are. So you think that you are doing good by helping them shut us out when all they want is EVERYONE shut out. They need to start somewhere so let's start with the obvious which is motorized transportation. When there done let's move on to non-motorized transportation and it snowballs untill they have a wilderness area. When I say them I mean eco-terroists not private land owners. All I am trying to say is we need to ban together as trail users and educate the un-educated when you see them doing something wrong and not attack them. This will keep trails open to all of us.

[ September 22, 2002, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: jeepinaround ]

[CJCrawler]

I've been following this post since it started, and I think things are getting out of hand. It basically seems like a barrage between Snotty and Bobby, and I dont see a peaceful resolution any time soon.
I have read all the "evidence" provided by Bobby, and I must say, I'm not impressed. As has been stated before, Bobby has not given any information that was not posted on the DE website, which may or may not be credible. Granted, he does have a few quotes from sources such as, Boulder County Sherrif, Boulder County Transportation, etc.
One quote acts against his position: "THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HELD NUMEROUS PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE CLOSURE OF THE
FAR NORTH END OF COUNTY ROAD 87 AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY DO NOT
INTEND TO REOPEN THE ROAD TO MOTORIZED VEHICLES."
Letter from the Board of County Commissioners, Boulder County, Jan. 14, 2002.
(Boulder County Commission: 303-441 3500).

The problem with this is that the county does not need to have hearings to close a private road that only serves a private residence. They would however debate the closure of a public road, or easement that crosses through private property.

I am all for private property rights and can say that I have never knowingly and deliberately tresspassed with my vehicle onto anyone's property without direct permission from the owner, and would likewise be against anyone tresspassing on my property w/o my permission. I also would not open a road, public or private, that was deliberately blocked w/o first contacting the proper authorities to ensure that the road is actually public and supposed to be open. I dont know if the MHJC did this or not.

Bobby:
I understand that you want to make your point that private is private, but you have gone about it in a very poor manner. You have continually attacked members of this board and the MHJC

I suggest that if you want your point to be proven, YOU should personally contact everyone on your list of phone numbers and report back with the info YOU have collected. Without addresses, parcel ID's etc, we have no way of corroborating or believing anything you have to say.

Snotty:
You have done a very excellent job in showing the flaws of Bobby's logic and arguement.
Since you have taken such a verbal stance on this issue, I suggest you should do the same. Then you should both have the exact same info from very credible sources.

I plan to follow up on this issue myself, even though I have never seen the trail, land in question or been involved with the MHJC.

I simply want to get informed so I, and others can avoid unfortunate misunderstandings about trails in the future.

I'm sure I will be reamed as the others have, so lets have it. graemlins/thefinger.gif

[ September 22, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: CJCrawler ]

[jeepinaround]

I would also like to say if you were to tell me the location of the Barking Dog trail I would try to research it from my end. It may be hard since I don't live in Boulder but I could tell some people that do live in Boulder and are members here where to go to find the stuff. I am in Civil engineering and research this stuff for my job here in the Springs daily. It's not hard to find it on the web but may need further research in the Clerk And Recorder office.

[CJCrawler]

Yeah, its hard to do any research on the subject without knowing where this trail is. We need an address or actual road name/#... something to work with here.
Throw me a friggin bone will ya!

[Knobby Bobby]

O.K. you guys, that sounds fair. I will do research and report back. Let's see if Snotty bothers to do any of his own research or if he will just keep spewing that I am a liar.

[jeepinaround]

I found the website I need to get this started but I need a street name. I will also contact Vernon Brandt who had a web page that was linked to in the DE publication. I have his e-mail address so maybe he can tell me the area and street name and get this started.

[cj-freak]

im glad this post is finally doing something besides wasting server space. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

[vb]

knobby bobby
you are an idiot

[Knobby Bobby]

O.K. Here is an answer to your first question. Where is Barking Dog Trail? Right now I am looking at my copy of the Boulder County Mountain Bike Map (Latitude 40 Inc., 7th edition, 1999). If you go to the S. St. Vrain Canyon and drive up Highway 7 about 10 miles from Lyons, you get to Long Gulch. It looks like its in section 6 on my map. It shows Long Gulch Creek flowing into the South St. Vrain. Barking Dog Trail starts at that spot (right at a place where it says "PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES" on my map). The trail follows Long Gulch Creek to the south about 2 miles through the corner of section 1 and into section 12, where it connects to the end of County Road 87 (the road that the Boulder County Commissioners closed, according to the letter quoted by DE). So now that we all know where it is, let's find out if that two miles of stream bed between the end of the closed county road and the St. Vrain is private or not, or if there is a right-of-way recorded. How about it, Snotty? Are you willing to admit defeat if it is private property with no right-of-way? I'm not sure a true socialist would accept this.

