# We need a new word for "Poaching."



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Guys, think about a term you would use in front of a land manager or group of people who see such use as yet more reason to continue keeping us off of trails. I think we can describe such trail use in a more positive way; it may currently be illegal but we don't think, for any number of reasons, it ought to be.

People who oppose our use employ words like trespassing, breaking the law, violating the law. It plays against us from the get-go.

Much of the mtb culture uses the word "poaching" and that is hardly useful. I will quote Imtnbike:

"Poaching is a crime of moral turpitude. Illegally killing fish or game may harm an ecosystem, threaten others' livelihood, involve cruelty, and the like.

Conversely, noncompliant mountain biking that causes no safety risk, involves no discourtesy, and does no environmental harm is not, in my opinion, a crime of moral turpitude. It is merely a violation of some ordinance or statute. Only illegal riding that victimizes someone or causes harm to an animal, plant, or landscape is turpitudinous (sorry for the $10 word).

That is why I never refer to noncompliant mountain biking as poaching."

We need to change the way people look at such trail use. It does us not good to avoid the issue. It happens for a reason. Thoughts?


----------



## redriderbb (Aug 30, 2005)

*clandestine*

clan·des·tine (klanˈdestin)

Adjective: Kept secret or done secretively, esp. because illicit.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

I always use the word "unauthorized" when discussing this issue, whether with a LM, LEO, Smokey the Bear, or City Hall. I have found through personal experience that in order to effectively deal with an issue one must confront the issue. 

Mike, if the issue is unauthorized trail use, then one could argue the use is illegal if there is in fact a law stating such. By engaging in such activity, one could argue the law was being broken. One of the laws being broken may well be trespassing.

In order to deal with an issue, one needs to address the issue. Trying to argue the issue is not what it is will not earn any respect, thereby your argument will fall on deaf ears. I stay from the words you mention for the negative association. I stay away from the word "law" after witnessing a meeting turn into a circus because I wouldn't fall into a trap meant to discredit my argument and try to shift focus from the real issue. A solid argument to genuinely try and seek a solution delivered with respect was able to overcome dead-to rights law that was delivered with no respect to the process or the participants. Had I chose a word that would have downplayed the seriousness of the issue could've been viewed that I don't consider the issue to be serious, at least not as serious as the side behind the law. Going that route will ensure no one hears what you have to say.


----------



## wildskycomet (Sep 15, 2005)

Presently unauthorized


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Yah, yah, shades of gray, etc.

I was doing some trail repairs yesterday on our wet, muddy trails and a rider came by.

Rider: "Are the trails open? I wasn't sure and really only the beginning section seemed like it was needed to be closed."

Me: "There is a sign at the trail head. What did it say?"

Rider: "Closed. 

Me: "Then the whole trail is closed."

Rider: "OK, I'll walk it out from here. I wouldn't be on the trails if I thought I was really doing damage."

I'm thinking if I tell him to walk, he's going to be back on the bike again as soon as he's out of my sight. He's already lifted his bike over a gate with a "Trail Closed" sign. He's already ridden over the totally mud filled beginner section. The damage is done.

Me: "Whatever."

There's always some way to rationalize what you want to do. If you don't have the balls to own up to flouting the rules I'm not going to help you come up with an euphemism to pretend you aren't.

Walt


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Why are the trails being poached? Lack of other options? The trails are well designed and the best around so people ride them? Is it one rider or age group of riders in particular? Its a transit trail between two legal trails?

I think if you can answer some of those questions you've isolated the issue and can build a constructive case from that basis. For instance, if its kids who don't have cars to travel you'd want to call their use something different than freeriders cutting DH lines or technical trail features. Figure out the why, and then address that as constructively as possible.

I do think poaching is a good term, you know you're trespassing or breaking some rule, and the harm that's being done is to future access efforts. I need to come up with something besides "bootleg" trails for rogue trail building...


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

thefriar said:


> Why are the trails being poached? Lack of other options? The trails are well designed and the best around so people ride them? Is it one rider or age group of riders in particular? Its a transit trail between two legal trails?
> 
> I think if you can answer some of those questions you've isolated the issue and can build a constructive case from that basis. For instance, if its kids who don't have cars to travel you'd want to call their use something different than freeriders cutting DH lines or technical trail features. Figure out the why, and then address that as constructively as possible.
> 
> I do think poaching is a good term, you know you're trespassing or breaking some rule, and the harm that's being done is to future access efforts. I need to come up with something besides "bootleg" trails for rogue trail building...


Often trails are being poached because many MTBers have a sense of entitlement to do whatever they want. It's all about them. They don't think of the repercussions of their action as long as they're getting their short term gratification.

IMO, the MTB community needs to tackle that issue head on before we make any other arguments. I have found that access comes from stewardship and respect and not the other way around.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

When discussing trail issues with CDF&G and USF&WS, I'd use "illegal" before I would use "poaching". And I never refer to the issue as "illegal", as I stated in above post. 

Mike is referring to the common scenario, where, for whatever reason, whether it makes sense or not, there's a law, rule, code, etc. that states "No Bikes Allowed on these Trails".When we, us riders, don't agree with this sign, we have a few options:
1. Comply
2. Complain and advocate for change
3. ( ) = Break the Law

Filling in the parenthesis above does nothing to change the situation. And Walt's post brings this 360 degrees. With the shoe on the other foot, in his scenario, Walt represents the LM figure and the rider represents us, the riding community. Excuses, ignorance, and creative colorful ways do downplay or minimize our actions only underminds our credibility.

When it's your sweat, countless hours of meetings, and far too many missed days on the saddle that earned you the privilege to be able to work and maintain a trail, you post a sign clearly stating "Trail Closed" in order to ensure this trail continues to provide miles of smiles, as long as we can find a more acceptable word, everyone here would have no problem with rider after rider coming by, f---ing up your trail, not offering to help? And let's say 5 riders were asked if they saw the "Trail Closed" sign, the one you physically have to move in order to pass. 2 look you straight in the eyes and answer "what sign, dude?" 2 answer "We were not consulted with this closure, it doesn't fit into our riding schedule, therefore, blah blah. The last rider says, "I saw the sign, I moved the sign. You have a problem with that?"

