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'm stepping in.

You all agreed to the rules of the Forum when you signed in, abide by them of you're out of here. There's some launguage that needs to be edited, 'nuf said.

Robert K (Knobby Bobby) I've asked you to tone down the attitude, now I'm telling you. I sincerely hope you don't take that statement as an infringement to your rights, it's not. Speak your peace without the personal attacks and leave it at that. By the way that applies to everyone, time to dispense with the mines bigger than yours BS.
I've also asked for you to give credible references and sources. Quite frankly I don't hold alot of faith in a website and one that just presents "quotes" as evidence. I'm not disputing the ones you have given, but there again they are just one persons view, is it the whole view or just a "quote"? Just because said person works for said gov't bueracracy and has a Job Title that sounds important, doesn't make them the expert. Is that the official stance of the office or just one (green) employee?
You ask why do I have to do anything, because you came in here throwing stones at a very respected organization. If we the motorized crew have to provide proof that the ROW in question does exist, then why don't you prove that it doesn't?

Bill, give it a rest for a day. Responding to this individual and trying to debate him is going no where. Provide info as you come up with it, ignore his commentary... smile.gif

VB, keep your info coming. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

To all, stay on topic!!! No more bike vs. vehicle side bars, name calling or finger poking. They are doing nothing to get to the bottom of this. Present info or usefull commentary or the Big Delete key from the sky comes out. Sorry but that's just the way it's going to be. That applies to everyone.

And one final question. Is the original topic of this post the Barking Dog trail, or did we migrate to that?

Thanks, Bob

[ironpiggie]

mr.levenhagen,

since you have the power, would it be possible to eliminate the uneducated little boy who calls himself "knobby bobby"?
i see no reason what-so-ever for him to be a member of this forum as he neither supports our hobby that this board is based upon nor is making any sort of effort to back up his position with fact (k.b. before you spew out the crap listed on your precious website, re-read that last sentence...you truly have NOT researched anything yourself).

[phyler]

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. Actually, based on the map that I posted, it looks like there is a continous road there. If you look closely there is a line that connects the two ends. At first it looked like one of the topo lines but upon further inspection it is a road. It just happens to be the same line weight as the topo.

I'm not supporting your position, but rather that of it being a public road. I camped up there in the early '90's while in high school and wheeled there and thought it to be a great trail.

Bob, I think the orginal intent of this post was to bash MHJC over the Barking Dog Trail. It has then focused in on whether the trail is a PUBLIC ROW or a PRIVATE Road. Mod On.

phyler

[CJCrawler]

Ok, I have an idea! Lets just agree to disagree on whether the road is public or private. If we all agree at the white sections on the topo map are private, then it is obvious, and we wont contend that the road crosses private property... However, it is not are job to decide whether the road is a private road or a public road. That job is for the county, forest service, and in this case, the courts.

Since we cant solve this issue by arguing about it, we can at least avoid it. If we all ignore Bobbys posts and dont add fuel to the fire, maybe he will get bored with this site and leave on his own. With no one to argue with, it doesnt do much good to be here bashing people who have better things to do than be insulted by someone who has no intention of doing anything else.

I say, lets leave it here, let Bobby post by himself and leave on his own.

Thats my last comment on this issue. I have better things to do than argue with someone who wont hear any other side.

[ September 23, 2002, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: CJCrawler ]

[UPnover.]

Dam!!!!!! I could of had more post????? I agree...
Let the court deal with it(If that's the way it is going). If they(pro open road) need any help with anything I would do anything to help get the road open.
:D
This land is my land, this land is our land, ect. Come on let sing it together. graemlins/beer.gif

[RockYacht]

Originally posted by ironpiggie:
mr.levenhagen,

since you have the power, would it be possible to eliminate ...EDITED FOR CONTENT... "knobby bobby"?Yes I have the juice, but at this point in time refrain from using it. That just drops me (and all of us) to a level not commensurate with the ideals and fundamentals of this Forum. We're all adults here, let's behave as such.
And not to seem unfair, your description of Knobby Bobby isn't really helping matters.

CJCrawler, you've got the right idea. graemlins/thumbsup.gif
The whole issue is whether or not this is a ROW under the provisions of RS 2477 or not. I think we have already seen that it is, and you're right we are not going to change anything here, except to form an alliance to aid in the campaign to re-open this trail. That's what this is all about gals and guys, we're 1194 voices stong, and growing. We are a voice to be heard!!!

With that in mind lets keep it civil, calmer and cooler heads will prevail.

[Mitch]

Interesting discussion.

I take no position on whether or not the road is public or private simply because neither side has validated either opinion through deed searches recorded in the county. However, I would like to assume (ohhhh, that's bad) that the public officials voicing their opinion on the land status have investigated these records.

I only feel like I need to speak up because I'm reading some wild stuff about interpretation of USGS maps that may get some of you in trouble.

I work for Interior, but not the GS. I do consult with the GS. I use the GS topos daily.

The 7.5 minute USGS topos do not show property boundrys. They are not intended to show property boundrys. Do not use these to determine whether or not you can wheel on a particular road.

Take a look at the photo base for topos. Some are fifty years old or more. If there are updates, that will also be published at the bottom. Property boundrys are changed daily, even local, State, and Federal lands change hands frequently. These maps do not represent legal land surveys. How can one expect these maps to reflect current land status? They can't, and that is why they are not intended to show boundrys. BTW, the green and white areas are simply to show forested areas based on vegetation AT THE TIME OF THE AERIAL SURVEY.

Just because there is a mining claim does not mean that it is now private property. However, just because there is a claim on Federal property that has not been privatized does not mean that the public still has right of entry to that land. Depends on the type of lease.

You know how pissed off you get when an environmental group tries to get a gnat on the endangered species list and some lands closed because of that? You know how we all think that it is ridiculously extreme? It is my opinion that some of the RS2477 assertions are just as extreme. RS2477 is for the off-road groups what the ESA is for the environmental groups. It is just as emotional also. This thread shows that. The only thing about RS2477 is that it is one sentence long. In my opinion , it can be interpreted so many different ways that we can only rely on courts to flesh out its definition for the public.

PS I won't have access to a computer for a week or so, so if you rip me a new one and I don't respond, don't read anything into it.

Been wheeling for 20+ years, for fun and for work, blah, blah, blah. I am on four-wheel drive roads almost every week (but often in stock government 4x4's) I won't say I'm not an environmentalist because I don't know what that means anymore. Everyone seems to have a different definiton.

PPS Everyone send a letter to your congressman that the government ought to provide money to Interior for lifts, winches, and Interco ought to get a long-term government contract.

[RockYacht]

Ok as a user now instead of referee ;)

If the whole point of this topic is the Barking Dog trail, which by the way I used to enjoy very much and will be willing to help get back, then can you explain to me Knobby why you attack MHJC? As an avid Mtn Biker and outdoor enthusiast, on the same side of the trail as we are, why didn't you come here asking questions about how to resolve the issue? I guess I don't understand... :(

If we as the 4 wheeled contigent are tresspassing on private property, then wouldn't the fat tire and hiking crowd be as well? Again I don't understand...

[Snotty]

By Knobby:
"MR. ROGAKIS 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). http://www.co.douglas.or.us/legal/rds_rs2477roads.PDF

This is case brief of a RS2477 road in Douglas County. If you read the brief it clearly calls states that road, if not public and meets the definition of RS2477 legislation, then it is considered a local access road.

It further goes on to say, that unless it is a claimed county road, then the county is not required to maintain it. Based on that information, one can then make the assumption that Boulder County does not wish to maintain the road.


By Knobby:
/quote]

Vernon has stated several times that he asked for and received legal approval. Has a letter granting permission and even included local law enforcement in the endeavor.

[quote]By Knobby:
[b] 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. On December 7, 1988, Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel issued a policy memorandum outlining the criteria the Department would use in determining whether the Department would recognize right-of-way claims under RS2477. This policy allowed virtually any route traveled by man or pack animal to qualify as a ?pre-existing? right of way.

?Highway Rights of Way: The Controversy Over Claims under RS2477,? a Congressional Research Service report released on January 15, 1993, defined ?highway? as a significant or principal road that received regular and continuous public use, was constructed by mechanical means, and connected cities, towns, or other significant places.


By Knobby
[qb\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. The Department of the Interior's Wilderness Inventory Handbook, ca. 1980, page 5, offered definitions for ?Improved and maintained,? ?Mechanical means,? and ?Relatively regular and continuous use.? "Improved and maintained" were actions taken physically by man to keep a road open for vehicular traffic, but not necessarily formal construction or annual maintenance. ?Mechanical means? meant use of hand or power machinery or tools. ?Regular and continuous use? meant vehicular use that occurred, and likely would continue to occur, on a relatively regular basis. The Interior Department stated one more requirement to meet the definition of a ?highway?: the public road had to connect two public points. In order to be considered an RS2477 public road, all these tests were to have been met prior to establishing a reservation, withdrawal of land from the public domain, or the repeal of RS2477.

The Interior Department published draft regulations in August 1994 to provide a basis for administrative treatment of RS2477 rights-of-way. Proposed definitions for ?construction? and ?highway? were given as: ?Construction means an intentional physical act or series of intentional physical acts that were intended to, and that accomplished, preparation of a durable, observable, physical modification of land for use by highway traffic. . . Highway means a thoroughfare that is currently and was prior to the latest available date used by the public, without discrimination against any individual or group, for the passage of vehicles carrying people or goods from place to place.? (59 Fed.Reg. 39216, 39225 et seq, August 1, 1994)

Fiscal year 1997 appropriations for Interior allowed the Department to publish final regulations for RS2477 right-of-way grants, but stated that ?no final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 (43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act.? (Pub. L. 104-208, Sec 108, 110 Stat. 3009, 1996)

In summary: Once a ROW always a ROW. You cannot eliminate a ROW based simply on some saying so. It has to be a Congressional Act. The access road in question, Barking Dog Trail clearly meets the ROW requirements and does not fall into City, County or State jurisdiction.