[Knobby Bobby]

Hi vb, you must be a friend of Snotty's! Nice that you are adding some intelligent commentary.

[Snotty]

Again with the angry, hostile, racist and belligerent insults? What is your damage?

I am impressed that the people on this board are doing your work. Although I am not surprised by it.

Why should we have to prove to you that there is or is not a right of way? I do believe, that as an accuser, it is your job to prove your side of the story. I provided you with proof of three trails in three different locations, one of which is in Boulder that meet the same criteria of the trail that you mentioned originally. Bob even informed you that it happens in WY as well. If you were to frequent other states, I am sure you would find the same thing. What I am curious about, is how do you know that the trail is open to MTBs and Hikers? Because you can get around the rock? Because no one told that you couldn?t Did you ask? Or did you just assume? Or are you breaking the very laws and rights of the private citizen that you swear you are trying to protect?

You have yet to show us any form of intelligence here. You sound very much like a child that has a lot to learn about the goings on of the world. I have tried to get you to come to the table with something valid to prove your point. I have asked that you keep your insults to yourself and converse in a manner that shows respect not only to the members of this forum, but to yourself as well. But every time someone contradicts what you say you go off on this tirade of insults and belligerent attacks on political views. Is that the best that you have? You have blown your credibility every chance you have had. And you don?t even have an idea of what a socialist is. First you call me a fascist communist, now you call me a socialist. So what is it? I doubt that you even have a clue. Since you are a parrot and base your views and opinions on what you read on one website, that is questionable at best as a source for anything, I doubt that unless someone told you that you would even know.

I have provided you with all the proof that you need to question what you have read and the view of DE in this incident. But still you go on. Now you tell me to call the courthouse and find out everything that I can on something that you brought to the table. We did not toss a vacant accusation here. You did. Now you expect us to roll over and just believe you because you said so. And if I choose not to believe you, I get insulted. WTF is that?

Now, I do remember that the Hayman fire was started by an NFS worker. They tried to defend her until they found out that she lied. People died in an effort to reach the fire that she started. The ?Jeepers? that started the fire were found innocent of arson. They did not lie about starting the fire, which was unintentional, but they tried to put the fire out. Theirs was an accident. The Hayman fire was not. The Hayman fire was allowed to grow because the NSF did not call on the local resources until it was to late. The firefighters, by the way, are not federal employees since they do not work for the NSF or BLM. They were in fact contract Smoke Jumpers. Therefore I did not insult them in anyway shape or form. If the NSF would stop succumbing to the Eco-Extremist and actually manage the forests they love so much, the fires might have been prevented and at the very least the damage and loss of life minimized if not halted all together. So in a round about way, I suppose one could assume that the loss of life and property could be attributed to the NSF or if we choose to look further, the Eco-Extremists such as you who are forcing the NSF to stop managing the forests. Oh and while I am at it, the Arizona fire was started by a smoke jumper too. Not a jeeper! So the two largest fires this year were both started by the very people sworn to protect it. Oh yeah, the fire fighters that lost their lives to the Big Elk Fire, lost their lives because the Fire Fighter Company did not take proper care of the aircraft in their arsenal. Who did they blame for that? Not the jeepers?

You are full of misinformation; I am glad that you are not on my side?

By the way, I have been doing research on the Barking Dog Trail already. Unlike Knobby, I will post my findings when I have everything I can find on it.

But... That was not the gist of my post. The gist of my post was your blatant disrespect of this forum and it's members. I take offense to your attacks on my patriotism and political views. I abhor your racist comments. I find your belligerence and hostility disheartening. I attempted dialog with you in a respectful and dignified manner. The best you could do was act like a chimp at the zoo, have a temper tantrum and throw your crap around.

[ September 22, 2002, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[Knobby Bobby]

I love it! The guy who says:
"I attempted dialog with you in a respectful and dignified manner."
Signs off on every message by saying:
"I'm typing and pissing you off at the same time!"
You've got a great sense of irony, Snotty!