The 5 riders are all of us. Think of the answer YOU would like to hear if YOU had to listen to an endless stream of riders erasing the work you have just completed.


----------



## x-ker (Jul 12, 2006)

big "no bikes sign" 
it's not illegal to ride it
it's presently unauthorized

new trail has sprung up in the area 
it's not a rouge trail
it's an undesignated trail


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Unauthorized use.

Probably the best you're going to get Mike.

Good luck with the battle.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Presently Unauthorized Use is great*

The responses I am getting here have been invaluable. They are, however, quite different from what I am getting from the Norcal Forum. We have 10 million people in the Bay area and a burgeoning mtb community.

Issues in this Forum seem to focus on trails closed for repair, rebuilding, rehab, or seasonal needs. Issues in Norcal have more to do with extant trail systems in local district and state and public parks excluding mountain bikers in service of a privileged access of other user groups. They are seen as arbitrary, supported by mythic models of mtb behavior and erroneous attitudes about erosion. The use of these trails by riders is a confrontation of these arbitrary rules and is not abating.

My call is that a trail closed for repair and such would be respected by these same riders.

There is something of the renegade in the use of the word "poaching." I think its use is a self-defeating braggadocio which, as such, undermines the effect of the stance. Clearly some feel that unauthorized use of trail is a form of civil disobedience. I'm not sure I disagree. I would like to see a change in the language; the terms of the argument of rights presumed not necessarily supportable by the facts.

Presently Unauthorized points to inevitable movement in the issue.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Social trails


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Bsieb. What does on call the behavior*

of riding social trails?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Here Mike. I don't know if your local government cares what goes on in another country.

I live on Vancouver Island in British Columbia where 4 out of 5 Regional District Governments officially recognize bicycle riding as legitimate use of multi-use trails in their regional and community parks. It's written in to their mandate that trail systems must be built to accommodate horses, hikers and bicycles where ever possible.

It could be 5 out of 5 but I've never dealt with the 5th Regional District so I don't know for sure.

I also know that the District of North Vancouver recognizes bicycles as legitimate use on their trails.

I can give you contact information for the Regional Districts on Vancouver Island if you want to get in touch with them. I don't know anybody in North Vancouver but you may get some information from this site.

http://nsmba.ca/


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

"user" trails or "volunteer" trails


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Berkeley Mike said:


> of riding social trails?


mountain biking


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

zrm said:


> Often trails are being poached because many MTBers have a sense of entitlement to do whatever they want. It's all about them. They don't think of the repercussions of their action as long as they're getting their short term gratification.
> 
> IMO, the MTB community needs to tackle that issue head on before we make any other arguments. I have found that access comes from stewardship and respect and not the other way around.


Over the years I have seen many areas that were closed to mountain bikes in order to "protect the environment" get traded away for one purpose or another and turn into housing areas. Many areas have never been officially open to recreational use, but have a 40 year history of trail use. One of my favorite riding areas is being turned into a cemetary, while we were told for years that area was closed to protect the environment. I am glad I rode it while I could. Cyclists don't hurt the environment nearly as much as bulldozers do.

I don't ride on trails when my riding hurts the trails. I don't believe that all muddy trails should be off limits. If I know from prior experience that an area will turn to moondust anyway over the summer, or will just flood again next rainy season and obliterate the trail, I don't worry too much about it. Seasonal flooding due to overdevelopment of the water shed causes so much flooding in the local canyons that many of the trails seem brand new every season.


----------



## SunDog (Feb 21, 2004)

bsieb said:


> Social trails


Social Trail = non-system or un-recognized trail (does not define legal ststus) vs. the activity of knowingly encroaching on a trail that is known to be closed to MTB'ers inspite of potential reprecussions to fellow MTB'ers reputations and access issues.

Poaching is what it is, and the term fits very well. Tis a selfish deed.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Issues in this Forum seem to focus on trails closed for repair, rebuilding, rehab, or seasonal needs. Issues in Norcal have more to do with extant trail systems in local district and state and public parks excluding mountain bikers in service of a privileged access of other user groups. They are seen as arbitrary, supported by mythic models of mtb behavior and erroneous attitudes about erosion. The use of these trails by riders is a confrontation of these arbitrary rules and is not abating.


That goes straight back to where the word poaching came from. Taking game on the King's land. I'm pretty sure it was punishable by death. With Vanderman out of the picture at least you won't have anyone lobbying for that, right? But it seems to me like poaching is the right word. It's what is happening there, those disenfranchised of the right to use the land are taking it from the privileged group.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

epic said:


> That goes straight back to where the word poaching came from. Taking game on the King's land. I'm pretty sure it was punishable by death. With Vanderman out of the picture at least you won't have anyone lobbying for that, right? But it seems to me like poaching is the right word. It's what is happening there, those disenfranchised of the right to use the land are taking it from the privileged group.


I though poaching had to do with eggs. No wonder I had such a hard time figuring out the correlation. :idea:


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*This is one pretty clear statement about "poaching."*



epic said:


> That goes straight back to where the word poaching came from. Taking game on the King's land. I'm pretty sure it was punishable by death. With Vanderman out of the picture at least you won't have anyone lobbying for that, right? But it seems to me like poaching is the right word. It's what is happening there, those disenfranchised of the right to use the land are taking it from the privileged group.


It is, however, romantic and hopelessly outdated. It is hardly how we encounter the event in modern times. Poaching these days takes the form of killing elephants for their ivory and other animals who are endangered. Both are far more vicious and reprehensible behaviors. The metaphor is far more damaging.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

zrm said:


> I though poaching had to do with eggs. No wonder I had such a hard time figuring out the correlation. :idea:


Well yes, if you steal the Kings eggs. As near as I can figure, the closest one is King Juan Carlos in Spain.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It is, however, romantic and hopelessly outdated. It is hardly how we encounter the event in modern times. Poaching these days takes the form of killing elephants for their ivory and other animals who are endangered. Both are far more vicious and reprehensible behaviors. The metaphor is far more damaging.


I refrain from using any negative word in association with mountain bikers or biking in a public setting. Sometimes that requires tremendous creativity. 

I realize the word poach has a slang meaning to mountain bikers but public perception of us is already flaky because of the constant portrayal of bikers as renegades with attitude. We bikers play to that perception and effectively shoot ourselves in the other foot.