MHJC did not trespass, nor break any laws when they took part of the removal of the boulder in the trail. And in fact where acting in the guidelines of the RS2477 Congressional Legislation. By removing the boulder from the trail, they were in fact ?Maintaining? the ROW as described in above Congressional Definition of ?Maintenance.


"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) This would be a very correct statement. However, it does nothing to diminish the fact that this a ROW and that two other property owners wish it to remain so.


"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) Of course not. The road in question was used for to move and goods and people from point A to point B. It meats the definition of a Highway as described by Congressional Legislation. Therefore no request was asked for nor needed to designate it as an RS2477 ROW.


"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).If they deem it a public road, then the city or county is required to maintain it. Since they do not wish to, it falls into the ?local access road? category.


"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). Why? Because they can?t. Only an act of congress can do that. It is out of their jurisdiction. Don?t want to step on congress?s toes here. Congress created the RS2477 act and only they can reverse it. There is not any separation in the definition of ?Highway?. You cannot open or close a ROW to a particular form of traffic.

The only leg that Mr. Boslough has to stand on is the property immediately adjacent to the ROW. So the quotes that are published on the DE website did as I suspected. They failed to portray the whole story and were clearly taken out of context. It is clear that this website has a Green Eco-Extremist agenda.

I did notice that website has published a rebuttal, albeit a pretty lame one. It still does not issue an apology for the disservice it is providing the community. Instead it is continuing with hijacking of our rights and heritage.

[RockYacht]

Originally posted by Mitch:
PPS Everyone send a letter to your congressman that the government ought to provide money to Interior for lifts, winches, and Interco ought to get a long-term government contract.AMEN Brutha!!! :D Seriously he's right, I too work for the Govt's Uncle ;) In the ICBM business, I manage over 3000 miles of ROW. USGS maps are not an authority on property, never have been never will be. At best they can be used for reference sake. They are so old, in some cases the topagraphy isn't even accurate anymore; however, with that said them being that old is a benefit to us. They do show that a "road" existed at one time or another.

I mentioned it earlier and now Mitch brings it up again. The deed to the property is the key, along with tax records. Both of which can be found at the county clerks office.

[Snotty]

In my opinion, Knobby is either the chief whiner on DE or a guest Author. Either way the website is very clandestine and obviously afraid to say who they are. It is very cryptic. I believe that what happened was that Knobby came on to our board with the sole purpose of turning us into rabid dogs by blatantly attacking from the start. What he did not count us the large rational support and flood of actual knowledge. He continued to try and provoke us. However, this backfired on him. The goal then was to throw us off the trail that we are now on. And indeed, that did work. We all got worked up and did the research that Knobby wouldn?t do. It quickly defused the original situation that Knobby quickly lost control of and moved us to a situation that put him back in control.

But to what purpose? We defended the MHJC, would not become unsettled and fall into the rabid dog routine of name-calling and profanity with spittle fly madly about as we aggressively pound our keyboards in verbal retort. We clearly proved that RS2477 ROW issue was moot in this particular case and short of an act of congress, nothing can be done. I must say, that I did learn a substantial amount and feel pretty darn good about that.

So my question becomes this. Knobby, what was your intent and purpose of this thread?

[Hobo Willy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
[QB]
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

Bobby--here are some facts on the May 99 trip you needed to know before go bashing a well-respected club:

1) I was on that trip (as was Jon) in May 99 and wrote the trip report you are referring. The road was open at the time, and has always been.

a-the drain plug off Jon's Jeep did not totally come off in the creek. It hit a rock coming out of the creek and bent it, and created a hole the size of a pen (sorry, 6 quarts were not spilled in the creek).

b-The Jeep was not stopped in the creek to fix the leak as you see in the photo, but just past it.

c-The hole was quickly plugged, and the area soil cleaned up and removed (a fact you ommitted).

d-I didn't mention the fact we cleaned up the leak in the original report from 99 because we always do if one ever occurs.

Please get all the facts straight before you try to bash our club. You were going by what you read from someone who also doesn't know the truth about the trip and was not there.

[Snotty]

Hey Hobo! Is Ken Cordis still a member? I remember when the 61 ford he has used to be Orange. Spent plenty of time in his basement playing Warlords on his Atari too. If you see him or still talk to him, tell that "Edited" said hi. He may have to jog his memory a bit, but I am sure he'll remember the kid that tagged along going to the junk yards and what not. God that was a long time ago...

[ September 23, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[Hobo Willy]

Snotty-sent you email

[Digger]

Knobby, I'm sure Mr. Boslough won't be too happy when he finds out that you opened the eyes of a group of people that will now probably be determined to re-open the road in question if in fact it does turn out to be public.
Being at 10 to 1 against support for your cause, I should think you should bow out when you have a chance and hope for Mr. Boslough's sake that you haven't opened the can of worms that I think you have.

[Knobby Bobby]

I don't care. If it is a public road, then it should be opened. But it should be opened by someone with legal authority, not by a bunch of yokels with shovels! Nobody has convinced me it is a public road, but I don't think you need to convince me, you need to convince a judge.

[RockYacht]

No wait just a freakin minute. You mean to tell me that all this hoopla is over a trip and trip report from May 1999??? :mad: graemlins/pissed.gif Thanks for piping up Hobbo, I knew someone from MHJC would have the scoop on this.

I bet if you dig further back in history Knobby you can find all kinds of examples of things that don't fit your perfect view of the world.

I will tip my hat to you though, like the Jappaneese admiral Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl. "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant." Thanks for giving this trail a share of the lime light again. Time to get it back fella's!


from Snotty: So my question becomes this. Knobby, what was your intent and purpose of this thread?Good question Bill. Let's have it Knobby.

[Hobo Willy]

Bob L-

I wanted to step in and clear up the issue of the oil spill that was brought up (since I was there), used as evidence against MHJC, and quite untrue.

The other issue of right-a-way thru patent mining claims is best left to the Land Use experts in VB and Snotty.

[ZooMigo]

Originally posted by 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.Hey doods, you guys need to get these two posts together:


from 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. See the important thing to note his is that there need not be a FORMAL recognition of the ROW. It merely has to exist to be covered by this law.

Kinda like that walking path across the corner lot, you know the one, where its obvious everyone has cut the corner because the grass is gone and its a dirt path... sure its private proptery, and everyone using that path would be trespassing except that it is obviously an established ROW, just not a formal one.

If the property owner on either side of that ROW wants to close it down, its going to take work in his (yours, bobby?) part to get it closed.

Kevin

[mtn WJ]

Hey Knobby since when do you pay specific taxes for riding a bike that pay for the roads? Come on.

It is the right of all to use them yes. But courtesy and saftey to all is more than a right it is respect.

I see more and more private land owners with borders along public roads putting up bogus signs about private property restrictions and placing boulders in the way. Don't they know the more rocks in the road the more Jeeps will come. (on public roads of course).

I see too many un-informed people ready to pick a fight they know nothing about. Its like they got done reading about the 60's and want to start up something.

It is sad with the many ways we have to enjoy Colorado others want to re-strict it to athletic types on Bikes or shoes. I have great respect for those that can do this or are athletic. Not everyone has these abilities and many more choose via their rights to do something otherwise.

Next time my eighty year old grandfather comes to town and wants to go to the mountains I guess I am going to just give him a mounain bike and say good luck.

Or tell my 3 youngs kids we cant go to the mountains until you can ride your bike 10 miles up and down hills in high altitude.

I have seen people in all situations trashing the environment. When mountain biking got started in the late eighties I was up every Saturday on my Fisher Advance. My friends and I heard it all the time, the stereo type of the mountain bikers. We trash the trails, go to fast and not respect private property. I was offended then because I knew otherwise. Now I Jeep more and am offended again with improper stereo types.

Jeeps, Bikes, shoes, ATV's Motorcycle whats your fancy just respect the land the appreciate how many others are out there enjoying it.

I know many of the people you have flamed in this thread. Again I know them and you do not. Think Twice before you stereo type and disrespect with un-informed BS.

Keith

[SamFromCO]

Actually, this was the original post with my edits:


Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
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!
It looks like Knobby Bobby got his wish although maybe we didn't get pissed off at the people that he wanted us to. Thanks Snotty and especially vb for sending Mr. Knobby (whom I personally believe to be Mark Boslough or agent) away with his tail between his legs and probably wondering why he decided to stir up this hornets nest after three years had passed. If Knobby isn't Mark Boslough, I'll bet that his actions aren't particularly appreciated by the Boslough estate/ranch/land holding. Is there a wheeler that has read this thread that doesn't want to do this trail now?
I think that this has been one of the best threads ever on this forum. Thanks, Bobby, for helping us to see how united we are as a group.

[Knobby Bobby]

To everybody -- Man, don't you guys have jobs?! I mean, yesterday I figure everyone was banging out their insults during the beer commercials like I was. Don't you have anything better to do on Monday!?

To Bob -- Thanks for giving me a stay of execution. I promise I will try harder to behave like a good boy and avoid naughty words and gratuitous bashing of 4x4 trespassers.

To Jeepinaround -- You might want to hang onto your money just a little longer. Read what VB concluded after years of research about where the private property boundary is at Barking Dog. Then read Mitch's message (below). VB doesn't even know how to read a topo map, and you trust him with your cash?

To Ironpiggie -- In the spirit of being a good little boy, as requested by the moderator, I will not respond. I hope you will reciprocate by being a good little piggie.

To Phyler -- When you camped along Barking Dog, did you get permission from the owner? Or did you sleep in the public right-of-way? Did you have a camp fire? Where did you get the wood?