[Knobby Bobby]

By the way, Snotty, as long as we are talking about safely maintaining equipment, whose job was it to keep that Jeep's catalytic converter in safe condition. The owner? The manufacturer? Or is it just an act of God when a Jeep drives off the road during a drought and starts a fire that kills 3 people?

[jeepinaround]

What you are reffering to at the bottom of Snotty's posts is called a signature. It is setup to be at the end of every message that you post. Snotty has had that there for a long time not just this thread and not directed at you.

[vb]

the last post is just a primer. the first mistake is to take thing found on the web and believe em with our researching them. if you have any questions about what has happened with respect to the battle over county road 87 ( barking dog road) then i am you contact because i am the one that got permission from boulder county to go up there and clear the obsticles illegaly placed there be mark boslough. the guy is a liar and has writen his crap all over the web in an effert to sway apinion . you folks here that have bought his story are idiots, this road is an rs 2477 road it was astablished in 1875 as a rout over to where hiway 7 now is. the town of ballarat existed up there as a mineing town and the road was the only way there from jamestown . the forest service built a bridge there in 1963 for forrest access and it is also illegal for a privite citizen (boslough) to block access. this guy is not a rancher. he is a teacher in new mexico. the other land owners up there do not want the road closed either. a man named glen tallman (now 92) has land up there and the closer is a huge inconveniece for him it adds an hour to his drive time. he was one of two owners that has asked for help with this . the cohvco lawyer has looked into our research and has concluded that we would win the case but lose the battle. because even tho it is a public road. the jurisdiction of it lies with the county (bldr) and they are incredably green ther. what our guess is -is that the county would hold a hearing and close that section of county road 87 as they have the south section of it. i have county maps that show iot as a county road but the curant one does not show as such. what they do there is simply erase the road from a map to make it not a road. which is not proper legal channels but we think they would take the legal route just cause this is such a hot road.
this is a brief summery but it should help to shed some light for you to see the need to look before you speak. i can go thru his statements in the darkside letter and debunk almost all of it if youd like but i really think its a waste of time . the clown did an article in the rock and after i talked with the reporter the reporter felt used (as he also took this guy at his word) with out checking his facts. that reporter is excited to print the truth if we go to court. he is waiting for our signal. i also have another avinue that i believe may open the raod for good and cercomvent the chance that the county will do an end run. if you want to be useful . step back and get out of the way and send mony to cohvco and mark it for the found.
btw i only read two post so after i post this i will go back to see what other idiots have joined in.
btw the last time i talked to the sherrif i still have the right to remove what he has put in the road. the sheriff and boulder lawyer want to see this go to court for a judge to make a say one way or the other. before anyone runs up there tho the thing to think of is that this clown does own the land on either side of the road and has done so much dammage to the road that it would almost be imposable to run the trail and clean it without getting on his property which is against the law. you will find that i am a life long rancher and come from a ranch family on both sides. in fact both sets of great grand parents homsteaded here. you will be hard pressed to find anyone more land concience than i.
lastly -- i do not worry about spelling or even proof reading too much so save any coments about it

[Knobby Bobby]

Yes, a very "respectful and dignified" signature, I might add.

[phyler]

Guys, as part of helping clear this up, here is a topo map from the USGS website. It's kinda large but it does show the area in question. It does appear to mark a road there but because it is in computer graphics it's hard to tell.

Judge for yourselves:
Topo for Barking Dog Trail (http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=13&n=4445511&e=469393&size=m&symshow=n)

Parcel 6 is almost in the middle of the page. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the spot where it comes out by Jamestown is called Balrat Rd. It's right by the Calwood camp. Hope this helps some of you out with the search for the truth.

phyler

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Yes, a very "respectful and dignified" signature, I might add.Apparently, quite truthful though...

[SamFromCO]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Sam, which part of "PRIVATE PROPERTY" is it that you don't you understand? Why do you mudfest types think a private ranch road is your personal playground!!? Didn't you learn your lesson after you got in trouble for tearing up that meadow at Caribou Flat? Maybe the rancher should just come down to the suburbs and change his oil and build a camp fire in your front yard. Yeah, let's have a weenie roast at Sam's house.First of all, I hate mud so you won't find me in any mudfest. Second, you claim to be fighting for the rights of all ranchers, landowners, etc.. Could you please tell me what other ranchers, landowners, etc. that you have fought for. Third, does being a landowner allow you to do things such as open a garbage dump or drain a wetland or does the public have some say in the control of the land that you own? And last, I wouldn't think that you would want to go to weenie roasts for fear of being roasted. graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Eryl Flynn]

Bobby, who published that map, when was it published? Secondly you must have misunderstood, private does not mean private in the manner you think. Private property can have a public road across it.

