Trespass
07-12-2015, 09:29 AM
#11
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
The BLM manages 221 wilderness areas, with around 8.6 million acres.
***And where did I say that they didn't? Nowhere, because I didn't!
I found something not in legalize for you.
***Baloney! You can write up whatever you want in a sentence and spout all the BS you wnat to, but if it isn't documented as to where it came from it's useless and a waste of everyone's time that even reads it!
Are motor vehicles allowed in wilderness?
No. The Wilderness Act generally prohibits the use of motor vehicles in wilderness. The law contains special provisions for motor vehicle use when required in emergencies or as necessary for the administration of the area. Motor vehicles may also be permitted for special uses such as access to a private inholding, to support grazing, or to exercise valid existing rights.
I'd post the links for you, but I did my own homework, I'm not going to let you copy mine.
***And where did I say that they didn't? Nowhere, because I didn't!
I found something not in legalize for you.
***Baloney! You can write up whatever you want in a sentence and spout all the BS you wnat to, but if it isn't documented as to where it came from it's useless and a waste of everyone's time that even reads it!
Are motor vehicles allowed in wilderness?
No. The Wilderness Act generally prohibits the use of motor vehicles in wilderness. The law contains special provisions for motor vehicle use when required in emergencies or as necessary for the administration of the area. Motor vehicles may also be permitted for special uses such as access to a private inholding, to support grazing, or to exercise valid existing rights.
I'd post the links for you, but I did my own homework, I'm not going to let you copy mine.
Last edited by CalHunter; 07-12-2015 at 10:50 PM. Reason: Rules # 2 & 8--Warning.
07-12-2015, 09:31 AM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Germany/Calif.
Posts: 2,664
You can laugh at my maps, but they come from the USGS, the batteries don't die, the satellite doesn't go down, sun spots don't affect them and unlike some other devises they are accurate. Good quality maps are even water resistant.
The only real downside is it takes some talent and practice to read one and they are hard to see in the dark.
...Deleted by CalHunter...
The only real downside is it takes some talent and practice to read one and they are hard to see in the dark.
...Deleted by CalHunter...
Last edited by CalHunter; 07-12-2015 at 10:51 PM. Reason: Rules 2, 8 & 12--7 Day Temp Ban.
07-12-2015, 09:34 AM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Germany/Calif.
Posts: 2,664
Maybe I misread your posts?
There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!
FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.
You are right, I'm wrong for arguing with ...Deleted by CalHunter...
There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!
FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.
You are right, I'm wrong for arguing with ...Deleted by CalHunter...
Last edited by CalHunter; 07-12-2015 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Rules 2, 8 & 12--7 Day Temp Ban.
07-12-2015, 09:58 AM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,780
All of the ancillary issues just muddy the intended point.
As I first said this was lease. To be clear this was a lease of privately owned property. No BLM, state lands, National Forest. The outfitter is not one of the rouge outfitters that bend the rules to their favor, block roads, chase people from public property, etc. This was intentional trespass by a former client that knew the ranch and it's borders.
A sad act of a pathetic individual - and now apparently an internet expert!
As I first said this was lease. To be clear this was a lease of privately owned property. No BLM, state lands, National Forest. The outfitter is not one of the rouge outfitters that bend the rules to their favor, block roads, chase people from public property, etc. This was intentional trespass by a former client that knew the ranch and it's borders.
A sad act of a pathetic individual - and now apparently an internet expert!
07-12-2015, 09:59 AM
#15
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
[quote=MudderChuck;4206572]You can laugh at my maps, but they come from the USGS, the batteries don't die, the satellite doesn't go down, sun spots don't affect them and unlike some other devises they are accurate. Good quality maps are even water resistant.
The only real downside is it takes some talent and practice to read one and they are hard to see in the dark.
...Deleted by CalHunter...[/QUOTE]
I believe what I bolded is against site rules and is called attacking a member when you have been outed and can't come up with anything to back yourself up, rather than just debating what is posted! Also, nobody laughed at your maps, just the "X marks the spot" comment as far as getting out of a legal jam. FYI I know how to read maps and use them all the time in conjunction with the compass my Dad used in WWII and the GPS I carry. I'd bet I could shoot an accurate azimuth with the best of them! You do know what an azimuth is, don't you? ...Deleted by CalHunter...
The only real downside is it takes some talent and practice to read one and they are hard to see in the dark.
...Deleted by CalHunter...[/QUOTE]
I believe what I bolded is against site rules and is called attacking a member when you have been outed and can't come up with anything to back yourself up, rather than just debating what is posted! Also, nobody laughed at your maps, just the "X marks the spot" comment as far as getting out of a legal jam. FYI I know how to read maps and use them all the time in conjunction with the compass my Dad used in WWII and the GPS I carry. I'd bet I could shoot an accurate azimuth with the best of them! You do know what an azimuth is, don't you? ...Deleted by CalHunter...
Last edited by CalHunter; 07-12-2015 at 10:57 PM. Reason: Rule # 8--Warning.
07-12-2015, 10:11 AM
#16
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Maybe I misread your posts?
There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!
FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, grazing and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.
You are right, I'm wrong for arguing with a ___ .
I'm not going to look up links for you, maybe I'd toss you a rock if you were drowning. That would be about the extend of my helpfulness.
There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!
FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, grazing and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.
You are right, I'm wrong for arguing with a ___ .
I'm not going to look up links for you, maybe I'd toss you a rock if you were drowning. That would be about the extend of my helpfulness.
You didn't misread anything I posted and your last two posts are nothing but baloney and talking down to someone that knows what he's talking about! You're just being argumentative making statements that you can't and won't back up because they aren't there to back you up. It would have been very easy for you to post up a link and not just type something out to make it look like you were correct. Unlike you, I don't enter a debate and post a bunch of conjecture with no legal backup or facts to back myself up. These last two posts of yours show exactly what I've stated in that you are now attacking the messenger in violation of site rules because you have nothing to back up anything you've stated. When you have some extra time take a look at these two links: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm...ilderness.html and www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/wilderness In those links you will find that the BLM administers 222 wilderness areas with 8.7 million acres in 10 western states and that is only 3% of the total acreage that the BLM oversees in the coterminous US! The USFS has 442 wilderness areas under its jurisdiction and along with other areas under its control has a total of 762 areas under the NWPS totaling 108,916,684 acres! Seems as that is what I stated in a previous post when I said most is under USFS and not the BLM! PS: I will give you one thing that under the Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 it does allow limited motorized vehicle use, but only in case of an emergency as you mentioned and that would be few and far between like when there is a man made fire that has to be extinguished since natural fire under the Act is allowed to burn itself out for the most part.
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 07-12-2015 at 01:15 PM. Reason: Added links and info.
07-12-2015, 10:31 AM
#17
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
All of the ancillary issues just muddy the intended point.
As I first said this was lease. To be clear this was a lease of privately owned property. No BLM, state lands, National Forest. The outfitter is not one of the rouge outfitters that bend the rules to their favor, block roads, chase people from public property, etc. This was intentional trespass by a former client that knew the ranch and it's borders.
A sad act of a pathetic individual - and now apparently an internet expert!
As I first said this was lease. To be clear this was a lease of privately owned property. No BLM, state lands, National Forest. The outfitter is not one of the rouge outfitters that bend the rules to their favor, block roads, chase people from public property, etc. This was intentional trespass by a former client that knew the ranch and it's borders.
A sad act of a pathetic individual - and now apparently an internet expert!
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 07-12-2015 at 10:37 AM. Reason: Spelling
07-20-2015, 04:57 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
It's not something I have any direct or anecdotal experience with, and I'm certainly not an attorney, but I would think that the outfitter would need to seek redress only through the landowner who could certainly charge such a former client with trespassing. However, I suppose it's possible that the language in the lease itself could delegate the ability to make a charge of trespassing to the lessee. If they take the matter into their own hands ("run the trespasser off", etc.) though, they're likely just opening the door for bigger problems.
All things aside, it's incredibly poor judgement - in my opinion - to trespass on privately-owned land, whether you're a former client or not.
But, on the other hand, three times I've encountered "professionals" who were absolutely convinced that no one would walk like we did to greet them on the public side of the fence bordering their easy-access private lease. I doubt they could have found their position on the map if I'd drawn a circle around it for them. I mean, how cool is it to not have to get out of the sack at 0300 for a three-hour hike when instead, you can sleep in, have a good breakfast, and ride ATVs up to the fenceline and get onto public land the easy way?
All things aside, it's incredibly poor judgement - in my opinion - to trespass on privately-owned land, whether you're a former client or not.
But, on the other hand, three times I've encountered "professionals" who were absolutely convinced that no one would walk like we did to greet them on the public side of the fence bordering their easy-access private lease. I doubt they could have found their position on the map if I'd drawn a circle around it for them. I mean, how cool is it to not have to get out of the sack at 0300 for a three-hour hike when instead, you can sleep in, have a good breakfast, and ride ATVs up to the fenceline and get onto public land the easy way?
07-20-2015, 05:12 PM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Actually neither the landowner nor the outfitter would press the trespassing charge against the alleged violator. It would normally be pursued through the County Sheriff or GW assigned to the area after evidence was presented to them to document the charge or they witnessed the violation themselves and were asked by the landowner or outfitter who had the lease to cite the violator. Normally a ticket would then be written just like a traffic ticket and the violator can either not challenge it and pay the fine or plead not guilty and go to court.
08-08-2015, 02:58 PM
#20
Typical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hatton, Alabama
Posts: 520
TG...you seem to be getting pretty edgy.
MC is absolutely correct in that motorized vehicles can be used in certain circumstances on wilderness areas. Most of the time things are just left to nature. One instance that I know of where motor vehicles were allowed onto Wilderness area was here near my home. Following a tornado that came through the area a logging company was contracted to remove trees that posed a threat to vehicles and hikers. The road formed the border of the wilderness and they were asked to clear off a couple hundred yards up the hill from the road. They didn't clear cut but simply removed the trees that were a threat.
MC is absolutely correct in that motorized vehicles can be used in certain circumstances on wilderness areas. Most of the time things are just left to nature. One instance that I know of where motor vehicles were allowed onto Wilderness area was here near my home. Following a tornado that came through the area a logging company was contracted to remove trees that posed a threat to vehicles and hikers. The road formed the border of the wilderness and they were asked to clear off a couple hundred yards up the hill from the road. They didn't clear cut but simply removed the trees that were a threat.
