some state laws and wheeling

[64FJ40]

Could you give me your address, I will be up later to wheel your front yard. Don't worry it's ok, its private land right!

Yes, it's private. But it's not "unimproved and apparently unused".

Therefore your presence would constitute trespass.





In my opinion, this information really doesn't amount to very much in the way of "permission to trespass" in the way some of you are imagining. The legal interpretation of "unimproved and apparently unused" will vary between every single judge and prosecuting attorney state-wide. Your personal interpretation doesn't mean jack.

If the discussion was about hiking/hunting/exploring, then this information might be pertinent. But the fact that we're talking about taking a 4-wheeled vehicle somewhere means that there is either (1) an existing road/trail/path (which likely negates the "unimproved and apparently unused" clause) or (2) that travel would cause some sort of real or perceived property damage, which would likely constitute "remaining unlawfully".

 

[japerry]

Yes, it's private. But it's not "unimproved and apparently unused".

Therefore your presence would constitute trespass.

If the discussion was about hiking/hunting/exploring, then this information might be pertinent. But the fact that we're talking about taking a 4-wheeled vehicle somewhere means that there is either (1) an existing road/trail/path (which likely negates the "unimproved and apparently unused" clause) or (2) that travel would cause some sort of real or perceived property damage, which would likely constitute "remaining unlawfully".

Good points, I'm trying to find some legal examples to see if you're right here. The only thing that I can see issue with is that the law doesn't mention roads as a means to making something improved, only gates or fences.

 

[nowires]

I have nothing to add other than If you are damaging timber while doing this wheeling on private land, I believe they could confiscate your vehicle then.

And all other assets you own if you can't make restitution, plus garnishment of your wages
If you scar a tree, they can charge you with stump value of the tree
If it is fed, state, county, city land they can charge you with restoration of the land
At a certain dollar amount if does become a felony charge

 

[CHOP SHOP]

I guess NOW is a great time to rub trees on private land....

............Timber is in the toilet and it shouldnt cost much to correct a wrong.



Hell, I bet a land lease is worth more to timber companies right now than a timber NOsale.

Any one want to lease a trail in a private forest?

We could call it 4x4 Excavation and Rock Services and list it as a quarry run by volunteers.

 

[Bunk1]

Cant we all just get along?

 

[Binder]

I have nothing to add other than If you are damaging timber while doing this wheeling on private land, I believe they could confiscate your vehicle then.

Just a note about vehicle "confiscation". There's a big difference between getting impounded and confiscated. Confiscated you don't get it back and doesn't apply to the things we're talking about. Impoundment you just go get it back for a MAXIMUM charge of $500. If you can show that the vehicle was improperly impounded then it costs you nothing other than the PITA time in court.

 

[Eric]

If you cut or damage timber, its considered trespass, which is a criminal offense, and you could face fines and/or jail time and confiscation of your vehicle.

Damage to Timber is easy. Soil compaction does a fair amount of damage in a short amount of time. Root exposure is also very hard on the trees. The list goes on, it all depends on how picky they want to be. In reality they are going to do what they want, they can find the research to back up what they claim.

 

[Binder]

Damage to Timber is easy. Soil compaction does a fair amount of damage in a short amount of time. Root exposure is also very hard on the trees. The list goes on, it all depends on how picky they want to be. In reality they are going to do what they want, they can find the research to back up what they claim.

When and if it becomes time to defend yourself it's the law you need to know not the research. I've read up on this some time ago and IIRC it's monetary value to the crop- trees that is the issue.....That's assuming you get charged with that specific law. Different laws= different set of rules.......Best bet is don't do the crime.:;

 

[zukkev]

Good points, I'm trying to find some legal examples to see if you're right here. The only thing that I can see issue with is that the law doesn't mention roads as a means to making something improved, only gates or fences.

Jakob, a road, be it current or 50 yrs old and grown over, is considered an improvement to said land...pm sent!

 

[dirtygoat]

Best bet is don't do the crime.:;

IMHO, this is the best piece of info in this thread...

