How Much Responsibility...
 

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:46 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Well, first, the story is obviously a hoax, because at least according to some
here on ROFF, Colorado is the land of "public" land...

....but that said, "Orvis" has no responsibility because "Orvis" didn't make the
laws. Now, if I were the ranch manager's boss, and the story is true as
written, the manager would be unemployed, and I'd attempt to intercede as to the
points, but I'd feel no _obligation_. And that said, this just shows what
happens when idiots are allowed to make laws, and those objectively versed in
the law aren't. OTOH, assuming the story is true as written, why was the guy
even in court - as the story is written, something just doesn't sound, well,
complete, story-wise.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:46 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Well, first, the story is obviously a hoax, because at least according to some
here on ROFF, Colorado is the land of "public" land...

....but that said, "Orvis" has no responsibility because "Orvis" didn't make the
laws. Now, if I were the ranch manager's boss, and the story is true as
written, the manager would be unemployed, and I'd attempt to intercede as to the
points, but I'd feel no _obligation_. And that said, this just shows what
happens when idiots are allowed to make laws, and those objectively versed in
the law aren't. OTOH, assuming the story is true as written, why was the guy
even in court - as the story is written, something just doesn't sound, well,
complete, story-wise.

How Much Responsibility...
 

George wrote:does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm.../article/0,129
9,DRMN_85_3383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

In Texas he probably would have been shot by the landowner. 98% of the state is
privately owned.

Big Dale

How Much Responsibility...
 

George Cleveland wrote:
does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.

How much responsibility does *Orvis* have ? None. All Orvis
did is endorse Three Forks Ranch as a nice enough place to
spend 7,000 bucks. The ranch manager could have cut the guy
some slack but how do you tell the difference between a guy
who's lost and a guy who's knowingly trespassing ?

But the gist of the article, that Colorado should change the
law to require land to be posted, that's just common sense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

How Much Responsibility...
 

George Cleveland wrote:
does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.

How much responsibility does *Orvis* have ? None. All Orvis
did is endorse Three Forks Ranch as a nice enough place to
spend 7,000 bucks. The ranch manager could have cut the guy
some slack but how do you tell the difference between a guy
who's lost and a guy who's knowingly trespassing ?

But the gist of the article, that Colorado should change the
law to require land to be posted, that's just common sense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

How Much Responsibility...
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:46 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Well, first, the story is obviously a hoax, because at least according to
some
here on ROFF, Colorado is the land of "public" land...

...but that said, "Orvis" has no responsibility because "Orvis" didn't
make the
laws. Now, if I were the ranch manager's boss, and the story is true as
written, the manager would be unemployed, and I'd attempt to intercede as
to the
points, but I'd feel no _obligation_. And that said, this just shows what
happens when idiots are allowed to make laws, and those objectively versed
in
the law aren't. OTOH, assuming the story is true as written, why was the
guy
even in court - as the story is written, something just doesn't sound,
well,
complete, story-wise.

Ah, at last an answer to the age old question, "What happens when you cross
a double-naught legal eagle with a double-naught philosopher?"!

O.k., let us, for the moment, assume that all of the above is something
other than yet another inadvertently humorous exercise in serial
self-immolation.......just because we can.

First, Orvis isn't LEGALLY responsible for anything......not because they
didn't write the law (hey, the Nurnberg defense is still passé, ainna?), but
because there isn't anything for them to be responsible FOR. Neither Orvis
nor any of its agents has been accused of doing anything illegal.

Whether or not Orvis bears any MORAL responsibility for what occurred in the
situation described is impossible to determine definitively without more
information. If, as the careful reader is left to suppose, this was an
incident notable for its rarity then Orvis has nothing to worry about. On
the other hand, if there is any real basis for Dentry's not so subtle
insinuation (which, as even the casual observer can hardly miss, is
undeniably the case) then Orvis has a lot to answer for.

See how simple these things are when viewed as something other than fuel for
yet another futile attempt at self-justification?

Wolfgang
still, the boy IS funny. :)

How Much Responsibility...
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:46 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Well, first, the story is obviously a hoax, because at least according to
some
here on ROFF, Colorado is the land of "public" land...

...but that said, "Orvis" has no responsibility because "Orvis" didn't
make the
laws. Now, if I were the ranch manager's boss, and the story is true as
written, the manager would be unemployed, and I'd attempt to intercede as
to the
points, but I'd feel no _obligation_. And that said, this just shows what
happens when idiots are allowed to make laws, and those objectively versed
in
the law aren't. OTOH, assuming the story is true as written, why was the
guy
even in court - as the story is written, something just doesn't sound,
well,
complete, story-wise.

Ah, at last an answer to the age old question, "What happens when you cross
a double-naught legal eagle with a double-naught philosopher?"!