To CJCrawler -- You say "If we all agree at the white sections on the topo map are private.." Whoa there! Mitch (see below) is an employee of the Dept. of Interior. He reads USGS topos for a living. He says, "the green and white areas are simply to show forested areas based on vegetation AT THE TIME OF THE AERIAL SURVEY." He says, "The 7.5 minute USGS topos do not show property boundrys. They are not intended to show property boundrys. Do not use these to determine whether or not you can wheel on a particular road." So if after two years of research, VB doesn't know the difference between a treeline and a property line, just maybe he is wrong about some other things, too. But we are in agreement on the most important point that you made: "it is not are job to decide whether the road is a private road or a public road. That job is for the county, forest service, and in this case, the courts." I could not have put it better myself.

To Upnover_vj -- I have no argument with you at all, especially about the beer (I think I will go get one, right now, in fact).

To Bob again -- When you say, "lets keep it civil, calmer and cooler heads will prevail" I agree. Like I said, I will try to tone it down. But do you consider a vigilante shovel brigade coming onto private property an example of "cooler heads"?

To Mitch -- Thank you. It is nice to hear from somebody who knows what he is talking about!

To Bob (again) -- Why did I attack the MHJC? Why did they attack a private landowner? We are not on the same side of this issue. The owner has kept Barking Dog Trail open to hikers and bikers. His signs say that. It is a much nicer trail now.

To Snotty -- Frankly, I don't understand how anything you say has anything to do with Barking Dog Trail. It just looks like an excuse for vigilanteism to me. Why not let the law handle it? It is their job to enforce the law, not yours.

To Bob (again) -- You say: "The deed to the property is the key, along with tax records. Both of which can be found at the county clerks office." I could not agree more. But I would not trust the word of the guy that bases his extensive research on the location of white splotches on a USGS topo map! VB has spent so much time at the court house they know him by name, but he hasn't done this simple thing you just suggested, apparently.

To Snotty (again) -- You say "So my question becomes this. Knobby, what was your intent and purpose of this thread?" Acutally, you are not that far off, Snotty. Except you are wrong about the RS 2477 thing.

To Hobo Willy -- In 1999, you said, "one rock seemed to lunge up and manage to take out his oil pan drain plug". You've have changed your story. Now you say "the drain plug off Jon's Jeep did not totally come off in the creek". An the photograph clearly shows work being done while the jeep is IN the creek. And if, as you say, the drain plug came off as you were crossing the creek, then the oil went into the water. So what soil did you clean up. Were these hydric soils? Did they contain any hydrophytic vegetation? Would you recognize hydrophytic vegetation if it jumped up and bit you on the ass? (sorry Bob, give me one more chance). Did you notify the owner of this spill so he could inspect your cleanup operation to his satisfaction? Did you know that you were on a patented placer claim. Did you know that removing soil from a placer claim is a crime? Just wondering.

To Bob (again) -- I think it was the Japanese who were the ones who attacked and woke the sleeping giant. Let's see now, who came onto whose property?

To Hobo Willy (again) -- You say: "The other issue of right-a-way thru patent mining claims is best left to the Land Use experts in VB and Snotty." I'm sure that VB can tell you were timberline is, at least.

To ZooMigo -- You say "If the property owner on either side of that ROW wants to close it down, its going to take work in his (yours, bobby?) part to get it closed." I think that's what the boulder pile is about.

To mtn WJ -- I promised Bob I would get into a bike vs. motor pissing match. But I'm so sorry to hear that there are absolutely no roads left anywhere in the mountains for you to take your grampa and young'ens for a family drive. We really used to enjoy driving up Boulder Canyon before they closed it to vehicles, and that peak-to-peak highway was tremendous before the shut it to everyone but us mountain bikers.

To SamFromCO -- Knobby Bobby got his wish.

<whew--time for another beer!>

[SamFromCO]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
To Upnover_vj -- I have no argument with you at all, especially about the beer (I think I will go get one, right now, in fact).

<whew--time for another beer!>No wonder you're so confused, you're just an old drunk. :D graemlins/thefinger.gif :D
Glad you got your wish although sometimes you gotta watch what you wish for....you might get it!

[Knobby Bobby]

Hey Bob, I think Upnover_vj is breaking your rules. I tried really hard to behave and he's flipping me the bird. Hey wait a minute! How come you have these little bird-flipping icons if your not s'posed to insult each other. I don't get it.

[Knobby Bobby]

Oh wait. I meant SamFromCo. I'm just an old drunk. I get confused.

[jonboy]

Please kill this thread already. It serves no purpose but to piss everyone off.

[SamFromCO]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
How come you have these little bird-flipping icons if your not s'posed to insult each other. I don't get it.They're meant in a friendly way. If you're really mad instead of just goofing around you would give 'em this one. graemlins/flipoff.gif Stick around and you'll learn this stuff. :D

[Knobby Bobby]

Sam, thanks for the pointers. graemlins/thefinger.gif
I'm kind of a beginner at this. graemlins/thefinger.gif

[mtn WJ]

To knobby Robert

Don't appologize. You did a great job. I could not have argued my point any better.

But I'm so sorry to hear that there are absolutely no roads left anywhere in the mountains for you to take your grampa and young'ens for a family drive. We really used to enjoy driving up Boulder Canyon before they closed it to vehicles, and that peak-to-peak highway was tremendous before the shut it to everyone but us mountain bikers.

Actually my kids have seen more of this state than most people that have lived here all their lives. They respect the outdoors and will continue to do so as long as it is available to them. I guarantee they will lend a hand to help our environment before the likes of you ever will. I mean more than posting argumentative and antagonistics posts in front of a group that will obviously never agree with you. I mean real elbow grease and sweat equity.

It is obvious you are just trying to stir up trouble and you are no longer worth my time. You can go now I am through with you.

Hey I am going wheeling this weekend who's in?

[Bill]

Wow! Don't check the board for a day and look what happens.

Thanks, Knobby Bobby for starting this fantastic thread. We haven't had so many members enthusiastic about a land use issue since I've been on the board. Great job in galvanizing our resolve and solidarity.

vb: Where do I send the check? Let's see we have over 1000 members, If we each sent $20.00 I bet that would go a long way in helping with the legal battle...

[Eric]

Don't ya just love stubborn people who start a discussion after they've already made up their mind over the situation? :rolleyes: I never understood the point of that except to try and force their opinion on others regardless of what transpires in the discussion. The phrase "look at it with an open mind" means nothing to those people. Anyway, I read thru this entertaining thread and I have yet to see proof in any form which supports Knobby's accusations. Yet, he continues to press onward as though the truth is clear as day and everyone is blind except him. This issue has been going on for a long time BECAUSE it is NOT clear as day.

For what it's worth, I personally lose respect for ANYONE in a debate whose sole basis for his argument is selective, second-hand quotes from a biased source. This is a shame, Knobby, because I think this could have been an extremely valuable discussion but instead it's been soured by your attitude. IMO you're not worthy of a debate and quite frankly I'm surprised so many have taken the time to engage in one with you. The subject line alone is nothing but a blatant attempt to provoke an argument. FWIW your comments are slanderous and grounds for a lawsuit if they (MHJC) should choose to file one. That's their call, not mine, but since you've already displayed your ignorance towards laws applicable to the internet I suggest you do a little research on that subject.

With that in mind, repeated behavior of this kind from ANY member will not be tolerated and they will be banned from this website. As correctly stated earlier, this is a private website and your privilege to participate here can and will be terminated at any time that I or any of the moderators see fit. Don't like it? Tough. So far this hasn't been an issue because we have an excellent group of open minded people participating in our daily discussions and I sincerely hope it stays that way. graemlins/beer.gif Nothing wrong with believing strongly in something but people with tunnel vision really make for boring conversation graemlins/thefinger.gif


Originally posted by jonboy:
Please kill this thread already. It serves no purpose but to piss everyone off.I disagree. In general I personally learned quite a bit about Rights of Way and how they impact private land. This thread also serves as a lesson in the importance of effective persuasive speech. As evidenced by this thread, tossing out baseless accusations, and supporting them with belligerent behavior towards anyone who disagrees, does not win arguments. It simply undermines your credibility and puts your target audience on the defensive. Take a lesson from Knobby's mistakes and apply what you've learned in future discussions.

Knobby... you've made one heck of an introduction for yourself :rolleyes: but you have an opportunity to champion a valuable discussion on a topic which our community cares very strongly about. I ask that you use this opportunity wisely and leave the childish gorilla tactics behind you. It's obvious you have a lot of energy focused on the subject and it would be a shame to waste that. Also, when proclaiming your support of "biking and hiking only" trails, please keep in mind that not everyone has the ability to hike or bike. I find it shameful that those citizens are so carelessly cast aside and prevented from enjoying such a beautiful part of our great country :(

Game on graemlins/thefinger.gif

[ September 23, 2002, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Eric ]

[jeepinaround]

Knobby,
I have no problem sending VB my money because I know him personally and have given him money for parts etc... But he posted not to send money to him but to cohvco which is an organization that is there to try and protect OUR rights as trail users from being closed to ALL of us including mountain bikers. You might want to check it out. Also VB emailed me and is having problems posting. Eric can you check into it so we can get more of his side of the story and maybe some real facts.

[Snotty]

So Knobby,

You say that I am right except on one thing. The RS2477. So you admit to coming to this board to simply start trouble. Fine, just be very careful of the line you are walking. You have warned twice by Bob and once by Eric. The last large post the you contributed was at least non-confrontational and thereby worthy of an answer.