 

[japerry]

wow folks, I guess most like living in a police state as well...

a) This thread is about your RIGHTS, not about encouraging timber theft or trespass.

b) This thread is aimed for those who are traveling down logging roads that cross into private land. You need to know your rights if you're stopped by an LEO. This ALSO applies to trails on private land that ARE NOT MARKED NO TRESPASSING. So you know what to expect

c) This thread is NOT aimed to protect those blazing trail, cutting trees, or removing timber. And Washington State law won't protect you either. If you're making trail/chopping trees and get caught, you could face Trespassing in the 2nd degree (misdemeanor) and possibly Theft (misdemeanor under 750, class c felon over 750).

d) Lastly this thread should be about SOLUTIONS to those in section c) creating the opportunities for those in section b). It is very hard to prosecute those in section b). It is very HARD to FIND those in section c). Thats why we need to work with Land owners to help them make sustainable trails so that people in section c) are not creating real* damage to their land.

*Real means harvest-able timber, environmental erosion, etc, etc.

but alas, it just became another slingfest between the 'doo-gooders' and the realists who are wheeling every weekend (the section b'ers). And no progress was made. I guess in that case this thread should be closed. :booo: :booo:

 

[Money Mark]

I wheel and have secret trails on private land. I wheel and have less known trails on DNR land. I trespass with respect and a mindfulness to the owner.

I have ensured that tree damage (actual physical visual marks or scarring) is less evident, if at all. And I have ensured these trails are not used with any regularity, so as to limit the chance of getting a trespassing ticket and notice of perceived damage.

These laws are nothing new (to folks in the know) and I have used the ideas from these laws as a guideline as to how far to push my luck. So far, so good.:awesomework:





If you don't like your interpretation of us (me) encouraging others to act responsibly on rouge trails, then don't interpret it as such.

Apparently some folks have interpreted the meaning of Jakob's interpretation. "Your personal interpretation doesn't mean jack. ":;

Jesus! Settle down there guys. Do you want to know the facts or continue the myths?

I want facts! Please continue Jakob. Thank you.:awesomework:





P.S. Are "you" concerned about the person getting a trespassing ticket or are "you" concerned about the reputation that could be perceived about 4x4er's in general?

If you're concerned about me (the rogue wheeler).......save it.I don't need it.

If you're concerned about the impact to the 4x4 community, are you sure you are not creating the issue? Think about it.


PPS Censorship is a more serious offense that tresspassing.......don't ya think?:beer:

 

[Money Mark]

Cant we all just get along?

We get along, we just don't see eye-to-eye.

 

[japerry]

okay, so I just got the scoop from the whatcom county's sheriff's office.

Officer Turner is the person who runs the FS patrol. He goes out up here if DNR, FS, or private forestry requests them.

1) Do NOT go past a gate, open or closed unless it specifically states motorized vehciles can be there. ALL Sierra Pacific land will state that no Motorized vehicles are allowed. Hiking is allowed on Sierra Pacific land, but only on the road, no off-trail.
2) A gate is like a front door to a house. Don't go beyond it unless you have permission or the sign says specifically so. Otherwise you can get cited for trespassing.
3) DNR land is open for hiking all around, unless you're causing damage to timber.
4) DNR land is CLOSED for motorized access unless it says specifically so. Walker Valley is the only place 'trails' are open for, everything else is illegal
5) Johnson Security runs patrols on Sierra Pacific land, and if you subject to being detained if you beyond a gate. If there is no gate, they will give you a written warning. Suggestion: Don't come back and get caught again.
6) It is malicious mischief to be off trail.
6a) However, if its an established trail, you'll likely get a warning, not a ticket. Turner told me they're pretty good about using good judgement between 'I didn't know' and 'trail blazer'
6b) if you're found to be blazing trail, you'll get cited.
7) In -most cases- you will not get your vehicle impounded by the Whatcom County sheriff's department. He said its rare for this to occur, depends on the situation though.

8) His quote: "If you're out camping and go down an old abandoned raod, that looks well established but technically illegal, you'll probably not get contacted." Key is to use good judgement.