O.k., let us, for the moment, assume that all of the above is something
other than yet another inadvertently humorous exercise in serial
self-immolation.......just because we can.

First, Orvis isn't LEGALLY responsible for anything......not because they
didn't write the law (hey, the Nurnberg defense is still passé, ainna?), but
because there isn't anything for them to be responsible FOR. Neither Orvis
nor any of its agents has been accused of doing anything illegal.

Whether or not Orvis bears any MORAL responsibility for what occurred in the
situation described is impossible to determine definitively without more
information. If, as the careful reader is left to suppose, this was an
incident notable for its rarity then Orvis has nothing to worry about. On
the other hand, if there is any real basis for Dentry's not so subtle
insinuation (which, as even the casual observer can hardly miss, is
undeniably the case) then Orvis has a lot to answer for.

See how simple these things are when viewed as something other than fuel for
yet another futile attempt at self-justification?

Wolfgang
still, the boy IS funny. :)

How Much Responsibility...
 

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...ticle/0,1299,D
RMN_85_3383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Checking the "Summer Guide" for fishing may lead one to the conclusion that
this is indeed a fictitious story meant to inflame rather than inform. After
visiting the "Escapes Planner" and clicking on fishing as the activity, July
as the desired event month, and all seven of the regions, I discovered that
there is no fishing in Colorado anyway (according to this site)!

Methinks the database needs updating, or maybe this is some sort of plot to
keep fisherman out of Colorado!

Jim Ray

How Much Responsibility...
 

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...ticle/0,1299,D
RMN_85_3383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Checking the "Summer Guide" for fishing may lead one to the conclusion that
this is indeed a fictitious story meant to inflame rather than inform. After
visiting the "Escapes Planner" and clicking on fishing as the activity, July
as the desired event month, and all seven of the regions, I discovered that
there is no fishing in Colorado anyway (according to this site)!

Methinks the database needs updating, or maybe this is some sort of plot to
keep fisherman out of Colorado!

Jim Ray

How Much Responsibility...
 

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.
Your in a red state, welcome to the future. When all the public land is
privatized all the good fishing will be less crowded. You, unless your
rich won't be one of the crowd.
You can fish in lower Platt and elsewhere the carp thrive, or you can hike
among the clear-cuts and leach mines.

How Much Responsibility...
 

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.
Your in a red state, welcome to the future. When all the public land is
privatized all the good fishing will be less crowded. You, unless your
rich won't be one of the crowd.
You can fish in lower Platt and elsewhere the carp thrive, or you can hike
among the clear-cuts and leach mines.

How Much Responsibility...
 

G.C. writes:

Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.

None. The lodge is only Orvis "endorsed". Orvis has no responsibility in its
operation. By being Orvis endorsed, you can be sure that the lodge offers
great service, great food, and great fishing. And, they have Orvis rods and
reels. If you break a rod (it happens) or just want to try out a new Orvis rod
and reel, well maintained equipment is available for your use. At some lodges,
this includes waders.

I don't understand the bit about land not having to be posted. The law should
be changed requiring land owners to post their land if they don't want
trespassers.

How Much Responsibility...
 

G.C. writes:

Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.

None. The lodge is only Orvis "endorsed". Orvis has no responsibility in its
operation. By being Orvis endorsed, you can be sure that the lodge offers
great service, great food, and great fishing. And, they have Orvis rods and
reels. If you break a rod (it happens) or just want to try out a new Orvis rod
and reel, well maintained equipment is available for your use. At some lodges,
this includes waders.

I don't understand the bit about land not having to be posted. The law should
be changed requiring land owners to post their land if they don't want
trespassers.

How Much Responsibility...
 

From: Ken Fortenberry

How much responsibility does *Orvis* have ? None. All Orvis
did is endorse Three Forks Ranch as a nice enough place to
spend 7,000 bucks. The ranch manager could have cut the guy
some slack but how do you tell the difference between a guy
who's lost and a guy who's knowingly trespassing ?

But the gist of the article, that Colorado should change the
law to require land to be posted, that's just common sense.

You won't hear this too often, but I agree 100% with Ken. If I were in a
position of authority with Orvis, I might have a talk with the resort manager
about renewing the 'endorsement', but Orvis bears no responsibility here.




George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:24:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:46 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Well, first, the story is obviously a hoax, because at least according to
some
here on ROFF, Colorado is the land of "public" land...

...but that said, "Orvis" has no responsibility because "Orvis" didn't
make the
laws. Now, if I were the ranch manager's boss, and the story is true as
written, the manager would be unemployed, and I'd attempt to intercede as
to the
points, but I'd feel no _obligation_. And that said, this just shows what
happens when idiots are allowed to make laws, and those objectively versed
in
the law aren't. OTOH, assuming the story is true as written, why was the
guy
even in court - as the story is written, something just doesn't sound,
well,
complete, story-wise.