----------



## roxnroots (Aug 12, 2010)

*roxnroots*

How about "Stealthing" a trail?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

bsieb said:


> I refrain from using any negative word in association with mountain bikers or biking in a public setting. Sometimes that requires tremendous creativity.
> 
> I realize the word poach has a slang meaning to mountain bikers but public perception of us is already flaky because of the constant portrayal of bikers as renegades with attitude. We bikers play to that perception and effectively shoot ourselves in the other foot.


You might be the only one here who understands what it means from a trail builder / maintainer standpoint, those of us who have developed the close personal relationships with land managers that allow us to work on their land, and other trail users to avoid conflicts.

I / we work with USFS, CA State Parks, local county and city parks. All these land managers use the terms "user" trail or "volunteer" trail. They work with their counterparts all around the country, and with other trail use / advocacy groups. From what I understand, these terms are very commonly used by land managers.

"User" trails are ones that just kind of happen when everyone follows the same route into an area. These are common in open space that is surrounded my residences. "Volunteer" trails are intentionally worked by someone to clear and open restricted paths, usually by trimming vegetation, moving rocks, or downfall.

Our group works very closely with the land managers, equestrian and hiker user groups. We all get along because we learned years ago that confrontation does not allow progress. We very intentionally do not say anything bad about each other in public. WE CHOOSE TO GET ALONG.

Now tell me, what more innocuous terms can you think of that point no blame other than _user_ and _volunteer_? These words were chosen and used for a reason. Think about it.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

slocaus said:


> Now tell me, what more innocuous terms can you think of that point no blame other than _user_ and _volunteer_? These words were chosen and used for a reason. Think about it.


I like, thoughtful, analytical, and very diplomatic.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

Boulder Pilot said:


> When discussing trail issues with CDF&G and USF&WS, I'd use "illegal" before I would use "poaching". And I never refer to the issue as "illegal", as I stated in above post.
> 
> Mike is referring to the common scenario, where, for whatever reason, whether it makes sense or not, there's a law, rule, code, etc. that states "No Bikes Allowed on these Trails".When we, us riders, don't agree with this sign, we have a few options:
> 1. Comply
> ...


Prior to the last two years I spent two months in my RV in the Whistler ski parking lot over a ten year period. During a rainy period I decided to figure out a route between two black diamond trails, Side Track and Dirt Merchant. After figuring out the route I asked for permission to build it and my request was granted.

Each year after completing the trail I would go in on rainy day and do trail maintenance. Rather than post a sign that the trail was closed for maintenance I would just yell out when riders were coming STOP. The riders would stop while I moved out of the way then they would blast by with a BIG SMILE  and say "thanks for the maintenance bro".

Being a person who has ridden trails posted closed I have rarely ever understood why the sign was still up. Many landmanagers don't have the manpower to take down Closed Signs when the conditions are fine for riding, plus many don't cater to MTBR's so they will wait several days or weeks to take the sign down.

I once had a friend who worked for a MAJOR BIKE and component manufacturer. At one of the meetings in the Bay Area the Sales Manager asked which trail was the most favorite for each sales rep. to ride, my friend said CNAT. Fifteen years later he is still riding those CNAT trails and the earth is still intact.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I like user and volunteer, neutral and positively oriented. No chance for a sound byte op. 

We don't close trails around here and so have none of the associated problems... yet. Our YCC trail crews are thrilled when real mountain bikers ride through. Our volunteer crew likes it too, we're glad someone is using what we are doing and noticing the difference. I make a real effort to NOT impose any guilt if I know the riders, after all, where would a trail builder be with no riders? In the end it's the riders who make the trail, they are the finishing tool we use to complete that wonderful trail we imagined. We want them to feel involved even if they are only riding, then later maybe they want to be more involved. We consider trail building a privilege and are always pleased when riders like the experience we've created. 

I realize that may sound a little idealistic to folks from higher population density areas, but it's the reality here, for now. I think my attitude is common among artists, which is what I am and I can't help that. I suspect many of you are artists, and in the end we build trails because we cannot not build trails. We should have some artistic humility about the opportunity to work in an exciting sculptural medium, and accept that we don't always have total control.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I like user and volunteer, neutral and positively oriented. No chance for a sound byte op.
> 
> We don't close trails around here and so have none of the associated problems... yet. Our YCC trail crews are thrilled when real mountain bikers ride through. Our volunteer crew likes it too, we're glad someone is using what we are doing and noticing the difference. I make a real effort to NOT impose any guilt if I know the riders, after all, where would a trail builder be with no riders? In the end it's the riders who make the trail, they are the finishing tool we use to complete that wonderful trail we imagined. We want them to feel involved even if they are only riding, then later maybe they want to be more involved. We consider trail building a privilege and are always pleased when riders like the experience we've created.
> 
> I realize that may sound a little idealistic to folks from higher population density areas, but it's the reality here, for now. I think my attitude is common among artists, which is what I am and I can't help that. I suspect many of you are artists, and in the end we build trails because we cannot not build trails. We should have some artistic humility about the opportunity to work in an exciting sculptural medium, and accept that we don't always have total control.


Huh, what do you know? I thought it was just me, until I met Digger. I guess there's more of us than I thought.

Have you ever built a trail that wasn't meant to be ridden? I have.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

U can't think of a better term for riding a trail that is closed to bikes.

Illegally creating a trail is a different thing.

IMO the mtb community should not sugar coat illegal activity that some people do. It should be confronted head on.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

zrm said:


> U can't think of a better term for riding a trail that is closed to bikes.
> 
> Illegally creating a trail is a different thing.
> 
> IMO the mtb community should not sugar coat illegal activity that some people do. It should be confronted head on.


It's not always that simple or black and white, the legitimization of unauthorized activity is the way it's done in this democratic society. Probably half the trails in existence started as "illegal activity". The challenge is to bring all trail activity into legitimacy, not to polarize the biking community with meaningless accusations. Doing things the "right" way doesn't always result in superior trails, or even trails. According to your point of view we live in an illegal nation built on an illegal revolution by outlaws.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

bsieb said:


> It's not always that simple or black and white, the legitimization of unauthorized activity is the way it's done in this democratic society. Probably half the trails in existence started as "illegal activity". The challenge is to bring all trail activity into legitimacy, not to polarize the biking community with meaningless accusations. Doing things the "right" way doesn't always result in superior trails, or even trails. According to your point of view we live in an illegal nation built on an illegal revolution by outlaws.