Now here is where you and I disagree on the RS2477 ROW Legislation and how it pertains to the Barking Dog Trail:

In 1961, Roger and Oral Calvert purchased the land. Upon their deaths in the early 1970's, their assets, which included Cal-Wood, went to the Pilot Trust.

http://www.calwood.org/I_CAL-WOOD_MAP.jpg

Roger Calvert, who wanted the land to be used for educational purposes, donated a portion of the land for Balarat in 1969. This donation effectively sliced the property in two properties with 87 RD traversing both pieces. This is a key piece of fact.

http://www.dpsk12.org/manilaImages/balarat/balmap.gif

Balarat. (http://balarat.dpsk12.org) How many of you actually know what this is? It took a while for the name Balarat to rattle around in my head and jog my memory. Back when I was in fifth grade, my class took a trip that encompassed three days. We stayed in a barracks type environment and studied nature and what it was like back in the 1800?s when the area was used exclusively for mining. I made Sour Dough bread, went on my first snipe hunt and had a blast!

Now, did you follow what I said here? This area was used in the 18-1900?s for mining. Back in the 1800?s the land was wilderness until a claim had been established.

The Balarat and Cal-Wood Facilities reside on FDR 297.1, which was also known locally as the Barking Dog Trail. FDR 297.1 starts life as 87 RD and ends intersecting with Highway 7. It originally had a difficulty rating of 6-8 covering 3.15 miles. Keep in mind the trail number. This is where things get good. The Forest Service at one point recognized this as a trail and established ROW. It was used as a local access road to several pieces of private property in the area including the two listed above.

The local access road was open and used as far back as 1961. In 1999 the local access road was closed and listed as private property, but it was not abandoned by Boulder County as a County Road until 2001. At which point it becomes labeled as 87C. The secondary entrance from Highway 7 was not considered the primary entrance to the area. Balarat and the Cal-Wood foundation have both allowed access to the areas from the south side of 87RD by way of Jamestown. This seemed to appease everyone for the most part. So what do we know at this point? That as early as 1961 87 RD connected 94 road to Highway 7. One large part of the property was separated into two. This separation guaranteed that the County would keep at least part of 87 RD open. This separation and subsequent ROW now falls directly into the RS 2477 legislation. In 1999 MARK BOSLOUGH claims that this now private property. The FS chooses to lose the FDR designation on the road based solely on the fact that the primary entrance is now a fully maintained county road. This now tosses the road into the hands of the county. The county seeing that 87 RD needs to be maintained at the very least to the Balarat facility continues the County Road designation to the property line for the Balarat facility. 87 RD then turns into a Local Access road pursuant to the RS2477 ROW legislation and continues across the Balarat property to allow access to the Cal-Wood facility and the properties beyond. I am still looking for the amount of properties between the Cal-Wood Property and the Boslough Property. Now I have strayed from the story a bit. A large point of interest is why Boulder County did not abandon 87 RD until 2001 it then changed to 87C. This designation clearly shows that this was a road. One can only assume that it is solely based on dollars required to maintain the road and toss the responsibility on the owner of the land, Mark Boslough. Clearly Mark Boslough is using the ROW provided to him by the Balarat and Cal-Wood facilities to access his property. Seems to me to be a little hypocritical to me.

So here is the gist. 87 RD was and is a RS2477 ROW. It was not abandoned as a county rd until 2001 almost full two years after Mark Boslough claims it as private property. The Road was listed as FDR 297.1, but the NFS abandoned it. It would appear that Mark Boslough got his hands slapped after asking for something. What was the catalyst for the closures? Sure we can point to the crazy wheelers; we are commonly used as a scapegoat. My guess is, based on the dates, that Mark Boslough did not want to pay taxes on a road and went after the FS and the county to do something. Neither party willing to pay for a road that they did not need dropped the names and responsibility of the roads. This however, does not change the fact that it was and continues to be a ROW and most likely why it has not gone to court. The NFS, BLM, County or City does not have the right or the authority to remove a RS2477 ROW. That takes an act of congress. It is by far easier to exploit an unfortunate incident at Caribou Flats and get the Liberal, Eco-Extremist to rally behind you and present a bogus point of view. Mark Boslough is having a temper Tantrum and is taking it on the general public. I can only assume that it is based on financial reason and not an environmental issue or private property rights.

[ September 24, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Snotty ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Snotty, good research! I have to admit I am impressed. You've done more in one day than VB has done in two years. Here's to you! graemlins/thefinger.gif That's the friendly one, I was told earlier. So I did some research too! Here's what I found:
http://iaspub1.co.boulder.co.us/pls/asrpub/asrpub.property_dsc?vROWID=005415801

http://iaspub1.co.boulder.co.us/pls/asrpub/asrpub.property_dsc?vROWID=014187801

http://iaspub1.co.boulder.co.us/pls/asrpub/asrpub.property_dsc?vROWID=005418601

As you see, there is not a single right-of way recorded through any of these properties. Looks like this one is going to have to be settled in court. Good luck, boys!
graemlins/thefinger.gif

[Knobby Bobby]

Hey, by the way Snotty, did you notice that the road on your map dead-ends at Balarat? I wonder why?

[Eric]

Originally posted by jeepinaround:
Also VB emailed me and is having problems posting. Eric can you check into it so we can get more of his side of the story and maybe some real facts.Have him email me and I'll see what I can do. graemlins/beer.gif

[jeepinaround]

That's great Knobby I am impressed that you found that. But I had already found that and it doesn't show more than a legal description, tax district, and ownership. Now you need to take the parcel number for each of those properties and get into some real research at the clerk and recorders office to see if there has been an access easement granted or ROW. You will need to find a plat or latest survey for the property. Hopefully who ever did the survey for the property sale knew what they were doing and researched to see if there were easements or ROW across the property and they should be called out by book and page or reception number on the plat. From the sounds of it though there may not be because of RS2477 which does not have to record at the clerk and recorder. It is from higher government and is unwritten I beleive. I will check into that. I did not go any further because I can not just run up to Boulder and do the research. If it was platted before Boslough bought the property there may be some replats depending on what the previous owners did with the property. If it was one big piece and then they split it up there will be replats. A lot of research but fun because you can go all the way back to when it was platted and sometimes before that to the mining claim. I love looking into history like this.

[ September 24, 2002, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: jeepinaround ]

[Knobby Bobby]

The problem is, jeepinaround, that there are no exceptions recorded. The only way to make your so-called ROW legally recongized is to sue for it and get it recorded. Otherwise, no ROW, no matter how hard you wish. By the way, have you seen this yet?

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/news_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2421_1436338,00.html

Why didn't you guys just claim an RS 2477 ROW though the Hedricks land when you got busted for the mudfest? Oh yeah, it might tarnish your image when the press gets bad.

[Eryl Flynn]

The only way to make your so-called ROW legally recongized is to sue for it and get it recorded. Actually it does not need to be formally recognized if you read through the ROW legislation. If the owner of that land harrassed, or attempted to press any tresspassing charges it would come up and his attempts would fail. Considering that this has been ongoing and that VB got the go ahead by the local authorities to move that boulder I would assume that Mark would be ignored if he tried to do either of those.

The road was built and maintained by the government at one time, that alone should qualify it as a ROW.

[Knobby Bobby]

So then, how are you going to make sure it stays open? It is currently maintained as single track. I would imagine that if anybody goes up there and tries to build a road, the county will get involved, because there are land-use regulations that require permits before building roads. And I think that the owner would just make sure any unofficial road that got built would go away and go back the the single track that it was historically. And I think that the mountain bikers would help him, since he gives them permission to ride on his private property because we don't trash it or spill oil or steal soil from placer deposits like the Mile-High Jeep Club does.

[Knobby Bobby]

Hey, that gives me an idea. Does anybody know where to get some dynamite? I can make this whole discussion moot with one stick of the stuff. Might have to change the name from Barking Dog to Dead Dog, though.

[jeepinaround]

We have already made note of the that catastrophe in this thread, so no I would not say we are hiding it. Also the beginning of this thread states "Mile High Jeep Club Sucks". MHJC had nothing to do with the devestation. It was all in the hands of some iresponsible DJ's at KBPI and iresponsible listeners. MHJC donated time and money to clean it up, yes because it looks bad on us as four wheelers as referenced in that article. There are always going to be bad seeds in every group, including mountain bikers. Now back to the RS2477 issue and the mudfest. IF you had read the post I had put up towards the beginning of this thread you would note that RS2477 can only happen on Public Land. Mudfest was on private land. Boslough property was public at the time the road was made therefore the ROW should exist. You are right about one thing. It will need to go to court. It may even need to get recorded with this land owner because he will still do what he is doing now unless he has a paper in his hand saying there is an access easement or ROW over his property.

[Knobby Bobby]

Shane -- you said: "Boslough property was public at the time the road was made" You have not proven that. You have not even given any evidence. All you have done is referred to the research of VB, the guy who doesn't know the difference between a timberline and a property line. Why can't I just assert "Hendricks property was public at the time the road was made" and drive around in his bog again. Who decides?

[MonsterZ]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
we don't trash it or spill oil or steal soil from placer deposits like the Mile-High Jeep Club does.I still haven't seen you address the fact that Boslough and his henchmen cut down live trees, dug up boulders, and used nails to attach signs to live trees. Seems you are not as concerned about the environment as you would like us to believe...

[CSP]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Why didn't you guys just claim an RS 2477 ROW though the Hedricks land when you got busted for the mudfest? Oh yeah, it might tarnish your image when the press gets bad.Here's that attitude of yours again. Who exactly are you implying to be "you guys"? Do you actually think that all of us as four wheel drive owners and enthusiasts support the type of behavior and trespassing that was displayed by the mud fest? Do you really think you're winning something with posts like that? It's ignorant people like those who did tear up Hendrick's land that give the rest of us a bad name. It's even more ignorant of you to throw us all in the same basket as them. Most of us are responsible and respect the rights of landowners. As a landowner and owner of a small cattle operation I come across many people four wheeling on my leases and land I own. Most of the time it's a bunch of high school kids and I do turn them in and have them prosecuted for trespassing. More often than not though the trespassers are on horses and mountain bikes. Most of them are adults who don't think they are hurting anything and it's ok to ride their horse/bike on someone else's land! The thing I don't do is automatically assume that every four wheeler is a trespasser or that every high school kid is too stupid to keep from tearing up someone elses land.