Ah, at last an answer to the age old question, "What happens when you cross
a double-naught legal eagle with a double-naught philosopher?"!

O.k., let us, for the moment, assume that all of the above is something
other than yet another inadvertently humorous exercise in serial
self-immolation.......just because we can.

First, Orvis isn't LEGALLY responsible for anything......not because they
didn't write the law (hey, the Nurnberg defense is still passé, ainna?), but
because there isn't anything for them to be responsible FOR. Neither Orvis
nor any of its agents has been accused of doing anything illegal.

Whether or not Orvis bears any MORAL responsibility for what occurred in the
situation described is impossible to determine definitively without more
information. If, as the careful reader is left to suppose, this was an
incident notable for its rarity then Orvis has nothing to worry about. On
the other hand, if there is any real basis for Dentry's not so subtle
insinuation (which, as even the casual observer can hardly miss, is
undeniably the case) then Orvis has a lot to answer for.

See how simple these things are when viewed as something other than fuel for
yet another futile attempt at self-justification?

Wolfgang
still, the boy IS funny. :)


Hoo, boy...I guess it's my turn to have the (hand-tailored in the finest
material, of course) pants' cuff that ROFF's own rat terrier has decide to nip
at for a while...ah, well, sure, it's a slight annoyance until you realize that
it's all the yappy little critter has and it's just SO determined...ok, boy -
oops, wait, I didn't even look...my mistake...ok, girl, I'll play with you for a
few minutes...

Hmmm...I'd have thought that a careful reader would have been puzzled by things
in the STORY, such as how trespassing gets one 20 points, but if you manage to
poach an elk while doing so, it reduces it to 15, or how the game warden managed
to get there so quickly, if Pagliasotti had only managed 10 yards distance and
two casts, or perhaps how Dentry even knew about it all...

HTH,
Double-naught Dickie
....who has seen a fair share of Colorado land and water clearly marked...

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:24:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:46 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:

does Orvis have in rectifying this situation?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...383209,00.html


Some, none or the "trespasser" got off easy.


g.c.

Well, first, the story is obviously a hoax, because at least according to
some
here on ROFF, Colorado is the land of "public" land...

...but that said, "Orvis" has no responsibility because "Orvis" didn't
make the
laws. Now, if I were the ranch manager's boss, and the story is true as
written, the manager would be unemployed, and I'd attempt to intercede as
to the
points, but I'd feel no _obligation_. And that said, this just shows what
happens when idiots are allowed to make laws, and those objectively versed
in
the law aren't. OTOH, assuming the story is true as written, why was the
guy
even in court - as the story is written, something just doesn't sound,
well,
complete, story-wise.

Ah, at last an answer to the age old question, "What happens when you cross
a double-naught legal eagle with a double-naught philosopher?"!

O.k., let us, for the moment, assume that all of the above is something
other than yet another inadvertently humorous exercise in serial
self-immolation.......just because we can.

First, Orvis isn't LEGALLY responsible for anything......not because they
didn't write the law (hey, the Nurnberg defense is still passé, ainna?), but
because there isn't anything for them to be responsible FOR. Neither Orvis
nor any of its agents has been accused of doing anything illegal.

Whether or not Orvis bears any MORAL responsibility for what occurred in the
situation described is impossible to determine definitively without more
information. If, as the careful reader is left to suppose, this was an
incident notable for its rarity then Orvis has nothing to worry about. On
the other hand, if there is any real basis for Dentry's not so subtle
insinuation (which, as even the casual observer can hardly miss, is
undeniably the case) then Orvis has a lot to answer for.

See how simple these things are when viewed as something other than fuel for
yet another futile attempt at self-justification?

Wolfgang
still, the boy IS funny. :)


Hoo, boy...I guess it's my turn to have the (hand-tailored in the finest
material, of course) pants' cuff that ROFF's own rat terrier has decide to nip
at for a while...ah, well, sure, it's a slight annoyance until you realize that
it's all the yappy little critter has and it's just SO determined...ok, boy -
oops, wait, I didn't even look...my mistake...ok, girl, I'll play with you for a
few minutes...

Hmmm...I'd have thought that a careful reader would have been puzzled by things
in the STORY, such as how trespassing gets one 20 points, but if you manage to
poach an elk while doing so, it reduces it to 15, or how the game warden managed
to get there so quickly, if Pagliasotti had only managed 10 yards distance and
two casts, or perhaps how Dentry even knew about it all...

HTH,
Double-naught Dickie
....who has seen a fair share of Colorado land and water clearly marked...

