This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
ecologically.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg

That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
sustain dense cities.

Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
the land.

Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
need help from the off-road lobby.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg

R. Lander

 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> C. E. White proclaimed:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
> > results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
> > geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
> > the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
> > I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>
> Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>
> I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.

Lon,

I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
"prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
most likely going to be a civil matter.

This does not mean that the property owner has no rights, but it does mean
that it will be up to him, at his expense, to enforce them. In the remote
case that C. E. White is on the level, then the best advice to him is to
contact a lawyer, who will tell him how to protect his property in a legal
and effective manner. Maybe the local law enforcement can provide this
advice, but it is not really their job.

Earle

 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> C. E. White proclaimed:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
> > results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
> > geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
> > the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
> > I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>
> Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>
> I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.

Lon,

I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
"prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
most likely going to be a civil matter.

This does not mean that the property owner has no rights, but it does mean
that it will be up to him, at his expense, to enforce them. In the remote
case that C. E. White is on the level, then the best advice to him is to
contact a lawyer, who will tell him how to protect his property in a legal
and effective manner. Maybe the local law enforcement can provide this
advice, but it is not really their job.

Earle

 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_ZydnZDzes2tZx3ZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> C. E. White proclaimed:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Believe what you will, it happens all the time. Usually I only see the
> > results (tracks cut in paths and fields), but occasionally one of the
> > geniuses gets stuck. I've found trucks buried up to the axles, laying on
> > the sides in the ditches, sitting across ditches, or just not running.
> > I've tried asking the Sheriff for help - what a joke!
>
> Name of Sheriff, name of community?
>
> I'm not calling you a liar, but trespass is trespass.

Lon,

I am not a lawyer, but there is a difference between civil trespass and
criminal trespass. There are statutory guidelines and case law particular
to every jurisdiction, but in most cases the difference involves
"prosecutorial discretion", i.e. whether the police want to get involved or
not. If the complainant is perceived as a nut job by the local authorities,
there is no personal injury, and property damage is minimal, then it this
most likely going to be a civil matter.

This does not mean that the property owner has no rights, but it does mean
that it will be up to him, at his expense, to enforce them. In the remote
case that C. E. White is on the level, then the best advice to him is to
contact a lawyer, who will tell him how to protect his property in a legal
and effective manner. Maybe the local law enforcement can provide this
advice, but it is not really their job.

Earle

 

Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

good jobs= a good life.

Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.




"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

good jobs= a good life.

Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.




"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Looks like they need a lot more roads in Canada... perhaps they could get
more people living, working, and playing up there. Ya know.. development,
homes, industry... jobs... good jobs....

good jobs= a good life.

Or you could go live in a cave and scavenge for sustenance.... your choice.




"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149351597.266698.230530@c74g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander
>

 

Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
hikers are ********....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

"R. Lander" wrote:
>
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander

 

Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
hikers are ********....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

"R. Lander" wrote:
>
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander

 

Who said anything about demanding more roads? You are as bad as
Vandeman for making up BS. Folks just want the existing roads or trails
protected for 'all' users, not just the elite ******** of the hiking
community. You are one, (an -------) that is so by your logic all
hikers are ********....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

"R. Lander" wrote:
>
> This is for people who claim there's plenty of wilderness left for Jeep
> tracks. They have no broad perspective on land use. Trees alone are not
> indicative of wilderness. Many national forests are sterile places,
> ecologically.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg
>
> That map shows how much land has been worked over by people in one way
> or another. Only northern Canada and Alaska still contain large,
> unbroken tracts of pristine land. The rest is mostly agriculture,
> grazing, tree-farms, cities and roads. It takes millions of acres to
> support people at a high standard of living. When someone says we only
> use 2% or 3% of the land, they're ignoring everything else needed to
> sustain dense cities.
>
> Those dark-green patches in the lower-48 contain trees that have never
> been cut, or roadless areas. Notice how small they are relative to
> industrialized or tamed parcels (lighter green, orange and red). It's
> an insult to demand more roads in those last pristine fragments. We
> need fewer people wanting a piece of the action, which means more birth
> control everywhere. That's the real solution if one has any respect for
> the land.
>
> Here's a "footprint" map of the entire world. Notice how densely packed
> Europe is. That same blight is creeping across America and it doesn't
> need help from the off-road lobby.
>
> http://www.mongabay.com/images/exter...-11-30_wcs.jpg
>
> R. Lander