You are still not doing the research, you are taking second maybe even 3rd hand information as fact. It has already been shown that many sources are not to be trusted and where you can get the facts. A bicycle map is not likely the best and most accurate source.

[Snotty]

VB,

Can I assume that this you?

http://www.aboutpubliclands.com/jeepinwithvb/open.htm

Far more information than Knobby bothered to provide. Do you have a copy of the letter that can be posted? I would presume that it is on formal letterhead of the party the authored the letter as well? Maybe something a little more compelling then a website called Dark Endeavors?

Snotty

[Knobby Bobby]

Hey vb, why should we believe anything YOU say without some kind of verification? Can you provide sources? My maps show no county road within two miles of the start of Barking Dog Trail. Can you tell me where to get one of those special maps that show otherwise? I have given the name of the map that I used and anybody can buy it to find out if I am telling the truth. Can you do the same, vb?

I would think if you were really a rancher, you'd have more respect for other ranchers land.

[vb]

i started at the bottom and see that bobby is here. so let me say that if you are looking at a 1999 map then you are behind the times. and whoever published the map is miss informed. the feller i refered to in the last post ( glen tallman ) was a care taker for the ownwr previous to boslough and that sign at the head of the road (hiway 7 side) has always siad prive property on either side of road. meaning -stay on the road. the road has always been public. and still today the road is public and the sign is wrong. boslough needs to make a sign that says Private road. the clown has used forest service logos (without permission) and tread lightly logos and inserted his ajenda for the road on his signs. he also has a sign with my picture on it offering a reward. he nows who i am and where i am and so does the county and the sherriff. his sign is public relations .. he has know way to procicute me . its a public road and as soon as we get a ruling he will pay for the removal of all hes done plus a meger 10 bucks a day fine for obstructing a public road

[vb]

he is not a rancher and i have all the respect in the world for others and their property. you can walk into the parks , rods and open space part of the county and on the way back to the map guy you will see an old county map right there on the little cubicle divider that shows 87 going al the way across

[Knobby Bobby]

Phyler, good job tracking down a map. Just like my map, it shows County Road 87 coming up from the Burlington Mine and hitting a dead-end about two miles from the end of Barking Dog Trail. Good work! VB is full of it when he says that Barking Dog Trail is County Road 87.

[vb]

i also have arial photos takin back in the 30's and maps predating the forrest service that show the road. as i said it was public access to a town and to a mill. in fact the mill foundation is still there and i just talked last week with the man that owns that land and he want boslough to remove the junk on the road as well. he is interested in geting access to the rest of his land. i think however that he might go the least resistance way and take what he can get cheap instead of thru court

[vb]

bobby if you do your research ( and i wish you would) i think you will find the same thing that i have and what better man on my side then one that thought he was against me. you see i have nothing to hide and all ive done has been legal and in the open. you will find that boslough does his work in the dark and secret and thru lies and desete. you be the judge

[Knobby Bobby]

VB is Vernon Brant! Hi Vernon! It looks like the Dark Endeavors web site is right about one thing----------

Members of the Barking Dog Shovel Brigade:Harold Ogden, Mile-Hi Jeep Club.
Vernon Brandt, Mile-Hi Jeep Club.
Eric Steenburn, Trailridge Runners 4WD Club.
Pat Steenburn, Trailridge Runners 4WD Club (Club officer)
Gene King, Director, COHVCO

So is a right-of-way recorded through this ranch or not? Surely you went to the courthouse and look this up before going up there and moving boulders. So which one are you in the photograph?

[cj-freak]

. before anyone runs up there tho the thing to think of is that this clown does own the land on either side of the road and has done so much dammage to the road that it would almost be imposable to run the trail and clean it without getting on his property which is against the law. well maybe we'll have a new hardcore trail up in boulder, im sure this dick would love having all of the big boys running near his land all of the time. maybe we'll just leave the rocks there or re arange them for an entrance for the trail!that would be great, thanks for the rocks, were still gonna wheel here anyway! graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Snotty]

If it is the trail I am thinking of, still nailing it down a bit. I have the latest Colorado Atlas and Gazateer.

