RS 2477 Reform is Needed to Protect Private Property

[Crowdog]

RS 2477 Reform is Needed to Protect Private Property
Mark Boslough

A lot has been said about the 1866 law known as RS 2477. Some people have even suggested that RS 2477 protects access to inholders who are surrounded by Federal land. While this may be true in some circumstances, it is a double-edged sword--a very sharp and dangerous one.
Landowners who invoke RS 2477 could end up deeply regretting it, because its use could result in creating a public road or off-road recreation area on their own property. And since there is a vast array of other laws that can be used to create private easements for access (as opposed to public highways), inholders do not need to put their own property at risk.

For example, private prescriptive easements can be created along roads that have been used for access over a period of time (the period depends on state law). Inholders can always invoke an easement by necessity, which makes use of a condemnation process. Different states have various other laws, but the point is that inholders do not have to risk having their access road (including the portion that crosses their own property) recorded as a public highway, as it would be if RS 2477 were invoked.

Use of RS 2477 is not just a theoretical threat. My family found out first-hand that the threat is very real. Off-road organizations are actively promoting it as a means of creating recreation areas on private land.

Off-road clubs have a two-pronged strategy. First, they try to get county governments to seize rights-of-way across private land. If that doesn’t work they are willing to form vigilante groups that tear down fences, gates, barriers, and signs along routes they consider public under RS 2477.

There is a major legal problem with both of these approaches. Foremost, who has the burden of proof? Should ranchers be forced to defend their land by proving that their roads were built after their property was homesteaded? Can a county government declare that a road across private property pre-existed the patent and seize it without proof, or is documentation required? Regardless of one’s position on RS 2477 itself, that burden on owners would set a dangerous precedent that would certainly lead to abuse and erosion of private property rights that we hold dear.

The off-road vigilante approach also has problems. If a private group declares a right-of-way across private property and forms a shovel brigade to keep it open without fear of prosecution, then trespassing laws become ineffective. Any ATV rider, motorcyclist, or renegade hunter that is trespassing on private property for any reason can simply declare that they are on an RS 2477 route. Again, private property rights are eroded. Moreover, acceptance of vigilanteism reflects a loss of faith in the rule of law that is a fundamental pillar of our republic.

Nevertheless, off-road clubs have used the vigilante method against my own family’s property. My wife is a Colorado native with deep roots in the same area where I grew up. Since 1960, her family has owned a ranch crossed by Barking Dog Trail In recent years, this footpath and an adjacent creek were taken over by recreationists who drove specially modified rigs that are designed to crawl over the giant boulders that had formerly kept motorized vehicles out.. By the mid 1990’s a spider web of destruction was spreading like a cancer across the foothills and meadows of the ranch and surrounding land

In the late 1990’s I bought more land and doubled the size of my wife’s ranch. My intention was to restore the stream and re-create the healthy wetlands, improving wildlife habitat and reducing fire hazard by thinning the trees. I hired a forester at great expense. I went through the Colorado State Forest Service Approval process. I hand-planted hundreds of seedling trees; some to prevent erosion and others to harvest as Christmas trees to provide environmentally friendly income from our little forest agriculture operation when we retire.

But my project was sabotaged by a vigilante group calling itself About Public Lands (APL), consisting of members of the Mile-Hi Jeep Club and Trailridge Runners 4WD clubs, who claimed that Barking Dog Trail was open for public motorized recreation under RS 2477.

Like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which has claimed responsibility for similar acts of vandalism, APL ‘s activities have been reported by Stop Eco-Violence! SEV is an organization that monitors criminal acts of willful destruction and personal harassment that, according to its web site, have “inflicted significant, inexcusable harm on private citizens, law-abiding businesses, institutions and local communities.”

National off-road organizations like the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Tread Lightly have so far refused to condemn the vigilante activities of emerging groups like APL. In fact, national groups like Off-Road.com are taking strong anti-landowner positions.

In an attempt to justify vigilante attacks against private property, Off-road.com Land Use Editor Brad Ullrich wrote an article last year that made many statements about my family’s land that are demonstrably false. Ullrich (who has never been to Barking Dog Trail and is unfamiliar with the local geography and history) seems to think that the burden of proof is on landowners, not on the off-roaders who want to recreate on private property.

Ullrich closed his article with this direct challenge to me personally: “I am wondering on what you are basing the closing of the Barking Dog Road (sic).” Here is my answer: “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The fifth amendment of our Constitution trumps RS 2477.