A local example:

The Regional District (County, sort of) acquired a 500 acre parcel from the Province. the area was laced with "illegal" trails that people have been building and using for decades, possibly centuries.

An assessment of the trails was done with input from hikers, cyclists and equestrians.

As a result, we have trails designated as "walking only", "cycling & walking", and "multi-use". We also have miles of trails that were closed and reclaimed.

All the trails were illegal to begin with as the provincial laws forbid building or maintaining trails on crown land.

Nobody is going to stop "volunteer" trails from happening. You get enough people on foot willing to travel in one direction and you have a trail (sort of). These trails, if they are popular enough will eventually attract volunteers to maintain them and maybe even volunteers to upgrade them.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

I just want to clarify something:

My above post where I used the hypothetical situation of posting the "Trail Closed" sign was meant to present a perception that land managers may have and then use in their arguments.

I've experienced on more than one occassion the necessity to ensure no travel occur while conducting work on an existing or new trail. To accomplish this, information in the form of signage, is posted at all trail heads that have a trail that someone could take to the area in question. Furthermore, signage is placed before an alternate route, informing, once again, of the temporary trail closure and directs the trail user to use the upcomming alternate trail, as a courtesy, so the trail user doesn't travel to the point of closure and then is instructed to turn around.

Forget about the purpose for the signage, let's focus on the signage. The signage states the trail or section of trail is closed. There are three levels of signage, the two mentioned above, and the third positioned in front of a physical barrier blocking access. 

Other than posting a human at each trail head and every fork in the trail and at the physical barriers at each end of the temporarily closed trail, where the signage is in place, I think it's reasonable to conclude the message has been effectively delivered in a most efficient way.

So, when standing 1/2 mile inside of the physical barrier that has a sign in front of it, and another sign and another sign, one turns and sees a group of mountain bikers cruising up the trail. 

My point is the blatant disrespect, the attitude, and/or the lack of mental capacity exhibited in this scenario. This isn't about closing a trail to conduct trail work. This is about ones decision to ignore, for whatever reason, a directive. This is not about civil disobediance or an act meant to bring about change. 

I agree that there are many examples where unauthorized trails have been added to official trail systems. I acknowledge the fact these trails would never have been considered to be included if not for trail users to continue to use the trails while there was policy against said use. Most of the time these (insert your word of choice here) trails are examples of a need that is not officially being addressed in the area. Anyone spending any amount of time advocating for trails would be overjoyed if the process moved as fast as a snails pace.

Different situations require different strategies. But one cannot forget that behavior meant to demonstrate or deliver a message to a specific target audience may well be seen by others that may have a real agenda against you or your activity. In California, for example, Cal. Gov. Code includes bicycles in the category of "motorized vehicle", there by excluding bicycle access within property managed by the Cal. Dept of F&G. One can petition for an amendment that will grant a special conditional use for a specific site. To ignore this law would demonstrate a need that is not being met. There may even be CDF&G field officers that disagree with this ridiculous categorization. I don't believe CDF&G have an agenda against mountain bikers. I do know there are people that do have an agenda, are organized and have the influence to carry out their agenda. I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything other than to think. Weigh your options in your situation. Then deal with the issue, whatever word you choose to define it. But deal with it.


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

As green and progressive as San Franciscans and Northern Californians think they are, it's amazing they have not grasped the idea of smart development like Vancouver and the surrounding metro area. We're stuck building obnoxious urban sprawl, then we end up arguing over the environmental impacts of trail access!? 

Over in our neck of the woods, there's a very vocal minority of mostly older hikers and equestrians who deride mountain bikers as rude and unruly trail users. On top of that, they often demand that an environmental impact report be written up for new trails, or they'll even require an Environment Impact Report be written up for an existing trail to see if mountain bike use on the trail would be suitable. It amazing how much energy some of these eco-wingnuts spend fighting mountain bikers, especially when you consider the amount of illegal marijuana cultivation that takes place on county, state, and government lands- which has MAJOR ecological implications for the surrounding ecosystems. 

I honestly think the Paradise Royale trail system on BLM land in Humboldt County is a step in the right direction. The local mountain bike community has consistently proven that we put in much more trail work than other groups of trail users. Given the current environment in California, I think we need more mountain bike specific trails. Let us build them and let us maintain them- then let's compare the trail erosion effects of our bike trails vs their hiking trails.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*It is so much easier to have success when you have a lot of room*

and a lot fewer people. The SF Bay area has 8,000,000 people, nearly one quarter of the entire population of Canada in an area of about 2000 square miles.

And I don't want to hear about Vancouver and no sprawl. Just head up the Frazier River and watch it near Port Coquitlam and Port Moody from the rivers edge to the mountains above. Look at Surry and Westminster. It has happened wherever it is flat and buildable. The terrain prevents the traditional urban sprawl, not some superior eco-philosophy.

Give me a break. While there is tons of open space you can get the trails you want.

In the East Bay the East Bay Regional Parks District seems to swallow all the open space and keep there basic MTB-on-fire-roads rules in place. Other intersticial spaces are consumed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (read Water folk) who do not allow bikes on their land at all. For the most part it is all carved up and claimed.

In Marin it is the Marin Water Folk and the State Parks and their rules supported by age old relationships withe the Marin Equestrian Groups. Mountain Bikers are latecomers with little leverage.


----------



## Lawson Raider (Jul 24, 2006)

Vandalism is one word you can use. When folks ride trails and damage them, it could be termed as such since they are actually damaging property that isn't theirs. There are just those folks out there that don't care about signs and such, they'll just take them down or ride around them and rut up miles of trails.


----------



## MartyW (Dec 13, 2004)

"bootleg"... 
Illegal by current law, but likely to change in the future. Also reflects euphoria connected to use.


----------



## Mt. Tam Haze (Feb 23, 2009)

I call it biking, and if the persons really got a problem ill pull out my saw and explain i have been doing trail maintenance.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

Lawson Raider said:


> Vandalism is one word you can use. When folks ride trails and damage them, it could be termed as such since they are actually damaging property that isn't theirs. There are just those folks out there that don't care about signs and such, they'll just take them down or ride around them and rut up miles of trails.


