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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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...

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.

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.

"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!