Mark Udall’s RS 2477 reform bill deserves a second look by landowners who are concerned about preserving their property rights. In my view, his proposed legislation deserves broad bi-partisan support.

Fore more information, visit the author's web site: http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/ranch.html

http://sierratimes.com/04/02/13/ar_rs2477.htm

[vb]

Crowdog RS 2477 Reform is Needed to Protect Private Property
Mark Boslough

A lot has been said about the 1866 law known as RS 2477. Some people have even suggested that RS 2477 protects access to inholders who are surrounded by Federal land. While this may be true in some circumstances, it is a double-edged sword--a very sharp and dangerous one.
Landowners who invoke RS 2477 could end up deeply regretting it, because its use could result in creating a public road or off-road recreation area on their own property. And since there is a vast array of other laws that can be used to create private easements for access (as opposed to public highways), inholders do not need to put their own property at risk.

For example, private prescriptive easements can be created along roads that have been used for access over a period of time (the period depends on state law). Inholders can always invoke an easement by necessity, which makes use of a condemnation process. Different states have various other laws, but the point is that inholders do not have to risk having their access road (including the portion that crosses their own property) recorded as a public highway, as it would be if RS 2477 were invoked.

<<< all of the other avenues mean that unless everyone is agreeable then you have to sue each of your neighbors. and / or others. and then the agreements have to be recordable and follow in the title.the condemnation process that you talk of is a red hering for any private property owner (your suggesting that some judge or government condems a portion of your neighbors property. how right is that)and each of the avenues you suggest cost a great deal of money.
your point here also might be missed by some and that is you want to remove from the public what is rightfully thiers to use.
in the process it will put most land owners in a tough spot since as you well know each law suit will run hundreds of thousands. where a 2477 assertion is a simple matter (or at least should be) since if the road is a proper 2477 in the first place it is public!!
and presciptive easement can also make for a public road as well and needs to be desided by a judge. why is it that you are suggesting to folks that the should sue the neighbors ?





Use of RS 2477 is not just a theoretical threat. My family found out first-hand that the threat is very real. Off-road organizations are actively promoting it as a means of creating recreation areas on private land.

<<<< noone is "createing" anything and no one wants a thing to do with his private property. the road is a public road and we have the right to use the road. he has illegally obstructed a public road






Off-road clubs have a two-pronged strategy. First, they try to get county governments to seize rights-of-way across private land. If that doesn’t work they are willing to form vigilante groups that tear down fences, gates, barriers, and signs along routes they consider public under RS 2477.

<<<<< no one has asked the county to sieze anything. no one has taken down any fence any gates or any signs. we removed the illegal obstructions which were rocks and trees. this was not a group of vigilantes it was a group of folks that got together and exercised our right to remove obstructions of a public road which are given to us under colorado law. and with the full knowledge of the folks at the road department



There is a major legal problem with both of these approaches. Foremost, who has the burden of proof? Should ranchers be forced to defend their land by proving that their roads were built after their property was homesteaded? Can a county government declare that a road across private property pre-existed the patent and seize it without proof, or is documentation required? Regardless of one’s position on RS 2477 itself, that burden on owners would set a dangerous precedent that would certainly lead to abuse and erosion of private property rights that we hold dear.

<<<<< ranchers is one of those words that create a picture in the mind of a reader. mark boslough is not a rancher. he does not know which end of a cow faces forword and im pretty sure he could not ride a horse to save his life. he has no live stock on his property and never has. the term rancher is used by him to get support from those that truely are. in the case of this road the row was established prior to the property being patented so in other words the row (2477) was created over land not other wise reserved (public) . with 2477 no documentation is required. and in the case of this road simple logic along with topography and history make the case for row prior to patent .the owners in this case the bosloughs are very familiar with the area and the road has always been used by motorized vehicles . in fact if you read mayas recolection of being a little girl in the area she says that vehicles used the road. in fact the man that mr boslough bought the property from told mr boslough that the road was more then likely public and that it could be proved by prescriptive means or 2477. the borden should be on the land owner if he is going to claim that a public road is private property. and the owner (you) should have to prove that the road is other then public since others have an overwhelming amount of evedance that the road is public. in a differant way. if you want to continue to obstruct this public road you need to come up with at least one good reason that you believe the road is something other then public. which is why you are doing everything possable to avoid actually haveing a judge here your side of this.