How Much Responsibility...
 

wrote in message
...

Hoo, boy...I guess it's my turn to have the (hand-tailored in the finest
material, of course) pants' cuff that ROFF's own rat terrier has decide to
nip
at for a while...ah, well, sure, it's a slight annoyance until you realize
that
it's all the yappy little critter has and it's just SO determined...ok,
boy -
oops, wait, I didn't even look...my mistake...ok, girl, I'll play with you
for a
few minutes...

Hmmm...I'd have thought that a careful reader would have been puzzled by
things
in the STORY, such as how trespassing gets one 20 points, but if you
manage to
poach an elk while doing so, it reduces it to 15,

Well, I THOUGHT I was a careful reader.......but I can't find the part about
poaching while trespassing resulting in a reduction of the penalty. Perhaps
you'd be good enough to find the relevant passage and post it for those of
us who missed it.

or how the game warden managed
to get there so quickly, if Pagliasotti had only managed 10 yards distance
and
two casts,

I'm not puzzled so much about how the ranger got there so quickly as by
where he (or she) got TO and just HOW quickly. Once again, I can't find
that information in the article as it appears on my screen. Evidently I got
the short version. What does yours say?

or perhaps how Dentry even knew about it all...

Yeah, that part IS puzzling.......well, unless one posits something REALLY
bizarre.......like......maybe somebody told him?

HTH,
Double-naught Dickie
...who has seen a fair share of Colorado land and water clearly marked...

Odd, that. Based on what has appeared here in the past few weeks, it is
difficult to imagine how anyone could give credence to the notion that there
is any private land at all in Colorado.

Wolfgang
who begins to suspect that the boy is actually stupider than stevie, kennie,
and kennie combined. :)

How Much Responsibility...
 

wrote in message
...

Hoo, boy...I guess it's my turn to have the (hand-tailored in the finest
material, of course) pants' cuff that ROFF's own rat terrier has decide to
nip
at for a while...ah, well, sure, it's a slight annoyance until you realize
that
it's all the yappy little critter has and it's just SO determined...ok,
boy -
oops, wait, I didn't even look...my mistake...ok, girl, I'll play with you
for a
few minutes...

Hmmm...I'd have thought that a careful reader would have been puzzled by
things
in the STORY, such as how trespassing gets one 20 points, but if you
manage to
poach an elk while doing so, it reduces it to 15,

Well, I THOUGHT I was a careful reader.......but I can't find the part about
poaching while trespassing resulting in a reduction of the penalty. Perhaps
you'd be good enough to find the relevant passage and post it for those of
us who missed it.

or how the game warden managed
to get there so quickly, if Pagliasotti had only managed 10 yards distance
and
two casts,

I'm not puzzled so much about how the ranger got there so quickly as by
where he (or she) got TO and just HOW quickly. Once again, I can't find
that information in the article as it appears on my screen. Evidently I got
the short version. What does yours say?

or perhaps how Dentry even knew about it all...

Yeah, that part IS puzzling.......well, unless one posits something REALLY
bizarre.......like......maybe somebody told him?

HTH,
Double-naught Dickie
...who has seen a fair share of Colorado land and water clearly marked...

Odd, that. Based on what has appeared here in the past few weeks, it is
difficult to imagine how anyone could give credence to the notion that there
is any private land at all in Colorado.

Wolfgang
who begins to suspect that the boy is actually stupider than stevie, kennie,
and kennie combined. :)

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
...there is no fishing in Colorado anyway...

There used to be. That darned "public" wrecked it.

Wolfgang
and, at MY expense, no less! :(

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
...there is no fishing in Colorado anyway...

There used to be. That darned "public" wrecked it.

Wolfgang
and, at MY expense, no less! :(

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
...The law should
be changed requiring land owners to post their land if they don't want
trespassers.

Down at the end of the block......about a hundred fifty yards to the
south......there sits a house on a corner lot. Someone has put up several
"no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs in various prominent locations on
the property. I've seen no others anywhere else in the neighborhood. I
sometimes find it hard to understand how so many can be so careless.

Wolfgang
and clueless, for that matter.

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
...The law should
be changed requiring land owners to post their land if they don't want
trespassers.

Down at the end of the block......about a hundred fifty yards to the
south......there sits a house on a corner lot. Someone has put up several
"no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs in various prominent locations on
the property. I've seen no others anywhere else in the neighborhood. I
sometimes find it hard to understand how so many can be so careless.

Wolfgang
and clueless, for that matter.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:50:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
...The law should
be changed requiring land owners to post their land if they don't want
trespassers.

Down at the end of the block......about a hundred fifty yards to the
south......there sits a house on a corner lot. Someone has put up several
"no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs in various prominent locations on
the property. I've seen no others anywhere else in the neighborhood. I
sometimes find it hard to understand how so many can be so careless.