Oh please. Now riding closed trails is vandalism?


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

I call it exploring.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

epic said:


> Oh please. Now riding closed trails is vandalism?


If it's approved by the LM, yes, it is vandalism in certain places.


----------



## Haus Boss (Jun 4, 2010)

Imma call it skeet skeeting. 

"Maaan, I just skeeeted all over your trail!"


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

epic said:


> Oh please. Now riding closed trails is vandalism?


In the scenario described by Lawson, you could be charged and convicted of vandalism. You don't have to call it that but it comes in handy knowing which laws you are breaking and what the possible consequences are.

"it's not right" or "it's not fair" or "everybody else was doing it" won't help you a bit in court.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*These trails you folks are talking about*

in reference to vandalism; are they closed to horses and hikers too?


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Guys, think about a term you would use in front of a land manager or group of people who see such use as yet more reason to continue keeping us off of trails. I think we can describe such trail use in a more positive way; it may currently be illegal but we don't think, for any number of reasons, it ought to be.
> 
> People who oppose our use employ words like trespassing, breaking the law, violating the law. It plays against us from the get-go.
> 
> ...


Mike, let's call a spade a spade, OK? All you are doing is trying to socially engineer a new term for something that already has a term and that already exists for illegal actions or behavior. Doing so, you are trying to justify your actions by coining a new term.

Social engineering is no different than having multiple accounts here on MTBR, sock puppeting, posing as a minor on Facebook to hookup with underage girls for sexual activity, whatever... It's deceitful, it's a lie, and it goes from harmless to having severe repercussions for ones actions.

Rather than trying to change the way people the majority of managers and trail users look at such trail use (illegal), it would be far easier to educate and modify the behavior of the perpetrators of trespass or fraudulently misrepresenting their behavior, trespassing or poaching, or stealing the use of land they don't have the right to use in the manner they are using.

You spread propaganda by trying to spin or misrepresent poaching for something else. Poaching fits, pure and simple, no need for another term of it, or to try to even justify your activities. If you get caught, explain it to a judge, others have explained it quite clearly to you here. You condone illegal behavior by trying to give it "spin"


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> in reference to vandalism; are they closed to horses and hikers too?


What part of "trail closed for rehabilitation" don't you understand? :nono: Are you either aloof or illiterate?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Hello again....*



Berkeley Mike said:


> The responses I am getting here have been invaluable. They are, however, quite different from what I am getting from the Norcal Forum. We have 10 million people in the Bay area and a burgeoning mtb community.


Quite different responses indeed! Until I stumbled in here today (I think I'm going to keep expanding the "Norcal Forum = tavern full of drunks" analogy) I had no idea that you started this thread in more than one forum.

"Exploring" has got to be the PC synonym for "Poaching".

While I'm poking my nose in this "bar"; how many of you guys are also Sierra Club members? (don't be afraid---I came out of the closet)


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The reasons trails are closed are varied.*

Not all are off-limits for the same reason:
1) Closing trails for seasonal reasons.
2) Environmental reasons.
3) Wilderness designation.
4) Private property.

I came to this part of MTBR to find out more about how people feel about trail closures. I've gotten an education for sure. For those of you who build and maintain trails people who ignore closures should be shot. For those of you who are sensitive to the environment those who ignore closures should be pilloried. Wilderness? Private property? There are methods for managing that. I can find fault with none of these.

That is why I asked if horse and people were allowed on trails that excluded bikes. It is practically arbitrary where we are and efforts to change it are nearly futile. That is a much more common issue in the SF Bay area where riders respect seasonal and environmental closures with more zeal than many. We don't have wilderness. Private poaching?: there are idiots everywhere.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

In my neck of the woods when a trail is closed, lets say for erosion issues - which is quite common, its closed to all user types. Typically those closures are approved by the LM and riding or re-opening the closed trail would be vandalism. If the trail gnomes catch an abuser, since the gnomes are organized volunteers and not on city payroll they take ownership seriously, they'll probably give the abuser an earful and possibly report the abuser to the LM for appropriate action.


----------



## elrancho66 (May 31, 2007)

*"Non- System Trail" name designation*



Berkeley Mike said:


> Guys, think about a term you would use in front of a land manager or group of people who see such use as yet more reason to continue keeping us off of trails. I think we can describe such trail use in a more positive way; it may currently be illegal but we don't think, for any number of reasons, it ought to be.
> 
> People who oppose our use employ words like trespassing, breaking the law, violating the law. It plays against us from the get-go.
> 
> ...


I've been using the term "non-system trail" successfully for many years when categorizing an existing trail that is not currently legal or recognized by land managers.


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

Where I live, there would be no trail if some rules had not been broken. If you can hike and horseback, then you should be able to ride.


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

haha what the hell is happening in this thread?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*What happened? My call.*

Once it stopped being a clear cut knee-jerk reaction it wasn't so easy to manage the idea of unauthorized trails.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Skookum said:


> haha what the hell is happening in this thread?


From the viewpoint of a trail builder who works with the land managers that Berkley Mike wanted to communicate with,



Berkely Mike said:


> Guys, think about a term you would use in front of a land manager or group of people who see such use as yet more *reason to continue keeping us off of trails*.


But note that he is not really looking for a word about trail uses, he has the agenda of "*reason to continue keeping us off of trails*". This is really about whining about all the "mean old land managers" who keep him off the trails, and he is trying to justify why he can poach, and it is ok. He wants to whine instead of spending the time and commitment to work in the system to win trust and change the way it is. In effect, he is his own worst enemy, complaining that someone else give him the access that he feels he is entitled to have.

He is asking for support and justification for his illegal activities. RandyBoy nailed it:



RandyBoy said:


> Mike, let's call a spade a spade, OK? All you are doing is trying to socially engineer a new term for something that already has a term and that already exists for illegal actions or behavior. Doing so, you are trying to justify your actions by coining a new term.
> 
> Social engineering is no different than having multiple accounts here on MTBR, sock puppeting, posing as a minor on Facebook to hookup with underage girls for sexual activity, whatever... It's deceitful, it's a lie, and it goes from harmless to having severe repercussions for ones actions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I've been working access issues here in the SF Bay area for 15 years.*

This area is widely regarded by IMBA as the toughest place for trails access issues in the States.