You're just digging yourself a deeper hole by including all of us on this site as the people responsible for participating in the mudfest. I for one was not there and was appalled by what happened up there. I know that Snotty wasn't there. Neither were Eric, Bob L., or probably any single other person who has replied to or read this thread. If you really want anyone to see your point of view you have to quit throwing false accusations and assumptions that we are all a bunch of stupid rednecks out looking for something to tear up. Until you do that you will have zero credibility with the audience this site is intended for. Do you really want all of us against you? I'm all about keeping trespassers of any kind off my land and I stay off other people's property. Until you can actually come in here with a court decision that trespassing did occur and lose the desire to group every one of us as a bad egg you have no credibility in my book (or anyone elses as it appears).

BTW, if someone were to contaminate my cattle leases with an oil spill I would be very appreciative of them taking the contaminated soil with them. It's the responsible thing to do, not theft.

[ September 24, 2002, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: CSP ]

[jeepinaround]

There are issues with drainage that may need to be addressed if he destroyed a road bad enough that we cannot drive on it now. Which means he should have had a set of stamped plans from an engineer approved by the county. Especially since it is in an obvious drainage basin and a placer claim.

[Knobby Bobby]

MonsterZ said: "Seems you are not as concerned about the environment as you would like us to believe..." When did I ever say I was concerned about the environment?! I said I was a property rights activist. Are you saying an owner cannot cut down trees, dig boulders, or nail up signs on his own property? Who is the extremist around here? The guy owns gold mines and forest land. And you are saying he cannot use his property as he sees fit?

CSP -- Now that I know how RS 2477 works, if I were riding on your property I would just proclaim that there was a pre-existing RS 2477 ROW and make you do the research to prove otherwise. That's what others are saying in this forum. Go back and read some of the posts and put yourself in the landowners shoes. And a gold placer claim is not the same as a cattle lease. The reason to own a gold placer is the presence of gold in the soil. So if somebody spilt oil on one of your cows, could they just take the cow? That is the correct analogy.

Shane -- can you find the stamped engineering plans for a road up there at all? No, because it is a single track trail, not a road!

[jeepinaround]

Every thing out west was public property at one time. Ever heard of homesteading??? Do you know what a mine claim is???? It means someone came into public property and found gold. They put up stakes saying that this is there claim. The property is now private. How did he get to his claim?? He crossed public property, probabbly numerous times creating a road. RS2477!!! Yes it would be a legal battle over RS2477 on my property. I am not saying it won't. Uhm there were no engineers when the road was made but it exists so to remove it you have to get it approved. At least to the extent that you are tlking about him removing it.

[ September 24, 2002, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: jeepinaround ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Cool, that means I can go anywhere I want, because every piece of private land anywhere in the west was public once!! Now can you tell me why it was wrong for the Mudfest guys to drive in that Bog? I mean, it was public once, right?

Hey can somebody tell me how to put a quote in one of those little boxes?

[jeepinaround]

top of your post on the right hand side there are quotation marks click on them. Well if you want to look at it that way yes you can. But you need to prove that there was a road there at one time. If not you are found guilty of tresspassing. I know you are going to say for us to prove it now. I beleive there are pictures on the web that show it as a road. It also has been maintianed as such untill Bouslough came along. I also beleive that there is a 92 year old neighbor that lives there that said it was a road and still wants it to be a road. There are other ways to do research also.

[ September 24, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: jeepinaround ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Originally posted by jeepinaround:
But you need to prove that there was a road there at one time.Who do I need to prove it to? The sheriff? The county commissioners? The feds? And what if I made a road when nobody was looking?

[MonsterZ]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
When did I ever say I was concerned about the environment?! I said I was a property rights activist. Are you saying an owner cannot cut down trees, dig boulders, or nail up signs on his own property? I never said you were an environmentalist, but your entire argument against four-wheelers seems to be because you think we damage the environment. Yet you seem to be fine with other types of environmental damage, if it suits your cause. I'm wondering if you even know what side of the fence you're on? :confused:

[jeepinaround]

I beleive it is easy to tell an established road from a new one fist of all. And you would have to prove it to a judge after I have you arrested for being on private property. You should know this if your a private property advocate.

[Knobby Bobby]

Originally posted by MonsterZ:
your entire argument against four-wheelers seems to be because you think we damage the environment. Yet you seem to be fine with other types of environmental damage, if it suits your cause. :confused: [/QB]Allow me to explain. I am against four-wheelers when they damage private property without permission (which seems to be an acceptable practice with you guys as long as somebody thinks they have a right of way). But why should I be against an owner damaging his own property? I'd have to be against all private mining and logging activity, because those are some of the most environmentally damaging activities imaginable (even more then wheeling). If he bought it, and he pays taxes, let him have at it. Why should somebody else get to damage his property? That's freeloading.

[Knobby Bobby]

Originally posted by jeepinaround:
you would have to prove it to a judge Again, we are in agreement. Has anybody done this for Barking Dog?

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
[QB]Cool, that means I can go anywhere I want, because every piece of private land anywhere in the west was public once!! Now can you tell me why it was wrong for the Mudfest guys to drive in that Bog? I mean, it was public once, right?
QB]Actually, no you can't. The RS2477 legislation was written to provide access to propties on the other side of another property. This established a ROW, not a free for all. While the ROW may not go away if there is no "Road" as described in the RS2477, then you can't cross it. It has to have an established road already there and maintained to some degree. Maintaining a "Road" per the RS2477 legislation can be as simple as continous foot traffic.

[Snotty]

Knobby,

The Trail designation of FDR297.1 and the previous name of 87 RD with the abandonment to 87C are proof enough that is was public. Any road that was/is maintained by any governing body has to have a ROW. More then likely the trail designation predates the county rd designation by a few years.

Think of it this way. When you buy a house in one of the suburbs here in Denver, the property is platted by several sources. If you look you will notice your property line goes out to the middle of the street. The city then applies a ROW on top of your property. They take 30' on each side of the property line. In this 60' ROW the lay the street and sidewalks. The street is maintained by the city, but because they can't maintain every sidewalk, that responsibility falls to you. Technically, you own that part of the street and sidewalk and you required by law in some cities to maintain the sidewalk. You can even be sued if someone were to fall on and get hurt because of your failure to maintain it.

This gets even better. When older cities were built the roads and ROW were laid out accordingly to the types of vehicles that were around, population count and use. But as time went by, the cities then grabbed more of your property to widen the streets. They don't ask, they just apply for a variance and have at it. They effectively steal your property and charge you more money in property taxes to help maintain it.

Once a ROW has been established, it never goes away. Even if the City or county abandons it. I can guarantee the ROW for 87 RD is still there. There was an article here in Denver last year over this very subject. The city abandoned a portion of road, a company bought the property with the road on it. The company then asked to abandon the ROW so they could build on it. Their contention was that no one used the road anymore because it was closed. The city said no and the ROW is still there. The owner cannot build on it. Well actually they can, but if the city decided to redo the road for whatever reason, the owner of the property will loose everything they built on it.

The reason the road is not shown on the maps I provided is because the county abandoned 87 RD at the entrance to Balarat. But it did not do so until 2001. The ROW is still there and most likely has been there since the area was used in the 1800's for mining. The RS2477 does not have to prove the ROW is there, it is implied and therefore recognized by congress. The city and county of Boulder and the NFS abandoned the road/trail because they felt no need to maintain it.

Now, if you will re-read the RS2477 legislation, you will come to learn that road building can be as simple as using a shovel. If the trail had motorized traffic at one time, it can again. The simple fact that foot and two-wheeled traffic continue to traverse the trail has kept it opened as a RS2477 ROW. Does this make sense?

If Mark Boslough wishes to keep the property private, then he has to eliminate all traffic. That includes you Knobby. He then has to show that there is no need to for the ROW to exist, take it to court, apply for the variance and let the members of congress make the decision. Not cost effective for one owner. This is has been done before but usually done with the help of the lobbyist green groups and or a large group of property owners. Since VB has legal proof in the form of documentation and letters and even approval of the local sheriff and surrounding property owners, Mark Boslough has a losing battle over the ROW that crosses his land.

Balarat and Cal-Wood have left the land open per the wishes of the Calverts. It was and still is the statement of both properties to keep the land open for everyone to enjoy.

I am reattaching the previous pictures to better show the trail. You can see in the Cal-Wood map that the trail clearly goes through the property.

http://www.calwood.org/I_CAL-WOOD_MAP.jpg
Cal-Wood

http://www.dpsk12.org/manilaImages/balarat/balmap.gif
Balarat as found on Mapquest.

http://balarat.dpsk12.org/picture$34

Topo of the Balarat property.

The reason that we as the wheeling community did not jump on the RS2477 issue at Caribou Flats was quite simple. What they did there was wrong. Every Club, COHVO, Blue Ribbon Coalition and others condemned the outing. What they did was wrong and we the wheeling community made it quite clear that, that is not what we do, represent or sponsor. RS2477 does not apply here either because there was already a road to, through and around the properties in the area. The people that participated in the Caribou Flats, crossed a fence line to an area that did not even have a single track trail on it. No ROW ever existed there. Part of the RS2477 ROW verbiage states that it has to connect two points. Barking Dog Trail, FDR 297.1, 87 RD/C does.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jeepinaround:
you would have to prove it to a judge Again, we are in agreement. Has anybody done this for Barking Dog?</font>[/QUOTE]Again Knobby, you are doing any research and are not listening to what is being said.

The trail/road in question is there and has been there. The ROW exists and will continue to exict until Mark Boslough takes it to court and proves it does not exist. We don't have to prove it exists because it is marked on map and meets the guidelines for the RS2477 ROW. If the trial were to dead end on his property and not traverse, then he would have leg to stand on and we would have to prove that it is a valid ROW. Which we would lose.