Wolfgang
and clueless, for that matter.

Actually Wisconsin changed their trespassing law a few years ago.
Formerly "No Trespassing" signs had to be posted x number of feet
along hthe boundaries of ones property now the law says that signs
are mandatory only where ones property abuts public land. Part of the
problem in Colorado is that their property rights as they apply to
streams are very restrictive. Here in Wisconsin you could fish right
through an operation like the ranch in Colorado and be legal the whole
time as long as you never left the water.

I guess *my* main problem with the Colorado law is that trespassing is
punished as a violation of Fish and Game law instead of a civil
violation as it is in Wisconsin. It smacks of the state acting as a
gamekeeper for the rich and powerful to me.

g.c.

Correction concerning Richards post:

Rat Terrier

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...dosquirrel.jpg

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:50:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
...The law should
be changed requiring land owners to post their land if they don't want
trespassers.

Down at the end of the block......about a hundred fifty yards to the
south......there sits a house on a corner lot. Someone has put up several
"no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs in various prominent locations on
the property. I've seen no others anywhere else in the neighborhood. I
sometimes find it hard to understand how so many can be so careless.

Wolfgang
and clueless, for that matter.

Actually Wisconsin changed their trespassing law a few years ago.
Formerly "No Trespassing" signs had to be posted x number of feet
along hthe boundaries of ones property now the law says that signs
are mandatory only where ones property abuts public land. Part of the
problem in Colorado is that their property rights as they apply to
streams are very restrictive. Here in Wisconsin you could fish right
through an operation like the ranch in Colorado and be legal the whole
time as long as you never left the water.

I guess *my* main problem with the Colorado law is that trespassing is
punished as a violation of Fish and Game law instead of a civil
violation as it is in Wisconsin. It smacks of the state acting as a
gamekeeper for the rich and powerful to me.

g.c.

Correction concerning Richards post:

Rat Terrier

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...dosquirrel.jpg

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:20:04 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:



Correction concerning Richards post:

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

How perfect - gibberish....

Thanks for the grin,
R

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:20:04 -0600, George Cleveland
wrote:



Correction concerning Richards post:

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

How perfect - gibberish....

Thanks for the grin,
R

How Much Responsibility...
 

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...

Actually Wisconsin changed their trespassing law a few years ago.
Formerly "No Trespassing" signs had to be posted x number of feet
along hthe boundaries of ones property now the law says that signs
are mandatory only where ones property abuts public land. Part of the
problem in Colorado is that their property rights as they apply to
streams are very restrictive. Here in Wisconsin you could fish right
through an operation like the ranch in Colorado and be legal the whole
time as long as you never left the water.

In principle, I think, trespass laws aren't terribly complex or difficult to
understand. "Trespass", in this context, means quite simply entry onto
private or otherwise restricted property without permission from the owners
(in the case of private property) or whatever authority has jurisdiction (in
cases of restricted public property). Thus, trespass is illegal
everywhere.....by definition.....and (somewhat trivially, to be sure) "No
Trespassing" signs are funny for purely logical and linguistic reasons.

More importantly, given that entry onto such restricted lands, public or
private, IS (presumably) illegal everywhere in the U.S., there seems to be
no good reason that a landowner should have to remind anyone with signs to
that effect. Unfortunately laws and their interpretations differ
considerably from one place to another, thus complicating the matter As has
been pointed out, there are states in which failure to clearly delineate and
post a piece of property is legally presumed to imply permission to
enter.....without asking. In others, the presumption is exactly the
opposite. In either case, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect any one
person to know the law and, where necessary, the boundaries which he or she
may not legally cross. But, and this is where the **** gets complicated,
reality is a messy business. Every day, millions of people thrash their way
about the landscape and the lakes and rivers all over the country. One
cannot REASONABLY expect that ALL of them will be accomplished woodsmen AND
scrupulous about safeguarding the rights of property owners. It only makes
sense for property owners concerned about unauthorized entry to mark their
boundaries as clearly as possible, even if they are under no legal or moral
obligation to do so.

The situation I described in response to Davie's typically simplistic view
of life on Earth was meant to illustrate that, given an idea of where
boundaries are, most people.....most of the time.....can get along pretty
well without being bludgeoned by authority. Many millions of us coexist
quite peacably with neighbors living no more than a few yards away. Odd,
isn't it, that the more land one has the more jealously one tends to guard
it?

I guess *my* main problem with the Colorado law is that trespassing is
punished as a violation of Fish and Game law instead of a civil
violation as it is in Wisconsin. It smacks of the state acting as a
gamekeeper for the rich and powerful to me.