It is easy to avoid understanding the issues you don't have to face. It is easy if your circumstances are different. You guys aren't crazy or stupid. Go back and read some of the stuff on population densities, land acquisitions, state institutions, utilities companies, agencies and such. It appears to me that you have simply stopped thinking and tossed off a few words to deflect the issue as one of foible and weak-mindedness. We aren't stupid or crazy either.

What we have here is a stalemate against managers, Directors and the like who we try to replace as they retire with new candidates open to new thinking. These old guys hold onto their offices for ever. Absent that we have to be resourceful in the way we approach the problem. It doesn't take much brains to say anyone who crosses the line is breaking the law. The interesting thing about that sort of human behavior is that it totally stops the thinking process. A decision has been made and that is it. Simple. maybe even a mark of justice in the system, but closed..

Yet such thinking never stops to appreciate how these laws were set up to support a status quo and that all understanding stems from that. It fails to appreciate that the basic assumptions about how and why we can share trails may be very flawed. In spite of that anyone who complains about mtb presence, hater, crank, you name it, can do it in the name of the law. These folks don't have to think. They have things just the way they want them. They are protected. They don't have to share. They can hike, jog, hold running races, walk dogs, ride horses and hold huge horse events on trails right behind my house and I can't.

Something is terribly wrong here and there is not a facility for change that has worked for us thus far. We end up right back where we started. Good behavior is set aside a nice but not pertinent to the problem of shared trails and scofflaws.So those who ride those trails see no reason to obey unjust laws which are seen as arbitrary. These are bright, professional, tax-paying, hard working people who have decided after so many years of fighting this battle that they get nothing if they comply. They are not stupid or crazy either.

Close a section of land due to seasonal salamanders? No problem.
Close a section due to nasty winter conditions? No problem.
Under construction, sensitive habitat? Same thing.

It is the exclusion that favors the status quo, and has for so many years, that is being challenged by riding unauthorized trails. If someone doesn't want us there crossing the line can conveniently called one thing. If we see the laws as unjust and even subject ultimately to change, we can call it something else.

It must be understood that I cannot ride unauthorized trails. I am a High school MTB Coach. I can't be seen to ride them or take the kids out there in loco parentis. I have to be as Caesar's wife as they say; beyond reproach. I have been trying to keep people off of closed trails for years to no avail. It is impractical. It is too simplistic to say that MTBers have an overly developed sense of entitlement. Remember that is mostly said by people who don't want to share their entitlement and don't have to. Something is rotten in Denmark. It is time to stop blaming the riders here. It is time to look at this in a new way, to own it, to press it forward to make change.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> This area is widely regarded by IMBA as the toughest place for trails access issues in the States.
> 
> It is easy to avoid understanding the issues you don't have to face. Go back and read some of the stuff on populations densities, state institutions, utilities companies, agencies and such. It appears to me that you have simply stopped thinking and tossed off a few words to deflect the issue as one of foible and weak-mindedness.
> 
> ...


Have you asked to sit in on the monthly meeting that most land managers have with the local user groups and learned to communicate with them in a civil manner, or is MTBR your only mouthpiece?

My local State Park has $55k to spend on trails, thanks to AT&T running cable. We voted to reroute and improve trails that we have no access to ride. We will be doing this for three years. We will put our money (as free volunteers) where our MOUTH is, and ask for access later. We have tremendous support from State Parks, equestrian groups, and hiker groups. Why? Because we work WITH them, and do not antagonize them, and call them names on MTBR and other on line forums, or publicly, anywhere. We CHOOSE to get along. Let me say that again, *WE CHOOSE TO GET ALONG*.

Your viewpoints are very negative. Learn to be POSITIVE and COOPERATIVE, and ask, nicely, to work WITH the land managers, and put in the time, years and years of time, make a real commitment.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Sure,*

I think that the political situation and the structures we have are very different from yours. The East Bay Regional Park District has a stranglehold on our parks. It is the largest agency of its kind in the nation controlling over 100,000 acres in the East Bay. Untold dozens of meetings over 15 years. The answer is no.

We recently replaced a board member with someone more sympathetic. The General Manager of 22 years is stepping down and the man following him is even less inclined to support us. We are pushing for national search rather than simply looking internally for a replacement.

I never talk to these people like I am sharing here. What you are hearing her is my assessment of the status quo, the stalemate, and the need for new point if view.

Be more positive.

Brilliant.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Finding another word for "poaching" is not going to help or change the issue that Berkeley Mike and all the mtb'ers in his area are faced with. And with all due respect Slocaus, for I know you are involved and make great things happen for the people in SLO, and anyone else for that matter, there is a "go to" mantra that advocates and wanna-be advocates always use in situations such as this, IMBA preaches this statement, *YOU NEED TO WORK WITH YOUR LAND MANAGERS*. But IMBA and the wanna-be advocates forgot the second part of the mantra, and without this part, *AND YOUR LAND MANAGERS NEED TO WORK WITH YOU* the first part is not going to produce the results one is lead to believe.

If one feels the need to school me on the process of advocacy, on how trust and relationships don't happen overnight, I suggest you do whatever makes you feel good. I've been around, and it seems Berkeley Mike has too.

The reason why trail access is being denied to these 80,000-240,000 taxpaying residents when other trail user groups are allowed on the trails in question? What's the reason(s)?

The wanna-be advocates get a little flustered when a group this huge is being denied trail access for a reason or reasons that quite frankly have nothing to do with anything their argument is based on. And when it is noted that every effort has and is being made to, come on everybody, one, two, three *WORK WITH THE LAND MANAGERS*, not beginning yesterday but decades ago, I love it when you guys say, "You hang in there, take the high road, THIS is the only way, the right way". If you believe this statement, which I have a real hard time thinking that you honestly believe this, but if you do, with the facts presented, no credible reasons, hikers and horses okay, bikes no way, land managers CHOOSING NOT TO WORK WITH A TRAIL USER GROUP with numbers over 100,000, one last time to jump off this bus, but if you insist trying to convince Berkeley Mike, me, or anyone that has faced the beast that if we keep taking the high road it will lead to a Kumbayah fu%&ing moment, then I know what you are and I'll leave it at that.