The off-road vigilante approach also has problems. If a private group declares a right-of-way across private property and forms a shovel brigade to keep it open without fear of prosecution, then trespassing laws become ineffective. Any ATV rider, motorcyclist, or renegade hunter that is trespassing on private property for any reason can simply declare that they are on an RS 2477 route. Again, private property rights are eroded. Moreover, acceptance of vigilanteism reflects a loss of faith in the rule of law that is a fundamental pillar of our republic.

<<<<< the reason the we have no fear of prosecution in this case is because the sheriff himself used to ride his motorcycle on the road starteing in the 60s. and he has always known the road to be used by the public. in order for the vigilantes to be able to say such a thing they need to have a body of evidance. in the case of barking dog, we do
we do have a loss of faith in the rule of law because the law in this area has nothing to do with right or wrong or justice. it revolves around money and power




Nevertheless, off-road clubs have used the vigilante method against my own family’s property. My wife is a Colorado native with deep roots in the same area where I grew up. Since 1960, her family has owned a ranch crossed by Barking Dog Trail In recent years, this footpath and an adjacent creek were taken over by recreationists who drove specially modified rigs that are designed to crawl over the giant boulders that had formerly kept motorized vehicles out.. By the mid 1990’s a spider web of destruction was spreading like a cancer across the foothills and meadows of the ranch and surrounding land

<<<<<

In the late 1990’s I bought more land and doubled the size of my wife’s ranch. My intention was to restore the stream and re-create the healthy wetlands, improving wildlife habitat and reducing fire hazard by thinning the trees. I hired a forester at great expense. I went through the Colorado State Forest Service Approval process. I hand-planted hundreds of seedling trees; some to prevent erosion and others to harvest as Christmas trees to provide environmentally friendly income from our little forest agriculture operation when we retire.


<<<< you lie about the fs approval process. wait a minute you say you were thinning and planting???? which is it. the area is heavily forested and the trees you talk of were all planted in the middle of the road and no where else. what you were trying to do is to have the trees grow up to obscure the road, which will in turn add fuel for fire.you have never ever said who this make believe forester is. and i have asked many times. he does not exist.as for the environmentally friendly income from your little tree ranch. you, like any other timber farmer will need a road . how does this jibe with what you are saying right now? you say this is a foot path, does that meen that later you will build a road through wetlands to harvest these trees? or is this just another one of your not so well thought out attemps to get sympathy by painting a simple little mental picture.



But my project was sabotaged by a vigilante group calling itself About Public Lands (APL), consisting of members of the Mile-Hi Jeep Club and Trailridge Runners 4WD clubs, who claimed that Barking Dog Trail was open for public motorized recreation under RS 2477.

<<<<


Like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which has claimed responsibility for similar acts of vandalism, APL ‘s activities have been reported by Stop Eco-Violence! SEV is an organization that monitors criminal acts of willful destruction and personal harassment that, according to its web site, have “inflicted significant, inexcusable harm on private citizens, law-abiding businesses, institutions and local communities.”

<<<<<









National off-road organizations like the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Tread Lightly have so far refused to condemn the vigilante activities of emerging groups like APL. In fact, national groups like Off-Road.com are taking strong anti-landowner positions.


<<<<< the reason that these two orgs have not condemned our actions are because we acted within the laws and in good concience. we have done nothing to your personal property and we have done nothing anti land owner. the road is public and you do not own it and it is not your land. in fact the tread lightly folks put you in your place well and also told you to stop useing their logo on your signs since your signs had nothing to do with tread lightly . in short both of these orgs no full well what you are up to and will not play your game. your err


In an attempt to justify vigilante attacks against private property, Off-road.com Land Use Editor Brad Ullrich wrote an article last year that made many statements about my family’s land that are demonstrably false. Ullrich (who has never been to Barking Dog Trail and is unfamiliar with the local geography and history) seems to think that the burden of proof is on landowners, not on the off-roaders who want to recreate on private property.

<<<<< i would invite everyone to come look at the geography and to study the history. they will laugh you off the planet.

Ullrich closed his article with this direct challenge to me personally: “I am wondering on what you are basing the closing of the Barking Dog Road (sic).” Here is my answer: “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The fifth amendment of our Constitution trumps RS 2477.


<<<
Mark Udall’s RS 2477 reform bill deserves a second look by landowners who are concerned about preserving their property rights. In my view, his proposed legislation deserves broad bi-partisan support.