The map in question is on page 29, sections 7-c/d.

Longitude:105.25.00/105.20.00
Latitude: 40.10.00/40.05.00

It clearly shows 87 RD out of Jamestown heading north to Highway 7. It starts out as a road and about halfway turns into an Unimproved road, Trail or Old Railway Grade. The map clearly shows Balarat on the map as well.

There are several FS roads in the area and from what I can tell, this is really the back side to the Carnage Canyon network of trails. The area also resides in the National Forest Boundry for the Roosevelt National Forest Recreation area. The only internal boudary is a small area on the otherside of Hwy 7 at:

Longitude: 105.25.00/105.20.00
Latitude: 40.20.00/40.10.00

If this is indeed correct, then the trail is a ROW per RS 2477 legislation.

[vb]

snotty yes my lawyer has that letter. at one time we did have it on the site. we have cut our bills where we can and the band with went. i'll try to get the lawyer to post it. i have the sig of the road guy and we also have stuff from the county lawyer gal. they tryed to back pedel hard after we went up there and now they just say " take it to court" and they will not do anything about it. my belief is that bobby is boslough or someone boslough knows. ive seen this before. in fact at the time that the stink was raised by the radio station folks in the mudd up by nederland boslough told the reporter from the news that his property on the side of a rock montain was "wetlands" because at the time that was the buzz.

[jonboy]

Short and sweet post:

1) Knobby Bobby, you can get your point across without being a scathing sour @sshole.

2) Most people on this board respect Snotty becuase he always has educated and informed posts,

3) Your comment on the MHJC "sucking" is persecuting an entire organization for the acts of a few. (and no, I am not a member of their club).

[vb]

snotty you indeed have er. there are other ways in there also. wanna do some xplorin? i have every inch of that road on gps and even have each of his signs ( nailed to live trees) and what each of those signs say. btw the road is still open to the public. boslough decided that he only wanted everything but motorized rigs (not his decision to make)

[Snotty]

FYI, the trail in question clearly shows 87 RD from the jamestown side turning into an unimproved road. At the halfway point of the unimproved section is the town of Balarat clearly labed on the map. The map then clearly shows the unimproved trail terminating with Highway 7. Nowhere does it show that the trial crosses private property or any terminations of the trail between 94 RD and Highway 7. There are many trails that do head off of the main trail and terminating at another location, others still clearly intersect it. But the trail that has been described as the Barking Dog Trail by Knobby and DE clearly links 94 RD to Highway 7.

[Knobby Bobby]

CJ-Freak-- if you do that I hope you announce it beforehand so TV news reporters can be there. Should be real good publicity for your sport to be doing that on private land.

Snotty -- I have an official Boulder County Road Map. It shows County Road 87 ending about a mile south of Balarat. I assume the county knows where its roads are!

Vernon -- take a look at where the jeeps were driving when they dumped oil and tell me it's not a wetland. Its a friggen creek fer crissakes!
http://members.tripod.com/HoboJeepers/barkdog.htm

Jonboy -- If the MHJC kicked out the bad members like Vernon, I would say they were at least a little less sucky.

[vb]

if you believe the forrest lady let me give you the first clue as to why not to. by definition 2477 needs no exceptance . it predated the forrest service and it was granted by congress to any one for any reason to any where on public land and at the time the raod was made it was public land . you see the land we are talking about is not land . it is a group of mineing claims. the claims are claims again by def. because some one came along and CLAIMED the then public land for mineing. bouslough bought a group of claims. the othe clue to the chick not telling you the real deal is
do you think that in 1963 when the forrest service themselfs paid for that bridge that is was not for access? stop with the smoke screen dude. go figure this stuff out and then come back

[Knobby Bobby]

Vernon, you have no credibility with me. Anybody who would trespass on private property and rearrange the real-estate is a criminal, in my opinion. If you think there is a legal right of way then why not get the law involved? Then you say its not a wetland but any idiot can see from the pictures that those guys that spilt the oil are driving in a friggen stream!

[Snotty]

Sure they would only show the 87 RD on the their map, that is the only part that is a county road. The rest of the trail would then fall into the Catagory of an RS-2477 ROW dating back to the late 1800?s, which is a federal issue. Not state or local. The Colorado Atlas and Gazetteer are Topo's that the federal government uses.