Agreed. However, we both know that the Wisconsin DNR can go all medieval on
one's ass too when it feels the urge, don't we? :)

g.c.

Correction concerning Richards post:

Rat Terrier

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...dosquirrel.jpg

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

No doubt about it.....I am MUCH taller.

Wolfgang
and "hi" to frodo.

How Much Responsibility...
 

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...

Actually Wisconsin changed their trespassing law a few years ago.
Formerly "No Trespassing" signs had to be posted x number of feet
along hthe boundaries of ones property now the law says that signs
are mandatory only where ones property abuts public land. Part of the
problem in Colorado is that their property rights as they apply to
streams are very restrictive. Here in Wisconsin you could fish right
through an operation like the ranch in Colorado and be legal the whole
time as long as you never left the water.

In principle, I think, trespass laws aren't terribly complex or difficult to
understand. "Trespass", in this context, means quite simply entry onto
private or otherwise restricted property without permission from the owners
(in the case of private property) or whatever authority has jurisdiction (in
cases of restricted public property). Thus, trespass is illegal
everywhere.....by definition.....and (somewhat trivially, to be sure) "No
Trespassing" signs are funny for purely logical and linguistic reasons.

More importantly, given that entry onto such restricted lands, public or
private, IS (presumably) illegal everywhere in the U.S., there seems to be
no good reason that a landowner should have to remind anyone with signs to
that effect. Unfortunately laws and their interpretations differ
considerably from one place to another, thus complicating the matter As has
been pointed out, there are states in which failure to clearly delineate and
post a piece of property is legally presumed to imply permission to
enter.....without asking. In others, the presumption is exactly the
opposite. In either case, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect any one
person to know the law and, where necessary, the boundaries which he or she
may not legally cross. But, and this is where the **** gets complicated,
reality is a messy business. Every day, millions of people thrash their way
about the landscape and the lakes and rivers all over the country. One
cannot REASONABLY expect that ALL of them will be accomplished woodsmen AND
scrupulous about safeguarding the rights of property owners. It only makes
sense for property owners concerned about unauthorized entry to mark their
boundaries as clearly as possible, even if they are under no legal or moral
obligation to do so.

The situation I described in response to Davie's typically simplistic view
of life on Earth was meant to illustrate that, given an idea of where
boundaries are, most people.....most of the time.....can get along pretty
well without being bludgeoned by authority. Many millions of us coexist
quite peacably with neighbors living no more than a few yards away. Odd,
isn't it, that the more land one has the more jealously one tends to guard
it?

I guess *my* main problem with the Colorado law is that trespassing is
punished as a violation of Fish and Game law instead of a civil
violation as it is in Wisconsin. It smacks of the state acting as a
gamekeeper for the rich and powerful to me.

Agreed. However, we both know that the Wisconsin DNR can go all medieval on
one's ass too when it feels the urge, don't we? :)

g.c.

Correction concerning Richards post:

Rat Terrier

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...dosquirrel.jpg

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

No doubt about it.....I am MUCH taller.

Wolfgang
and "hi" to frodo.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:22:09 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .


Correction concerning Richards post:

Rat Terrier

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...dosquirrel.jpg

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

No doubt about it.....I am MUCH taller.

Wolfgang
and "hi" to frodo.

I just gave him a scratch under the collar for you. This has the
strange effect of seeming to make half the bones of his body soften up
and his face assuming a blissed out grin that I usually associate with
smokers finally getting to take a drag off a cigarette after being
denied said pleasure for a lengthy period of time. And so therefore,
Frodo says thanks and "hi" back at ya.


g.c.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:22:09 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
.. .


Correction concerning Richards post:

Rat Terrier

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...dosquirrel.jpg

Wolfgang

http://fishskicanoe.tripod.com/geopi...2_wolfg_champs

No doubt about it.....I am MUCH taller.

Wolfgang
and "hi" to frodo.

I just gave him a scratch under the collar for you. This has the
strange effect of seeming to make half the bones of his body soften up
and his face assuming a blissed out grin that I usually associate with
smokers finally getting to take a drag off a cigarette after being
denied said pleasure for a lengthy period of time. And so therefore,
Frodo says thanks and "hi" back at ya.


g.c.

How Much Responsibility...
 

In article ,
says...
Thus, trespass is illegal
everywhere.....by definition.....and (somewhat trivially, to be sure) "No
Trespassing" signs are funny for purely logical and linguistic reasons.


My favorites are the signs that say "No Trespassing
Without Permission."

Kevin

--
reply to:
kevin dot vang at minotstatu dot edu

How Much Responsibility...
 

In article ,
says...
Thus, trespass is illegal
everywhere.....by definition.....and (somewhat trivially, to be sure) "No
Trespassing" signs are funny for purely logical and linguistic reasons.