Solutions! Mike, next time you post about unjust denial of trail access, don't call it trail closure, it sounds temporary. You have land managers that don't want to work with you, right? Screw them. Who tells the LM'ers what to do? That's your target. If your talking City/County, hit _elected_ officials. You must present a compelling case based on facts and not emotion, logic and not opinions. If you can't do this, if 80,000-240,000 of you can't do this, take up another hobby. If you make a valid argument and elected officials ignore you, make a lot of noise about voting them out of office. And then vote them out!

The same applies with State and Federal officials. The biggest problem I have found is convincing fellow riders that in the time it takes to post in a mtb forum, one can compose a simple email and using this technology which includes the ability to write one letter BUT you can send this one letter to an infinate number of Senators, Congresspeople, Assemblypeople, Mayors, Govenors, all by clicking one button.

The next time someone feels the need to inform you that your fellow dirtbag mtb'ers are poaching, trespassing, riding illegally or use their word of choice to describe what you and everyone else already know is happening, ask them, "Why is this happening?"


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Concordance*



Boulder Pilot said:


> Finding another word for "poaching" is not going to help or change the issue that Berkeley Mike and all the mtb'ers in his area are faced with.


It won't change the issues but it does serve as a rallying point for the cause of equal access. This very same thread in the Norcal forum has over 350 posts and 6600 views---poaching is a big deal. It's a word that not everybody's comfortable with, hence the attempt to find something more agreeable.

The sense of discrimination is strong in the MTB communtiy here in Norcal, wording matters depending which side of the fence one is on. How the fence gets taken down is the underlying topic here. Some riders exercising "undocumented access" are those who are refusing to sit at the back of the bus. I hope some other Sierra Clubber reports me to the front office!


----------



## notflippant (Aug 30, 2010)

I know the problem. "Poaching" is a broad term that encompasses several types of people. And some of these people don't want to be associated with one another. So i propose three categories instead on just the one term-"poaching". Those people who do poach i will call trespassers, and those who poach and don't feel the need to come on mtbr and talk about it- explorers. Finally, those who waste there time talking about finding new words for poaching (unauthorized access exploding)- queefers


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The work in SLO is to be admired*

The cycling community there in San Luis Obispo is very well developed and organized. My very best riders race down there for Cal Poly (Go Wheelmen!) and are at the front of the pack. They sure didn't come from SLO! 

Anyhow I want to point out something I suggested was a factor earlier in this thread and that is size and population density. We are active in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties where the East Bay Regional Park District controls over 125,000 acres (new acquisitions left out of previous post. My bad.) These are the latest figures I could find from the State of California on the counties in question re population and area:

county population area people per sq mi

Alameda 1,574,000 737	2136
Contra Costa 1,073,000 720	1490
total 2,647,000 1457	1816

San Luis Obispo 270,000 3304 82

Pardon my clumsy formatting. Please see below.

SLO is 2.3 times the size of our counties combined but with only 5% of the population. It also has a 20% slower growth rate than Ala/CC even though they are more urban. The pressure on land in SLO is far less than our area. Scarcity is a huge factor in the size of slices from a pie.

I really have to repeat that I am not here to complain. I am here to understand, in a larger context, the use of unauthorized trails. The most important thing I am finding is that we all have problems with trails access (duh!) and the use of unauthorized trails but also that we all do not agree on what "poaching" is. Hmmmmm. notflippant is one of the first to address this directly. notflippant also represents a faction who doesn't believe in discussing the matter or that discussion is useful. I as head queefer, disagree.

The other notable things found here were very strong feelings about certain kinds of unauthorized trail usage such as invading closures due to habitat, seasonal conditions and construction. In our area I think it fair to say we are also very sensitive to such transgression.

To a lesser degree I heard about trespassing on private land, which I find interesting, blind-eye-wise. Clearly this is not a scientific study but still.....it is like the bullfighters beard. I find this interesting because, as with many written and unwritten rules, people draw their lines where it suits them. That or the folk concerned with private property simply did not participate here. Fair enough?

What I am not hearing much of is about a piece of ground that has a trail on it where equestrians and hikers and dogs can go and mtbers can't. Further what I will add here is equestrians have access to 96% of the park singletrack trails and we have access to 1-2%. That is the rub for us. As such mtbers take it upon themselves to enhance that 1-2% as all other prescribed methods for changing this within the Park's system have been a dead end by design, if not intention.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

What would they call it if it were hunters or hikers who were doing it?

I'm sure there would not be a negative connotation added. In our state plan they actually allow hunters and hikers to use these types of primitive trails but are not allowed to maintain them...talk about governmental lack of common sense.

We recently got the term "boot leg" trail removed from our state guidelines when speaking about mountain biking because of the negative connotation. "User created" or "Unmarked social trail" are some of the terms we suggested. 

We also mentioned how user created trails are an indicator that current needs of the bicycle user groups are not being met. Lack of a management plan by park officials can and will cause a loss of natural resources.

It's not us...it's them that's to blame!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*This is absolutely vital*



sick4surf said:


> What would they call it if it were hunters or hikers who were doing it?
> 
> I'm sure there would not be a negative connotation added. In our state plan they actually allow hunters and hikers to use these types of primitive trails but are not allowed to maintain them...talk about governmental lack of common sense.
> 
> ...


I take a great boost from hearing this. The language is so important. And the idea that user created trails are an indicator with an environmental cost is huge. Great work.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

Thanx!

They also tried to get language in our state plan that said if the mountain bicyclists don't adhere to the trail rules and self police themselves they would get kicked out.

I took great offense to this and asked if the same rules are applied to fishermen? If another fisherman catches an under sized fish do all the fishermen get kicked out? Is it the job of all the fishermen to police the other fishermen? Sometimes you need to point out the ridiculousness of their prejudicial policies. State workers have to treat everyone equally.

Regarding the "self policing" I asked the state official if he wanted to deputize us so I can rastle up a "posse" and go hunt for evil doers. LOL!

We are volunteers not vigilantes!

We are educators not enforcers!