[CSP]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
CSP -- Now that I know how RS 2477 works, if I were riding on your property I would just proclaim that there was a pre-existing RS 2477 ROW and make you do the research to prove otherwise. That's what others are saying in this forum. Go back and read some of the posts and put yourself in the landowners shoes.[/QB}{/QUOTE]

If there was a road through my property leading to public land you can bet that I would allow people on that road. If they stray from that road they would then be trespassing. It would be posted at the beginning of the road with a sign stating that the road passes through private property and vehicles and occupants must stay on the road. There are many such roads with signs like that all over the state. However, my land is surrounded by other private land so RS2477 isn't even close to applicable. The closest public land is quite a few miles away with many other public roads accessing it. Nice try though.

[QUOTE][QB] And a gold placer claim is not the same as a cattle lease. The reason to own a gold placer is the presence of gold in the soil. So if somebody spilt oil on one of your cows, could they just take the cow? That is the correct analogy.

That may be the correct analogy, but now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass to attempt to make it work for your case. If the oil would be a fatal health risk for the cow I would rather have them shoot it than let it suffer. How's that for an analogy pulled out of my ass? Would you rather they leave an oily mess for someone else to clean up or soak through to the water table? There are times when practicallity must prevail over technicalities. It's called common sense. You cried earlier about oil being spilled in a 'wetland' and now you're crying because someone cleaned up their mess? You can't have it both way's Bobby!

Keep posting and showing your ignorance. You're just spinning your wheels.

[Knobby Bobby]

Hey Snotty, in your topo map of the Balarat property, I see all sorts of roads in there. But they have a gate and "no trespassing" signs at the top of Balarat Hill, where their driveway splits off from the country road. Are those all RS2477 ROWs too? I mean, can I just go in there anytime I want and tell them it is o.k. with you because these roads show up on a topo map and it used to be public land and they probably used to go to some old mines or something? Kewl!

[Knobby Bobby]

Originally posted by Snotty:
The ROW exists and will continue to exict until Mark Boslough takes it to court and proves it does not exist.[/QB]Is that true for any road that shows up and a map through somebody's property? There are a lot of ranches around there with locked gates and roads that go through them. So I can bust the gate down and drive on these roads, and the ranchers have to prove the ROW does not exist? That is an interesting interpretation of the law, Snotty. Have you run this by an attorney?

[UPnover.]

FYI: Knobby Bobby

That beer had nothing to do with you.
If you are the land own? Then I do under stand that you do not like people tocome up and f-up your land but the people on this forum are not that kind of people at all. Many of the ranchers I have run it to do not like (Them city foke) and it will always causes a problem. Just because you live in the mountains does not give anyone the right to close off anything that is public. Why do landowners in the mountains think that they own the whole dame state? They do put up gates to make people think they are tress passing and it is a public road that everyone pays for in tax's one-way or another. The people that you are looking for (that trashed the trail) have just found out that they can put a shitter in the house. Give that tree a huge. Do you need a new car from a dealer? Never mind. (Hehe) I would have to say that anyone on this forum would do more to keep the trail cleaner than most people that live in the mountains. I see more junk on some peoples land than at the dump. This is an off-road forum and if you do not like it good because that my friend will make me just want to do it more and go though any ranchers land and open and close any gate as long as it is a PUBLIC road. The rancher can Kiss my A$$. We the people have the right to use any public road and will do so. I will keep it clean too. Yes, some people do not care what they do or what the repercussions are for their actions. We can all help but we will never help everyone. Just because MHJC is trying to open what might be ours (Public) is not a bad thing. They must have something that said it was public but we all know how the court works. VERY, VERY, VERY SLOW. Four wheeling must live forever (not some dam dirt road, I’m talking wheeling). I live here because of the mountains and pay all the high prices because of it and will help or fight to use them not abuse them and I’m sure that everyone on this forum would have the same RESPECT for the land. Go find the real jacka$$ that you are after but when you do send them to us and we will teach them the right way to use the land. Have a nice day.

Keep it up CO4x4 this person has no idea. graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/beer.gif

[Knobby Bobby]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CSP:
If the oil would be a fatal health risk for the cow I would rather have them shoot it than let it suffer.

[Knobby Bobby]

Would you make them pay for the cow? Or would you be kinda miffed they never told you about it and you found out later after they had posted it on the web as part of a recreational activity report.

[CSP]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Hey Snotty, in your topo map of the Balarat property, I see all sorts of roads in there. But they have a gate and "no trespassing" signs at the top of Balarat Hill, where their driveway splits off from the country road. Are those all RS2477 ROWs too? I mean, can I just go in there anytime I want and tell them it is o.k. with you because these roads show up on a topo map and it used to be public land and they probably used to go to some old mines or something? Kewl!Have any those driveways been established as right-of-ways? Answer that question and you have the answer to your own question. Snotty never said that because it shows up on a map he has a right to drive on it. He has mentioned "established ROW" over and over again. Have you missed that part? Do you know what an established ROW is and how one is established?

I'm done posting on this one as you obviously aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer Bobby. I know when to call it quits when discussing something like this with someone who is just reaching to try and make a pointless point. Say what you will Bobby, you have convinced noone yet and will not until you have a court proven case.
graemlins/sleep.gif

[Knobby Bobby]

Originally posted by CSP:
Have any those driveways been established as right-of-ways? Has Barking Dog been established as a right-of-way? Snotty says it is, and that seems to be good enough for you guys. What authority does Snotty have to establish a right of way? As a citizen? Then why don't I have the same authority to establish a right of way trough Balarat? I mean, I don't have to prove it to anybody but myself, right? If Snotty doesn't have to prove it to a judge, then why should I?

[Snotty]

Okay Knobby, The RS2477 ROW legislation says the "Hiway" by their difinition has to connect two points. Several trails in the area dead end. Therefore they do not qualify. What part of that did you fail to understand.

The trail that crosses the Boslough property was FDR297.1, 87RD now 87C. Did you know that if Boulder County decided to reopen 87C, Mark Boslough would not be able to stop it. The trail was public and still maintains the county ROW. That means you and I can travel it. That does not mean that every trail up there is a RS2477 ROW.

IT HAS TO CONNECT TWO POINTS, which this trail clearly did and still does. You use of the trail for MTBing keeps the ROW open. So I could say that this all your fault.

Jesus crist, you are trying to squirm your out of this like an oiled greased Pig in pen. While you may be slippery, you are still caught.

I believe it is time for you to start proving that the ROW does not exist, and the Mark Boslough has a point and legal grounds to stand on if you are going to continue to defend this cause. You have nothing and proved nothing and I would like to see Mark Boslough's reaction to what you have done. Quite simply, you have provided us with a new trail and the grounds on which to make use of the trail. I'm sure Mark Boslough would like to personally tahnk you.

If I need to worry about the creek, then I will head down to Home Depot, buy the materials and build a small bridge across it. Which is in my legal right to do so to further maintain the road. Then I will comply with the Tread Lightly recommendations of proper care of a stream or creek. But I am pretty sure I would piss off all the greenies.

And to further my point... There is area that used to be open in Idaho Springs. the entrance was at the west bound on ramp to I70. We used to call it the Guard Rail Trail. But it really wasn't a trail at all. It was a group of trails that all dead ended at mining claims. The mine on the back side bought up the entire area in a land grab deal with the BLM. This used to be BLM land and was open to everyone. When the Mine bought the area, all of it, he turned it into one piece of property. There by eliminating the need for the ROW to exist to each claim. That single move took the roads out of the RS2477 ROW legislation because it no longer provided access to several pieces of property. But if he sells off one piece of property that the main trail crosses, it again gets the RS2477 ROW applied to it. But, since the trail would still dead end on his property, the row would only exist on the part of the trail of the property he sold off.

Mark Boslough can't even do that because we have established that the ROW was in place when the trail was a registered FDR trail and then a county rd. Even if the County gave up the ROW it still falls into the RS2477 ROW because the property owners between Cal-Wodd and Boslough want it open as proven by VB.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CSP:
Have any those driveways been established as right-of-ways? Has Barking Dog been established as a right-of-way? Snotty says it is, and that seems to be good enough for you guys. What authority does Snotty have to establish a right of way? As a citizen? Then why don't I have the same authority to establish a right of way trough Balarat? I mean, I don't have to prove it to anybody but myself, right? If Snotty doesn't have to prove it to a judge, then why should I?</font>[/QUOTE]Because the Congressional Legislation RS2477 says the responisbilty lies on the owner of the property to prove that ROW does not exist. That is the power of Congress. If they so, then it's so. You have to go to court to prove otherwise.

[Knobby Bobby]

Can you give me an example of a road that DOESN'T connect two points, Snotty? I think I learned in kindergarten that any line connects two points.

So now you are saying that Balarat DOES have to prove that their driveway (which connects two points, according to your map) is not a public right-of-way. Kewl, I'm there this weekend! :D

[backwoodsCJ]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:

[URL=http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/news_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2421_1436338,00.html]http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/news_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2421_1436338,00.html[/ URL]

Why didn't you guys just claim an RS 2477 ROW though the Hedricks land when you got busted for the mudfest? Oh yeah, it might tarnish your image when the press gets bad.Ok - I've been staying out of this until now- this line of antagonism is way out of line Bobby. I have been lurking here for several years and I can say with highest certainty that not a single one of the members of this board was a part of the mudfest. I would further say that not a single one of the participants of the mudfest is truly a four-wheeler or any other designation you wish to give a responsible outdoor enthusiast that chooses to use a vehicle to enjoy the outdoors. That particular incident was organized and publicized by a couple of shock jocks that don't give a damn about the environment or anything else, the consequences be damned - please do not sum us up with them, I take major offense to that! I fully agree that everyone should be held responsible for their actions and made to pay for reparations or do them themselves. This includes everyone though, not just four-wheelers. I am an avid hiker and mountain biker too - and I always come out of the back country carrying more crap than I went in with because I am picking up other peoples trash. I have picked trash up from all forms of recreationalists, so please do not think that hikers, mountain bikers, motorcyclists, etc are above 4x'ers. There are bad apple in all of the groups, singling out the 4x'ers in general is just the in-thing to do these days. It used to be the snow-mobilers, then the horse-back riders, then the motorcyclists, then the mountain bikers.... yes, I have seen a lot of areas where ranchers are getting ticked off because the mountain bikers are causing damage and disturbing their cattle, sheep, etc by going off the trail and onto the private property.
The mudfest was a very sad day to most of us as that is not something we would condone at all – every state organization and most clubs have offered help, however most have been turned down – that is something you will never see reported, at least not in most publications as it is not sensationalistic enough.