You can get any of these topo maps at the federal building on 6th Ave and Kipling here in Denver. The maps will be a true 7-1/2 minute Topo map and this trail will be clearly marked on it.

If it will make you happy, I will truck on down to the federal center there and purchase the topo map, scan it in and post it.

Or you can take the information I have provided and look it up yourself. I already know the answer to that. In just a couple of hours several people have found more information and posted it then you have done in the two days that I have participated. You took the DE website as the gospel, we have shown you several reasons to debunk it, including posts by one of the party in question and a local land owner who has gone through the legal channels and knows more about this trail and the property then all of us combined. You are like a rat clinging to a sinking ship. I guess it's be better to be belligerent then wrong.

[cj-freak]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CJ-Freak-- if you do that I hope you announce it beforehand so TV news reporters can be there. Should be real good publicity for your sport to be doing that on private land.

you know maybe that is a good Idea, we should get some press coverage so that this matter can be cleared up. if there is press then the police show up, before we do anything we ask them to check and make sure that what we do is legal and that if this creep decides to destroy the road again that he is procecuted.not only will it help us get the road open but it will also give us some good media. graemlins/thumbsup.gif man knobby I thought you were agianst us? graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Knobby Bobby]

Good job Snotty. I look forward to seeing that topo map. So its federal juristiction, not state or local? Maybe we should find out what the federal government says, then. Let's see, oh yeah:

"WE HAVE SEARCHED OUR STATUS RECORDS AND FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A FORMAL PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE PRIVATE LANDS THIS ROUTE CROSSES."
Letter from Christine Walsh, Boulder District Ranger, Sept.7, 2000. (Boulder Ranger District: 303-541-2500)

Oh well.

[vb]

actually yes i spent lots of time at the court house in fact they know me well. i researched er good and the county asked me not to do anything till they had a chance to review stuff. when they came back and said yup she public we told em first what we were gonna do and then we called the sherrif and told em we did it and the sheriff walked the inter road the next day and found nothing we had done wrong. i will also say that i am suspect of bobby and i will not play my hand here since this is an ongoing case so for those that want to see my cards. you gotta pay to play .join the fight are step back. i dont see anything here that i havent covered before acting and im reall sure of the ground i stand on. because i am responsable. bobbys full of it an hes wasted my night but for those of you that really want to solve this email me its on my profile night!

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Vernon, you have no credibility with me. Anybody who would trespass on private property and rearrange the real-estate is a criminal, in my opinion. If you think there is a legal right of way then why not get the law involved? Then you say its not a wetland but any idiot can see from the pictures that those guys that spilt the oil are driving in a friggen stream!And you have any credibility with us? By the way, a stream is not a wetland.

Legal Wetlands May Be Difficult to Recognize (http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/wildlife/wetland2.htm)

Hydric soils (http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/hydric/fieldind/fieldind.html#FIELD)

Hydrophytic vegetation (http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/)

You keep talking out of your ass, and I'll keep plugging your hole with a butt plug...

[vb]

bobby you do not know the laws you are just spewing. i already told you the answer to this and if you study the way our country is sety up the locals have the power and the feds make sure it all jells between the states. the final word is the county when it comes to puplic roads and that is how the other part of 87 got closed. they would have closed er all except that i had too much documentation as to what had already been said and from here im not syin more cause i got the winning had. fade out dude. your ignorance is worse than my spelling

[Knobby Bobby]

That was a pretty slick move, Vernon. Gotta pay YOU for information we can get by calling the courthouse? No thanks. Maybe Snotty is dumb enough to fall for that one, but not me.

[vb]

thanks fer doing that snotty. you beat me. bobby you are digin deep bud. and every word is wrong. do you homework if you have something constructive i would really like to see it.

[CJCrawler]

According to the Topo map infront of me right at this moment, the road goes all the way thorugh Balarat to the highway.

There is some private property in the area, generally around the mines and townsites, but the road goes unabated.
It does show it as an unimproved dirt road from the burlington mine turnoff the rest of the way to the highway.

[Snotty]

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

Taken from the website listed above. PLease visit it if you wish to know more about the RS2477 ROW legislation.

3. RS 2477 was a self-executing law.
When the conditions were met, the right-of-way grant was made. No further action by the grantee or by Congress was necessary to validate it.