My favorites are the signs that say "No Trespassing
Without Permission."

Kevin

--
reply to:
kevin dot vang at minotstatu dot edu

How Much Responsibility...
 

It seems to this Europeanized Irish/American that a bit of flexibility
is called for here. I get a bit crochety when Americans express
blanket horror at the 'European' or 'English' habit of charging for
fishing.

I've never fished the classic NY streams because I'd heard bad stories
of too many people fishing there. Good rivers near big cities are
always going to be overcrowded unless they're privately managed. That's
the way it is. Wolfgang mentioned the river Itchen as one of the dream
fishing locations recently. It's a stunning stream, less than an hour
from then centre of London, which is a massive sprawling city in a
tiny, overcrowded island.

I was fishing on the Itchen last week. In a day I saw only one other
fisherman, and that briefly. Apart from that I was alone with the ducks
and the swans and the fish. I killed a couple of grayling, which I
ate for supper, on a Queen of the Waters, fished dry. I don't remember
how many I released. This was on private waters, where I can fish any
day from September to Christmas for an annual subscription of a hundred
dollars. Okay, I had to wait in a queue to get onto the list. The fact
that this water is private seems okay to me, because the alternative is
horrible.

But there's loads of land, and loads of rivers in America. Jesus,
otherwise, what's the point of the place? I do applaud your effort to
keep things sane. About ten years ago, I'm delighted to say (I rarely
praise my own country) the Irish government tried to impose the need
for a licence to fish for trout in Ireland. The boatmen ( a boat is
essential for most serious trout fishing in Ireland ) were outraged at
the alteration of the traditional way of doing things, and went on
strike, which seemed absurd at first. But in the end the Irish
government had to back down.

So this printed story saddened me. I remember many years ago being
caught fishing illegally on the (Irish) river Reelin, which,
unbeknownst to me at the time, was one of the most prolific salmon
rivers in the British Isles. The guy who caught me (fishing in fact for
trout, with the same 9ft 6/7 rod that I've subsequently used for salmon
on the same river) just smiled, told me I was poaching, told me where I
could buy a ticket in the future, and advised me to move half a mile
upstream to a better pool. I didn't catch any salmon that day, but I
came back other years, paid my licence (fifteen or so dollars a day)
and have had wonderful fishing days there since.

Americans are good at putting on pressure till it hurts. I hope
y'all'll do just that.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

How Much Responsibility...
 

It seems to this Europeanized Irish/American that a bit of flexibility
is called for here. I get a bit crochety when Americans express
blanket horror at the 'European' or 'English' habit of charging for
fishing.

I've never fished the classic NY streams because I'd heard bad stories
of too many people fishing there. Good rivers near big cities are
always going to be overcrowded unless they're privately managed. That's
the way it is. Wolfgang mentioned the river Itchen as one of the dream
fishing locations recently. It's a stunning stream, less than an hour
from then centre of London, which is a massive sprawling city in a
tiny, overcrowded island.

I was fishing on the Itchen last week. In a day I saw only one other
fisherman, and that briefly. Apart from that I was alone with the ducks
and the swans and the fish. I killed a couple of grayling, which I
ate for supper, on a Queen of the Waters, fished dry. I don't remember
how many I released. This was on private waters, where I can fish any
day from September to Christmas for an annual subscription of a hundred
dollars. Okay, I had to wait in a queue to get onto the list. The fact
that this water is private seems okay to me, because the alternative is
horrible.

But there's loads of land, and loads of rivers in America. Jesus,
otherwise, what's the point of the place? I do applaud your effort to
keep things sane. About ten years ago, I'm delighted to say (I rarely
praise my own country) the Irish government tried to impose the need
for a licence to fish for trout in Ireland. The boatmen ( a boat is
essential for most serious trout fishing in Ireland ) were outraged at
the alteration of the traditional way of doing things, and went on
strike, which seemed absurd at first. But in the end the Irish
government had to back down.

So this printed story saddened me. I remember many years ago being
caught fishing illegally on the (Irish) river Reelin, which,
unbeknownst to me at the time, was one of the most prolific salmon
rivers in the British Isles. The guy who caught me (fishing in fact for
trout, with the same 9ft 6/7 rod that I've subsequently used for salmon
on the same river) just smiled, told me I was poaching, told me where I
could buy a ticket in the future, and advised me to move half a mile
upstream to a better pool. I didn't catch any salmon that day, but I
came back other years, paid my licence (fifteen or so dollars a day)
and have had wonderful fishing days there since.