I applaud you for taking up the fight for what you believe in here, however I think that you have already made you mind up that the area in question is, with out a doubt, not a ROW and therefore any debate is useless. From the data that I have seen presented here I would have to say that the road was illegally blocked and that when it goes to court, it will be re-opened. When the land was sold to the current owner there could have been some stipulation about the road being private and not a ROW, but that too would have to have been documented and so far there is no evidence of that. I have several friends and family members that have been on both sides of this debate – it’s a lot like squatters rights – if it has been in use for some time it does not need to be “officially” documented, but is now public domain, not private. Just because the private property around it changes hands, does not mean any of the ROW changes. When/If this goes to court – the current land owner is virtually doomed to fail as the burden of proof falls on his/her shoulders and in this case, they have not owned it long enough to say otherwise; for a second strike against, the other local land owners are against the blocking of the road.

One other thing the current land owner may want to take into consideration is this – as long as the road is considered a ROW, then he can not legally block it, but most importantly, he is not legally responsible for it, or whatever happens to someone while on it(in most cases). If he is claiming it as private, then he is legally responsible for what happens on it – this means if any hiker or mountain biker gets hurt while on that section of road, he/she will be fully responsible for the medical and other expenses. With this in mind I would say you very well may have done your cause a miss-service by bringing this to the lime light once again. Now this issue will be pushed more to a conclusion of which there are really only two outcomes: 1 the blocks to the road get removed and the current owner gets his hands slapped for illegally blocking the road, or 2 the road is deemed private and the blocks stay up – but it is closed to all traffic as the liability of letting anyone cross it is too much, and you just lost one of your mountain biking trails.

One other point of contention is this – you keep referring to the MHJC as trespassers etc – as far as I know they have not been convicted in a court of law, nor have any of them been issued citations etc, therefor they can not be assumed guilty until proven otherwise.

[ September 24, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: backwoodsCJ ]

[Knobby Bobby]

Can you give me an example of a road that DOESN'T connect two points, Snotty? I think I learned in kindergarten that any line connects two points.

So now you are saying that Balarat DOES have to prove that their driveway (which connects two points, according to your map) is not a public right-of-way. Kewl, I'm there this weekend! :D

[backwoodsCJ]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
[QUOTE]But why should I be against an owner damaging his own property? I'd have to be against all private mining and logging activity, because those are some of the most environmentally damaging activities imaginable (even more then wheeling). If he bought it, and he pays taxes, let him have at it. Why should somebody else get to damage his property? That's freeloading.You should be against a private property owner damaging his own property, because it is illegal. logging, mining, etc all need permits and impact studies done before they can be commenced. (small amounts of logging etc are allowed, but there is a fine line and it should be researched in all cases before doing anything). Just because you own a piece of land does not mean you can do anything you want on it - you very well may impact others land, and in doing so you would be operating illegally.

[Ski4Ever]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Can you give me an example of a road that DOESN'T connect two points, Snotty? I think I learned in kindergarten that any line connects two points.

So now you are saying that Balarat DOES have to prove that their driveway (which connects two points, according to your map) is not a public right-of-way. Kewl, I'm there this weekend! :D Forgive me if my terminology is incorrect since I don't claim to be any sort of specialist in this area of expertise, but I think what Snotty was saying, and what the law says, is that a ROW (in simple terms) is defined as a road that interconnects between two public roads. Therefore, since the driveways that you are talking about do not connect one public road with another, then no, they aren't ROWs.

Again, like I said, my terminology may be wrong.

[Snotty]

FDR297.1/87RD/87C bisects several pieces of property from 97RD to Highway 7. At no point along that course does it stop or dead-end. Thus connecting two (public and private) points.

Several of the trails on the Balart land and other properties stop on their property and do not continue nor do they provide access to other properties. That is the measure of which the trails are levied against.

Any trail that has its point of origin on FDR297.1/87RD/87C but terminates on private property is not considered a ROW. So if you head up to Balarat, take a trail off of FDR297.1/87RD/87C stop at the dead end, you are now on private property and can be prosecuted by law. But where does FDR297.1/87RD/87C end? If I stay on the trail, then at no time do I exit the ROW and therefore did not trespass.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
Can you give me an example of a road that DOESN'T connect two points, Snotty? I think I learned in kindergarten that any line connects two points.The problem here is, I am not sure you made it out of kindergarten. Maybe I need to get out the little round scissors, paste and construction paper for you to understand what is going on here.

In a word, you are "Wrong".

[Hobo Willy]

Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
To everybody -- Man, don't you guys have jobs?! I mean, yesterday I figure everyone was banging out their insults during the beer commercials like I was. Don't you have anything better to do on Monday!?
Pretty ironic comment from a guy who has been posting for the past last 3 hours on Tuesday morning... :D

[RockYacht]

I see you haven't given up yet Knobby. graemlins/thumbsup.gif Good for you!

I have to tell you though if there's one thing about Snotty, he's really good at coming up with info. He lives for this sort of stuff. Trust me I know, ;) graemlins/laughing.gif


by Bob: If we the motorized crew have to provide proof that the ROW in question does exist, then why don't you prove that it doesn't?Ok I'll ask again, Why? You admit to it being a "single-track" trail here:


by Knobby Bobby: Shane -- can you find the stamped engineering plans for a road up there at all? No, because it is a single track trail, not a road! SO that statement there qualifies it for a RS 2477 ROW does it not? Fits the definition... And for your information the Barking Dog trail only became reduced to a "single-track" in the last couple of years, prior to that it was a Forest Service Road, again fits the definition.

Keep it coming though. To clear up your misunderstanding of my use of Admiral Yamamoto's quote. I am referring to us as the "sleeping giant" and you as the one who awoken them.

I'd be curious to see the landowners reaction to all this attention this trail will get now. I bet you're moving right up his must invite to dinner list. ;) Does he know he has a self appointed wanna be property rights activist on his side? Does he really want one?? :eek:

[Eryl Flynn]

I think I learned in kindergarten that any line connects two points. The advanced step is that all lines are made up of points.

The trick here is defining meaningful points. Usually they are defined by start and stop, angles, or bends for example. The point of ROW is for access to locations of interest be they private property, or public land. When a right of way to one of these is established as long as the criteria is met, a destiniation for example then it is binding. A drive way does not fit the description because it is not a pass through a property, it dead ends on that same property. In this case, it passes through property that Mark purchased.

If Mark had a leg to stand on why doesn't he just have these people that go on it prosecuted for trespassing? One other poster claims he does that when people pass through his land, why is it so hard for Mark to do the same thing? The reason is he knows that the law is against him so he is stuping to petty tactics trying to scare people out.

As Snotty stated it is the property owners responsibility to prove there is no ROW on this land. Let Mark prove it, until then it is a right of way. Sounds like the sheriff knows it is a ROW and won't waste his time on it either.

[MountainJeep]

same folks....

different thread....

please move this to the "land use issues" section

Or better yet to the "I'll rant about anything as long as somebody responds because I am a loser" section

thank you

[Geesh]

Woo-Hoo!! What a ride! 2 things about the thread:

1. The land use debate is educational and rocks

2. The brick throwing is a hoot. Your momma is so . . . :D

I did my first rock crawling trip last Saturday night up Carnage Canyon. Excellent experience. You know what I heard on the way in and out? "Looks we gotta do another clean-up from all the shooting shite around". . . And yet we banter frivolity. . .

There are responsible folk and losers in a every ilk of outdoor activities. My impression: the people arguing here have their shite together. The people that source the problem (not MHJC at all, I mean in general) don't give a damn about our shared planet, let alone this board. So why are we throwing bricks at ourselves? 'Spose though, its good fuel for posting and educating, ROCK ON! graemlins/old_glory.gif

thanks, Geesh

[Shepper]

This is an excellent thread. The information here is astounding if not overwhelming. Here are a couple of things that I have found interesting that I don't think have been brought up.

At one point the question as to whether there was ever a county road there or not was brought up. To me, it is very clear there was/is a county road there... CR87... the main reason it's clear to me is that it states it in the legal descriptions of the properties as the address. Mr. Boslough signed the deed with CR87 as the address of his property.

Now, on my breaks, I have been pouring over the books looking for statutes about property owners eliminating county roads on or near their property and haven't found any yet.

IMO, CR87 still exists until the county assessor acknowledges that it does not and takes CR87 off of the address of all properties surrounding it.

I'm going to keep digging, but that's just a thought. Although, snotty seems to be quite a bit ahead of me in facts and info. I'm mainly looking for actual hard legal info. that could help us see how a judge would rule in a case like this. (speaking of a judge where is "da judge?") There has been a lot of good info presented, but I haven't really seen that "defining blow."

I think one of the main questions that the county assesor and a judge would ask is, "What purpose does CR87 serve?"

Knobby Bobby has done an excellent job of pointing out what the arguement would be for keeping this trail closed to motorized vehicles, and we are only gaining more armor and ammo to get this trail open again because of it. Let's find out what specifically we need to do to get the assesor to acknowledge that this trail is in fact a CR.