4. Congress specifically by-passed the Executive Branch of the Federal Government in making RS 2477 grants.
Under our Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to manage and dispose of public lands and property (Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"). In 1976 when Congress reaffirmed the RS 2477 right-of-way granting process established 110 ten years earlier, it had the total power to do so. The federal land management agencies have no independent power or authority over RS 2477 roads (or anything else to do with public lands). Their only authority over public lands is what Congress delegates to them.

7. Congress granted a right-of-way, not a road.
In fact, RS 2477 rights-of-way can host a number of things besides roads. The legal definition of "highway" in the law means not only the frequently-traveled, periodically-maintained roads commonly associated with it, but also other kinds of public ways, including carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, trails, bridges, and even railroads, canals, ferries and navigable rivers. The essential element in defining "highway" is that whatever the means of transport, the public has the right to come and go at will.

9. A valid RS 2477 road can be established merely by the passage of vehicles.
The case law and federal policy for over a century are clear: construction by machinery is not required to do so. Anti-access forces are frantically trying to convince the public otherwise. Don't be mislead.

9. A valid RS 2477 road can be established merely by the passage of vehicles.
The case law and federal policy for over a century are clear: construction by machinery is not required to do so. Anti-access forces are frantically trying to convince the public otherwise. Don't be mislead.

10. No federal land management agency can determine the validity of an RS 2477 assertion.
The agency can only determine for its own administrative purposes whether or not it will recognize the assertion as valid. Constitutionally, only a court can determine the validity.

11. No federal agency has the authority to close an RS 2477 road for any reason, period.
This follows logically, but many federal bureaucrats think they have this authority and try to act accordingly. When next you run into one, outline the points listed here and ask them to cite the legal authority by which they claim they can close an RS 2477 road. Ties them in knots.

A ton of information can be found on several Govenment Websites regarding this issue. I would suggest that you use the SEARCH ENGINE OF YOUR CHOICE, get off your ass and do some research on the subject.

I'm going to bed...

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
That was a pretty slick move, Vernon. Gotta pay YOU for information we can get by calling the courthouse? No thanks. Maybe Snotty is dumb enough to fall for that one, but not me.Again with the insults. Unlike you, I do not need to resort to name calling to get a point across. Not really helping you out here is it...

[vb]

not me at all i dont want the money or to even handle it i will have them send the dough to the lawyer guy for the battle. i can see by your ablility to twist things that you have no intention of being helpful and that your carractor is no better then bosloughs. again all my doins have been by the law and in front of all to see and i still have no one that i respect that can find what i did as wrong. i have folks that dont like me at all but they know fer sure that im an honorable man

[Knobby Bobby]

Snotty, I've never seen a mountain stream that did not have hydrophytic vegetation growing alongside it. Except where these riparian wetlands have been trashed by four-wheelers.

Vernon: Snotty said that local governments do not have any say over RS 2477, but you said that it is the county that has juristiction. Let's see, I wonder what the county might say. Oh yeah:

"MR. ROGAKIS [BOULDER COUNTY ROAD INFORMATION SPECIALIST] HAS INDICATED THAT HE FOUND NO INFORMATION SUGGESTING THAT BOULDER COUNTY EVER CONSIDERED THIS ROAD TO BE PUBLIC, OR THAT IT HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE ROAD."
Letter from Leslie Lacy, Boulder County Attorney, Dec. 24, 2001.
(Boulder County Transportation: 303-441-3900, Boulder County Attorney:
303-441-3435).

[CJCrawler]

heres the map with the road clearly visible
http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~simmonst/balarat.jpg

[Knobby Bobby]

Vernon: In my opinion, an honorable man would not winch a boulder off of a private ranch road. An honorable man would go through proper legal channels and not take the law into his own hands.

[Knobby Bobby]

CJCrawler: where are the private property lines on the map? Seems like something is missing. Or do you think you have the right to drive on any road that appears on a topo map?

[vb]

and i have mike rogakis saying something else at an earlier date. plus info gotten from him and their own maps from their own arcives. and i have a slightly differant letter. but i still say you are boslough and its odd that you have that

[Knobby Bobby]

Vernon, It's on the web, dude:

http://www.darkendeavors.com/GuestWriters.asp

[vb]

again the LAW says i as a private citizen have a right to remove obstructions from a public road and again i did this only after contacting the county and geting their go ahead and again ive talked with the sheriff about it and he inspected the work . so what are you askin now mark

[vb]

its not a ranch it is a group of mineing claims

[CJCrawler]

Yes something is missing. There is no private property on this portion of the map, or on any that I could find that cross the road.
hmm... no private property lines... if its not private, its got to be public, there is no in between.