<<<< coward i say!!! . stand up dude. youve been at this since 99. it does not get any better. coward ! stand before the judge and let him here your case. if this is your property you can prove it now!

COWARD, LIER, THEIF = mark boslough

<<<
Fore more information, visit the author's web site: http://home.comcast.net/~balarat/ranch.html

http://sierratimes.com/04/02/13/ar_rs2477.htm

[landusepbb]

This previously appearred in the Eco-Logic Powerhouse, its just Boslough spreading his idiocy. BTW, here's my email to the Sierra Times:

Your article by Mark Boslough concerning RS2477 and private property contains a glaring misrepresentation and I would like an apology and a retraction. Boslough, and your magazine, are treading on thin ice in printing these sort of comments. Towards the end of the article Boslough (a known nutcase) makes reference to Off-Road.com and a strong anti-private landowner stance. This is very untrue, and I challenge anyone to back up Boslough's claim, because you can't. Over the 4+ years I have been editing Off-Road.com's Land Use section we have NEVER advocated an anti-private property owner agenda, and we have over the years condemned actions by those that put forth that kind of agenda. Numerous articles by the ALRA and other property rights groups have been printed in the pages of ORC, and we have always had a good relationship with ranching groups and other private property owners.

Brad Ullrich
Land Use Editor
http://www.off-road.com

[vb]

hey!!!! it just acured to me that my name is not in bosloughs last rant???? but brads is??!!! hahahahahahahahahahaha

[JumpinNRollin]

Does this guy never give up spreading this crap! He thinks the 4X4 community are a bunch of stupid yahoos that will believe what ever he says (it worked on the greenies he hangs with, why not try the 4x4 group). This guy is not a Rancher (my grandfather is a Rancher and this guy is an insult to his profession), he does not own a farm, he has no wet lands, he bought the property knowing full well that the ROW existed, has lied on numerous occasions, and tries to turn legal acts into "illegal actions by a group of vigilantes" and can't even stand in front of the Judicial system to prove his case. Mark stay in Arizona and suck on the sand ...please.

[landusepbb]

Originally posted by JumpinNRollin
Does this guy never give up spreading this crap! He thinks the 4X4 community are a bunch of stupid yahoos that will believe what ever he says (it worked on the greenies he hangs with, why not try the 4x4 group). This guy is not a Rancher (my grandfather is a Rancher and this guy is an insult to his profession), he does not own a farm, he has no wet lands, he bought the property knowing full well that the ROW existed, has lied on numerous occasions, and tries to turn legal acts into "illegal actions by a group of vigilantes" and can't even stand in front of the Judicial system to prove his case. Mark stay in Arizona and suck on the sand ...please.

BTW, you mispelled your logon name it should be Cowarddog not crowdog as in dog full of hot air.

Your bad, Crowdog is the one that posted this, aka Jon Crowley, Boslough doesn't show up here anymore.

[JumpinNRollin]

I sincerly apologize . I thought Crowdog was Boslough (he goes under so many alias's it's hard to keep up with him). DAMN NEWBIE's BTW, I edited that remark out.

[Dog House]

"Boslough" et al(his wife and God knows who else) went by the name "knobby" here when he did muster the courage to post his drivel. Of course he was afffectionately refered to by all as "knobjob"

[Todd W]

Originally Posted by landuseorc

This previously appearred in the Eco-Logic Powerhouse, its just Boslough spreading his idiocy. BTW, here's my email to the Sierra Times:

Your article by Mark Boslough concerning RS2477 and private property contains a glaring misrepresentation and I would like an apology and a retraction. Boslough, and your magazine, are treading on thin ice in printing these sort of comments. Towards the end of the article Boslough (a known nutcase) makes reference to Off-Road.com and a strong anti-private landowner stance. This is very untrue, and I challenge anyone to back up Boslough's claim, because you can't. Over the 4+ years I have been editing Off-Road.com's Land Use section we have NEVER advocated an anti-private property owner agenda, and we have over the years condemned actions by those that put forth that kind of agenda. Numerous articles by the ALRA and other property rights groups have been printed in the pages of ORC, and we have always had a good relationship with ranching groups and other private property owners.

Brad Ullrich
Land Use Editor
http://www.off-road.com

Brad you are doing a great job and I would like to say thank you, and that reminds me of a recently closed local trail by some yahoos who think they can do what they want!