[Hobo Willy]

Looks like we should all get together with those who are already making a case against 'Bobby' (oops, sorry Mark to blow your cover), as this will be going to court soon.

A meeting with many others with documents and info to organize a case will be coming soon. Keep up the good research all. An email list will be organized also on details of this case.

Thanks 'Bobby' (Mark) for organizing a posse on your (Mark)'s behalf. graemlins/laughing.gif

[Bill]

Going back to the original premise of this thread: Resolved: Mile High Jeep Club sucks.

This premise has been proven to be false. regardless of the final outcome of the legal standing of Barking Dog trail, it has been firmly established here that MHJC operated with the best of intentions, within what they believed to be the legal limits and adhering to the Tread Lightly principles to the best of their ability. Even if it turn out in the end that they were mistaken, they never deliberatly and knowingly violated any private property since they were convinced the trail they were on is public right of way.

P.S. I'm serious about each of us sending the $20.00. Where do I send it?

[Snotty]

MHJC does not suck and not trespass and indeed followed common sense in an effort to repair a busted oil pan and complied the EPA in the handling of the spill.

Guess what I found! This is all public record and I received this information from the Boulder County Assessor?s office.

Boslough owns land up there. That has not been disputed. But guess what his address is?

Address:000000 County Rd 87

Here is the legal Description:

17792 14980 19200 299 A & 299b 15946 301 A 301 B Total 64.51 Acs M/L Central Md 1-2n-72 & 12-2n-72 Split From Id 129095 & Id 54168 Comb Here 1874298-99 11/24/98 Property ** Mountai

The only access to the Boslough property is on County RD 87. The only way he can get to his property is to cross several pieces of private property as provided by the County RD 87 ROW.

Now guess who owns the land between Boslough and Highway 7?

Boulder County. Here is the address:

Address: 000000 County Rd 87

Here is the legal description:

Lewis Mining Claims Nos 1 Thru 8 19867 N & E Of St Vrain Hwy Less Sunlight Ld Tr A & B Neble & Palace Ld 19444 S Of Hwy7 Central 1-2n-72 6-2n-71 Property Address: 000000 County Rd 87 ** Mountains

Did anyone see the mining claims as listed? Can you say RS2477? Did you notice the access off of Hwy 7? The legally described access proves that County RD 87 starts and stops on County RD 94 and Hwy 7.

Anyway, what this proves is that County RD 87 bisects several pieces of Property. What Mark Boslough is trying to do is stop County RD 87 on his Property effectively severing off the end off of County RD 87. But he can?t. This is most likely why it has not gone to court. I would be curious to see where Mark Boslough placed the boulder in the trail. His property or Boulder County's...

Boulder County probably closed the road to shut him up. It actually makes me mad that Mark Boslough has no issue crossing everyone else?s property, but doesn?t want anyone crossing his. Maybe I can buy the land that Boulder County owns. Bwaahaahaa?.

[kevh]

i had never even heard of the barking dog trail until this started. sounds like a pretty sweet trail. thanks for bringing it to my attention. must be a good trail if it is receiving all of this attention. i mean, would there be this kind of fight for some of the better known trails? looks like it is time for a post in the "staging area". would be great if someone who knew the area would organize a run because it sounds like there are a few dead ends and such up there and i would want to ensure i stayed on a ROW. :D

[ September 24, 2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: kevh ]

[Norco]

The trail's not really all that spectacular from what I remember of it, one section near the bottom with a couple smallish rocks where a locker would help. It's probably been 4 years since I was up there.
But it's the principle of the thing!
I had all but forgotten about Barking Dog- but I think now everybody remembers and wants it back. Nice going Knobby Bobby, ya goof! tongue.gif

[dmeis]

Originally posted by Snotty:
Guess what I found! This is all public record and I received this information from the Boulder County Assessor’s office.

But guess what his address is?

Address:000000 County Rd 87

... Bwaahaahaa….graemlins/spit.gif OMG!!! I guess that explains the elaborate paved bridge across the river to access the rest of CR87! graemlins/thefinger.gif

OK, so who is going to distribute the copies of the "proof" that we are not tresspassing when we use this trail? graemlins/rasta.gif

Thank you for bringing this up as I look forward to wheeling this trail once again.

Your gonna need this: graemlins/beer.gif

[Shepper]

I found a little more "proof" of CR87. I don't have a way to post the image, but if you go here:

Boulder Sheriff's Page (http://www.co.boulder.co.us/sheriff/emergency/map_options.htm)

and DL the big map, "Complete hill shade map set 7/26/02 29 mb," you will see on map 14 and 15 CR87 clearly marked.

[Knobby Bobby]

Originally posted by Hobo Willy:
[/qb]Pretty ironic comment from a guy who has been posting for the past last 3 hours on Tuesday morning... :D [/QB][/QUOTE]

I know, I forgot to look at my watch. Hey, can somebody tell me how to make one of those cool signatures like you guys all have? I want one, too!

[UPnover.]

Is a trip up to Barking dog coming up? I think so... tongue.gif

You did do your homework Snotty and all. Good job!!! graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Knobby Bobby(AKA:Mark)= :confused: :eek: graemlins/crybaby.gif
Say good-by KB. Game over..............

[Knobby Bobby]

O.K., I think I figured out how to do a signature now, not thanks to you dorks!

[RockYacht]

Still avoiding my question eh Robert? (bottom of page 5)

[Digger]

WOW. Though I should not be suprised. Hats off and a deep bow to everyone esp. Snotty "We're not worthy! We're not worthy" graemlins/beer.gif graemlins/thefinger.gif Excellent research, though it means nothing coming from me.
If ever we meet on the trail this graemlins/beer.gif is for you :D

Knobby, as I stated before, I don't think Mr. Boslough is going to very happy with you. heh. :rolleyes:

Also, I should think that you owe MHJC an apology. Be a man, admit defeat and wipe the egg off your face, join us, and help us keep that road open for just as much your benefit as ours. If he closes it, he has to close it to everyone or be responsible for the wellfair of everyone he allows on it. Could become quite costly should someone fall off their mountain bike and need knee surgery. :eek:

Snotty, did you find all this info online or did you spend a day in Boulder?

Peace. :D

[Hack XJ...YJ]

I have been reading this topic for the last few days. I am curios as to what is now trying to be achieved. I just moved here recently, so unfortunately I do not have any info to offer towards this subject... MODERATOR EDITED...

Insert from Moderator That comment was uncalled for, one more you're gone. Period!

[ September 25, 2002, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Bob Levenhagen ]

[Yeeper]

Originally posted by Hack TJ/XJ:

...MODERATOR EDITED... Moderator insert: Not funny!

[ September 25, 2002, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Bob Levenhagen ]

[Mule]

Well, now that you got me going on this.
KNOB is a enviro prick, he had his crony dig huge holes in the road w/ a back-hoe and cut down a bunch of trees across the road (enviro cutting trees ?). ALL of which he blamed on us. There are pictures on the web somewhere of this, not sure where anymore though. Boulder county refused to admit this was actually a county road. I know, you tell me, CR87 ????????? Tree huggin leadership. :mad:
KNOB likes to send letters to news papers and web pages. I didn't see the original thread, but I'm glad I didn't. graemlins/puke.gif He uses typical enviro tactics. We need to make more noise than him, and fight fire w/ fire!!!!
I'm going to cut and paste the info above into an email to the local news agencies. Lets see if we can get some positive press! graemlins/bounce2.gif

Mule, IBA real graemlins/old_glory.gif . KNOB, EnvironMENTALists are going down.
PS, MHJC, Patrol 14 member

[Yeeper]

Bob, I sent you a PM

[ September 25, 2002, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Yeeper ]

[Hobo Willy]

graemlins/thumbsup.gif to all in support of this issue and rebirthing the fight to re-open public road 87 along the Barking Dog Trail. Thank you also for the support of MHJC's defense.

Gene K is (would like to organize) collecting names and phone numbers from members of Colorado 4x4.org who (I quote from him in an email today: 'If you can, would you get names/phone #'s of anyone from Colo4x4 wanting to help') would like to get involved in reopening Barking Dog Trail.

Please email him at: gwking@senior-express.com

He is working with Harold, & Vernon and others in the lawsuit. Please help. It's time fellow wheelers to stand up and take back what is yours...

[Grandpa Jeep]

I had been avoiding this thread for a while because I thought from the title that it was a pissing match between rival clubs. Glad I decided to read it.

Knobby,
You seem to think that it requires some with legal authority to open this road as evidenced by this quote:


Originally posted by Knobby Bobby:
I don't care. If it is a public road, then it should be opened. But it should be opened by someone with legal authority, not by a bunch of yokels with shovels! Nobody has convinced me it is a public road, but I don't think you need to convince me, you need to convince a judge.I would like to ask why then can someone with no legal authority close the road? Did this guy ask anyone before dragging rocks on the road? Why doesn't he have to convince a Judge?

[Grandpa Jeep]

Originally posted by Snotty:


The only access to the Boslough property is on County RD 87. The only way he can get to his property is to cross several pieces of private property as provided by the County RD 87 ROW.

This is very interesting. Suppose we were to contact the owner of the last piece of property that CR87 crosses before it gets to Boslough's property and employ him to apply the same tactics the Boslough used to block the road through his property. Boslough would be locked out unless he owns a helicopter. Do you see any problem with this Knobby?

[Eric]

This topic has been moved to the Land Use Issues forum because it surprisingly ended up with a LOT of valuable land use information. It is, however, being closed as it has finally run its course and also to preserve it. In addition, since this is now a "keeper" I've edited the initial subject line to better reflect the actual content (well, to capture everything would be too long so I had to improvise graemlins/thefinger.gif )

[ September 26, 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Eric ]