Americans are good at putting on pressure till it hurts. I hope
y'all'll do just that.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
snip

Odd, isn't it, that the more land one has the more jealously one tends to
guard
it?
snip

Wolfgang

While that axiom is largely true in relatively populated areas, and for
people who have a largely urban or suburban background but have recently
acquired large tracts of rural land, it is often not the case with those who
have long tenure working the land in relatively unpopulated areas. I am
familiar with many landowners of large tracts (500 -1000+ac.), who, as long
as public visitors are respectful of the land and the owners, will allow the
public to recreate on their land. Often all that is required is asking
permission, letting the owner know when you are on the property, and finding
out if there are any areas/activities/conditions/times that the owner wants
you to avoid or take special care with. This landowner attitude is
certainly far from universal, and the number holding it seems to be
shrinking all the time, but it is still fairly common. However, almost
invariably when these same lands are acquired by someone without a rural
background, the lands are locked up tighter than a drum. Also owners of
20-160ac. seem to guard their lands much more jealously than many of the
long term owners of large properties.

Another problem trespass in the west is that the combination of large
tracts of public lands (often with unmarked boundaries - once you get away
from roads), many areas with poor or totally absent surveys, and - in flat
featureless areas- no good way (short of GPS) to ascertain one's exact
location, determining ( in the absence of clearly marked boundaries) whether
one has trespassed is often more than mildly problematic.

In Oregon, the law is structured such that, if the land is enclosed
(fenced), or cultivated, or marked with signs or red paint, one should
assume that it is private land in the absence of firm knowledge to the
contrary. However, because of the factors noted in the above paragraph,
even many landowners are often not exactly clear of the precise location of
their boundaries. I have seen numerous cases where the private landowners
have fenced in lands that were open to the public (publicly owned lands or
other private lands where public use was allowed) or posted "No
Trespassing" signs on such lands. While some of this is done by those who
had full knowledge that the land was open to the public, and were simply
doing it to keep others from using adjacent land that they did not own, many
simply don't know the exact location of their boundaries.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email




..

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Thus, trespass is illegal
everywhere.....by definition.....and (somewhat trivially, to be sure) "No
Trespassing" signs are funny for purely logical and linguistic reasons.


My favorites are the signs that say "No Trespassing
Without Permission."

Yep, those are a real hoot. :)

Wolfgang
who has on occasion spent the better part of a day and a night staring at
one of those, lost in a slack-jawed metaphysical murk of recursion,
iteration, self-referential existentialism, psychic angst, dithering
indecision, etc. :(

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Thus, trespass is illegal
everywhere.....by definition.....and (somewhat trivially, to be sure) "No
Trespassing" signs are funny for purely logical and linguistic reasons.


My favorites are the signs that say "No Trespassing
Without Permission."

Yep, those are a real hoot. :)

Wolfgang
who has on occasion spent the better part of a day and a night staring at
one of those, lost in a slack-jawed metaphysical murk of recursion,
iteration, self-referential existentialism, psychic angst, dithering
indecision, etc. :(

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Kevin Vang" wrote


My favorites are the signs that say "No Trespassing
Without Permission."


On my place they say "No Trespassing ... Survivors Will be Prosecuted"

g

I once had a pheasant hunter with his young (12 ?) son jump the back fence
( there's no road back there, but, a private irrigation district easement,
posted, leads to the back of the place and many people use it to walk their
dogs and early morning jogs and such, with my blessing ). I grabbed a
shotgun, shells much heavier than he likely was using, and a mean looking
Chesapeake Bay retriever and went to tell him he was trespassing.

I started with "This is private property and it's posted. But, I live in
that house right over there and you can get there from where you are parked
via Pleasant Valley Rd. Come around front, ask permission, and I'll
gladly let you and your boy hunt, but you are not free to just jump the
fence."

His answer was a string of swear words that would shock an ironworker and I
watched as he continued to rant as he walked back down the easement, no
doubt off to teach his son some more about being a "sportsman" on someone
else's property.

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Kevin Vang" wrote


My favorites are the signs that say "No Trespassing
Without Permission."


On my place they say "No Trespassing ... Survivors Will be Prosecuted"

g

I once had a pheasant hunter with his young (12 ?) son jump the back fence
( there's no road back there, but, a private irrigation district easement,
posted, leads to the back of the place and many people use it to walk their
dogs and early morning jogs and such, with my blessing ). I grabbed a
shotgun, shells much heavier than he likely was using, and a mean looking
Chesapeake Bay retriever and went to tell him he was trespassing.

I started with "This is private property and it's posted. But, I live in
that house right over there and you can get there from where you are parked
via Pleasant Valley Rd. Come around front, ask permission, and I'll
gladly let you and your boy hunt, but you are not free to just jump the
fence."

His answer was a string of swear words that would shock an ironworker and I
watched as he continued to rant as he walked back down the easement, no
doubt off to teach his son some more about being a "sportsman" on someone
else's property.