BTW it's not poaching if you don't know the rules or trail markers are not clear at all entrances. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*good point...*



sick4surf said:


> Thanx!
> 
> They also tried to get language in our state plan that said if the mountain bicyclists don't adhere to the trail rules and self police themselves they would get kicked out.
> 
> I took great offense to this and asked if the same rules are applied to fishermen? If another fisherman catches an under sized fish do all the fishermen get kicked out? Is it the job of all the fishermen to police the other fishermen? Sometimes you need to point out the ridiculousness of their prejudicial policies. State workers have to treat everyone equally.


Another good point!

To expand on: _"We also mentioned how user created trails are an indicator that current needs of the bicycle user groups are not being met"_ would be to say like-wise "the un-sanctioned bicycle use of existing trails are an indicator that current needs of the bicycle user groups are not being met."


----------



## Warfare (Mar 15, 2010)

How do you handle it when land managers play dirty? Where I live, we have road reserves, basically just areas set aside for future roads, which often have trails. By law, you can ride bikes on these trails - it is not illegal, in fact it is perfectly legal. Yet, they put up "No Bikes" signs without any sort of directive, ordnance, or force behind them.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Warfare said:


> How do you handle it when land managers play dirty? Where I live, we have road reserves, basically just areas set aside for future roads, which often have trails. By law, you can ride bikes on these trails - it is not illegal, in fact it is perfectly legal. Yet, they put up "No Bikes" signs without any sort of directive, ordnance, or force behind them.


Who does? We have the same thing here called road allowances. The only land manager with any say is the Ministry of Highways.

Do you have some other authority in charge of the road reserve? Or is it your version of the Ministry of Highways putting up the signs?


----------



## Warfare (Mar 15, 2010)

Well the road reserves are owned by our state government Transport Department, and I believe the "No Bikes" signs are put up by the local area council of their own accord.


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

Here in Spartanburg S.C. We have 7,700 acres of natural area that horses can tear to shreds. You can hike, but the rangers tried to discourage that for years but they realized it was a losing battle. You could ride on roughly 400 acres that used to be a landfill in the 70's. Im sure the creeks that ooze from the old landfill are real healthy. We started making outlaw trail about ten years ago and over time we made about 25 miles of pure singletrack. The park has officially adopted about 12miles of trail that my back and sweat created. So I do feel some entitlement. Most of you so called mtbrs are people who will do nothing, and the rest are trail sanitizers and cry babies.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

tcstoned said:


> Most of you so called mtbrs are people who will do nothing, and the rest are trail sanitizers and cry babies.


Wow, you are the awesomest of the awesome. You're in S.C. so I guess we can give you a hall pass on manners and challenging trails. What about the rest of us who do something, make trails harder, and don't cry?

ESAD.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

thefriar said:


> Wow, you are the awesomest of the awesome. You're in S.C. so I guess we can give you a hall pass on manners and challenging trails. What about the rest of us who do something, make trails harder, and don't cry?
> 
> ESAD.


Oh, if you spend enough time building renegade (oops) trails, you *have* to cry once in a while.

I think I know where tcstoned is coming from. The building and advocacy forum isn't the best place to vent because most people who read this have put in their sweat equity. Any other forum is a waste of time because those who haven't done their time, don't think they need to, so tcstoned's rant doesn't apply to them.

thefriar, how many times have you heard "somebody should..." from people who obviously don't?

It's better that tcstoned rants here than have him swinging shovels at unappreciative riders who are telling him to get out of the way when they are poaching (this is what we use the word poaching for) closed trails he's working on.

Yes, I've heard *"thanks for all your hard work, now get your bike off these trails and don't come back"*


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Warfare said:


> Well the road reserves are owned by our state government Transport Department, and I believe the "No Bikes" signs are put up by the local area council of their own accord.


Check with the Transport Department, see if the Council has authority to close trails to bikes. If so, you'll have to go to Council & get them to change their mind. If not, ride the trails and be prepared to quote the Transport Department to authorities who try to stop you.

It really helps to *know*. It's nice to be able to answer "Who said you could build trails here? " with "The Mayor" or "Joe Smith at the Ministry of Transport".


----------



## tcstoned (Mar 29, 2006)

Let me reiterate that some of the poached trail has become legal. The only reason the state adopted the trail, was because it was free and already there. Sometimes things work better in reverse. I hope you geniuses can understand S.C. mentality.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

tcstoned said:


> Let me reiterate that some of the poached trail has become legal. The only reason the state adopted the trail, was because it was free and already there. Sometimes things work better in reverse. I hope you geniuses can understand S.C. mentality.


Ah, I get it. I was reading "the state took over the trail and weren't allowing bikes".

I've had it go both ways. I even had government officials guarantee that bikes would be allowed on the trails I built and when they were done, other departments designated them "hiking only".


----------



## wildskycomet (Sep 15, 2005)

Shades of grey? In Vermont there is an open land policy and a Landowner Liability Statute that protects the landowner against liability, as long as the landowners doesn't charge for access. As I explore various user group trails, crossing various private properties, utilizing all manner of public and private manners of access, am I poaching? Or does the term poaching apply only if the landowner has "properly posted" his property or provided some sort of notice to me or my associates that they would prefer us not to use bicycles on their property and cyclysts choose to diregard the notice (riding past the trail closed sign)? What about a sign put up by a different user group that states "No Wheeled Vehicles" on a piece of private property they cross and don't own? Am I a wheeled vehicle? Are or only those machines with wheels that are required to meet state vehicular standards if they can be used on public roads or require registration, or utilize some form of combustion engine considered a vehicle? As I explore in order to determine what landowners to contact in order to utilize existing or legacy trails and obtain permission, am I poaching? Given the lack of directives against mtnbk use on any given property, am I breaking the law and subject to the term suggesting as much? Even tho work with the USFS in my part of the world is glacially slow, beurocratic, arbitrary and sometimes lacking good common sense, there is a process where we can work together. One of my projects invloves rdiing, documenting, photographing trails that could be suitable for mtnbk use (albeit not sexy singletrack) and places where trails are being used so that they know what areas to consider and where we might work together to get them approved. It is an area where things can work backwards too. Proposing new construction however...(see glacial speed, impact staements, etc...). 
I believe a lot of the terms here can be viewed more positively by land managers and private property owners. Poaching has been an easy one, probably the most cavalier, to use. I don't believe it always should be used tho. 
(there are a few "terrible groups/situations/designations where we are considered vehicles, that I'd prefer to disregard, right?)


----------