A very personable guy. Brings to light a few things. Another thing he brought up was 'contact' and 'prosecution'. There are standards (what I've listed above) on which you might get contacted, and prosecution which would be the ones to take you to court. Its up to them to decide if you've passed the grey area of using open forest land or not. The officer will try to use best judgement and will usually only make contact if he thinks its something obviously out of the norm.

 

[quartz]

wow folks, I guess most like living in a police state as well...

a) This thread is about your RIGHTS, not about encouraging timber theft or trespass.

b) This thread is aimed for those who are traveling down logging roads that cross into private land. You need to know your rights if you're stopped by an LEO. This ALSO applies to trails on private land that ARE NOT MARKED NO TRESPASSING. So you know what to expect

c) This thread is NOT aimed to protect those blazing trail, cutting trees, or removing timber. And Washington State law won't protect you either. If you're making trail/chopping trees and get caught, you could face Trespassing in the 2nd degree (misdemeanor) and possibly Theft (misdemeanor under 750, class c felon over 750).

d) Lastly this thread should be about SOLUTIONS to those in section c) creating the opportunities for those in section b). It is very hard to prosecute those in section b). It is very HARD to FIND those in section c). Thats why we need to work with Land owners to help them make sustainable trails so that people in section c) are not creating real* damage to their land.

*Real means harvest-able timber, environmental erosion, etc, etc.

but alas, it just became another slingfest between the 'doo-gooders' and the realists who are wheeling every weekend (the section b'ers). And no progress was made. I guess in that case this thread should be closed. :booo: :booo:

You should have started this thread with the above statement.

 

[Money Mark]

4) DNR land is CLOSED for motorized access unless it says specifically so. Walker Valley is the only place 'trails' are open for, everything else is illegal.

You are referring to Whatcom county only, correct?

 

[Money Mark]

You should have started this thread with the above statement.

It's stated now! What's the difference dude?

Bring something to the table.......

 

[Jay Luke]

sing it sistas!!!

 

[boardbysled]

1)....Hiking is allowed on Sierra Pacific land, but only on the road, no off-trail.
....

This is not entirly true, if a piece of DNR (also F.S.) land is surrounded by S.P. land, and does not have road access, they cannot allow you to not be able to access that land, because that piece of DNR land is public land, thus they have to allow public access.

This is a very isolated situation, but some of my favorite high lakes are in this situation.

 

[Binder]

okay, so I just got the scoop from the whatcom county's sheriff's office.

Officer Turner is the person who runs the FS patrol. He goes out up here if DNR, FS, or private forestry requests them.

1) Do NOT go past a gate, open or closed unless it specifically states motorized vehciles can be there. ALL Sierra Pacific land will state that no Motorized vehicles are allowed. Hiking is allowed on Sierra Pacific land, but only on the road, no off-trail.
2) A gate is like a front door to a house. Don't go beyond it unless you have permission or the sign says specifically so. Otherwise you can get cited for trespassing.
3) DNR land is open for hiking all around, unless you're causing damage to timber.
4) DNR land is CLOSED for motorized access unless it says specifically so. Walker Valley is the only place 'trails' are open for, everything else is illegal
5) Johnson Security runs patrols on Sierra Pacific land, and if you subject to being detained if you beyond a gate. If there is no gate, they will give you a written warning. Suggestion: Don't come back and get caught again.
6) It is malicious mischief to be off trail.
6a) However, if its an established trail, you'll likely get a warning, not a ticket. Turner told me they're pretty good about using good judgement between 'I didn't know' and 'trail blazer'
6b) if you're found to be blazing trail, you'll get cited.
7) In -most cases- you will not get your vehicle impounded by the Whatcom County sheriff's department. He said its rare for this to occur, depends on the situation though.

8) His quote: "If you're out camping and go down an old abandoned raod, that looks well established but technically illegal, you'll probably not get contacted." Key is to use good judgement.

A very personable guy. Brings to light a few things. Another thing he brought up was 'contact' and 'prosecution'. There are standards (what I've listed above) on which you might get contacted, and prosecution which would be the ones to take you to court. Its up to them to decide if you've passed the grey area of using open forest land or not. The officer will try to use best judgement and will usually only make contact if he thinks its something obviously out of the norm.

If I understand this correctly then this is the interpretation of one police officer?