And no, I dont drive on any road I find. As i stated before... i have never and never will deliberatley or knowingly tresspass on someones property without consent. nuff said

I'm hittin the sack.

[Knobby Bobby]

Whatever. Ranch or mining claims. I don't care. The county and the feds both say it is private property. Nobody says that it is a public road except you four-wheelers. I might say your front yard is a public road and start driving through it and rearranging your landscaping. According to you, I have that right.

[Knobby Bobby]

CJCrawler: Topos don't have property lines on them for Crissakes! Go to the courthouse before some rancher shoots you! Jeez you are ignorant!

[vb]

does the forrest service rutinely built bridges for private ranches and do most ranchers just walk or bike. if that is not access to the forrest then ask that ranger how john q public/old dude/handycaped/little kid/etc now get up there since for the last houndred years they drove. why did boslough block the road when all the other land owners further up from him said no. could it be that he figured that they would die before the legal battle was over. remember the way i got into this was at the request of two other land owners up there and they are both around 90. in fact one of em was ther while we removed the boulders.this guy came in three years ago after buying the property and just started doing whatever reguardless of the l;aw and hw spent money to do it. he does not live there and has others do the work. he has time (since he cant make it in the real world and has to stay on campus and poisin the minds of others)the stir crap and spin lies

[vb]

look closer idioty they have shaded areas that show what is private

[vb]

and i agree it is private property with a public road that runs thru it. again -- you just do not know what you are saying

[Knobby Bobby]

Well you know what, Vernon, it is a very nice single-track trail now. It is well maintained by somebody, and people can still hike up there. If he shut some other landowners out, why did they come to you instead of hiring a lawyer? Do you have some special legal expertise? Your story is just not making a lot of sense to me.

[vb]

if you look at a legend on a topo map from the usgs you will see shadeing that shows as private lade. oddly in many places it takes the form of a checkerboard

[Knobby Bobby]

Are you saying the white areas are the private property? or the green areas? or what??

[Knobby Bobby]

Vernon, I just had a look at one of my USGS quads (which is what the map is that the CJ dude posted) and you are wrong. There are no property lines on USGS topo maps. You are thinking of national forest maps, which is not what he put in his message.

[vb]

also if you go to the county and get the plats of the mine claims the road runs right thru the plats
also back to the county has maps that show the road as a county road. they just decided at some point to no longer show it also i learn from them that they rutinely just erase roads from the map that they no longer want to maintain. they dont go thru the process of vacating the road. something else you should know is that if you can prove an rs 2477 row you certainly can drive that raod even if the trees are 20 feet in girth you can if youd like cut the trees and pass.

[Knobby Bobby]

Vernon, yes, but how do you "prove" it? I think something more is required than some four-wheelers going to the courthouse and looking at maps. Don't you have to go to court or something? Otherwise anybody could do this anywhere they feel like driving.

[vb]

white if you look at the area that we are discussing you will see a n area of white. that is the contention in a nutshell. noone desputes that the guy own land (mineing claims) the whole thing is- is the ROAD public or private. i can prove in court that it is public and have spent tons of time and lbs of money to do this. thats why i know that you have NOTHING. i know what you want to believe. and you are refusing to look but there it is

[Knobby Bobby]

O.K. You say that the guy owns the part around Balarat that is colored white on the map that CJCrawler found. Is that what you are saying? I see that the road goes right through his property. Now why can't he put a gate there, if there is no public right-of-way recorded at the court house? You say you can prove it in court. Don't you have to actually do that before you can go up there and remove his boulders?

[jeepinaround]

I for one intend to send money to help this case now. I have never heard of this trail or the battle over it. Now that I have I will do everything I can to help in the cause so that I and future wheelers can go there. It's all a matter of principle now. I hate to see people do this to others land owners and to us as wheelers. Just because somebody bought land doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants especially since we are finding out that it does fall under RS2477 that I was told previously it did not. I am glad that I contacted VB and got him in on this discussion so that we can see the other side of the story and get some facts.

[RockYacht]

Ok fella's while this is a Hot Topic and you guys have racked up the posts while I was out, as the moderator for this Forum I