On 6/16/2010 2:29 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 10:30 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 8:17 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2010 3:39 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2010 4:32 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 9:40 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2010 1:02 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


Because there are access roads and trails on the side of one
mountain. The person has already paid for a pass to ski
there.
Part
of the price of admission goes to the ski patrol, part
goes to
taxes
to pay for higher level services. The idiot jumping out
of the
helicopter is intentionally avoiding the areas that are
covered by
ski patrols AND the price of admission to those places.

So, his helicopter fees don't contribute in any way to those
costs?
(Maybe - maybe not, I don't know - do you?)


And what percentage of ski rescues have resulted from
someone
jumping
out of a helicopter anyway?

A *lot* are caused by people skiing in forbidden areas.

Define "forbidden area".

Off designated slopes.

So according to you anything which is not explicitly
permitted is
forbidden? And the only places one should be permitted to
ski are
"designated slopes"? I guess that next you'll want to forbid
people to
walk anywhere but on designated walking paths.




Do you have a Strawman construction permit?

You're the one who wants to prohibit people from skiing "off
designated slopes". One wonders how people managed to ski before
there
were officials going around designating slopes.


When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
reasons.

What woods have you been in? In the US, if one is out in the
woods, it
is rare to see a "designated" _anything_. Around here the only
signs I
have ever seen "out in the woods" that "designate off limits" other
than the ones that say "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be
prosecuted" are at the corroding fences surrounding what used to
be a
Nike missile battery. And that's in the Northeast Corridor midway
between New York and Boston.

Maybe in whatever worker's paradise you inhabit there are signs all
over "the woods" saying "designated off limits" but in the free
world
it is uncommon.


You just like a dog with a bone. Problem is there's not meat on it.
The
USFS, and BLM Own the West.

The question is not who owns it, the question is whether there are
signs all over it saying "designated off limits".


Yes, there are. There are a host of regulations - Federal, State, and
Local - designating where you can and cannot go and what you can and
cannot do while getting there and when you arrive.

So you assert. Please provide photos of a few dozen of these signs
since they are so commonplace.

The Federal
government, for example, controls all navigable waterways.

Which does mean that they have signs all over them saying "designated
off limits".

In Oregon the
state controls the beaches where you can drive sometimes or never;

Nobody mentioned driving so why are you on about it? The statement was
that one was prohibited from walking in the woods except in designated
areas.

walk
your dog on a leash or allow it off leash.

And how many beaches have "designated off limits" signs?

The State of Oregon also
controls what game you may hunt and when.

Again with the game. The discussion was not of hunting, it was of
WALKING.

Corvids (crows and relatives)
may not be hunted at all.

Which again has nothing to do with walking in the woods.

The state also controls what you may fish,
when you may fish and sometimes the allowable tackle.

Which is again irrelevant to walking.

Much of the BLM
land is leased for grazing to ranchers and then is essentially private
property.

Nobody has asserted that one may freely trespass on private property.

The USFS may close trails

Oh, I see. You need "trails".

and other facilities

The discussion was not of "facilities".

at will for
maintenance or other reasons. In general, camp fires are Prohibited
outside of USFS designated areas, thus you may wander at will but no
S'mores.

Which has nothing to do with walking.

And all of these and numerous other restrictions are not unique to the
west. I have lived on the east coast and on the Great Lakes. Similar
restrictions applied in every state I have lived in or visited for
recreation.

None of which have anything to do with walking.

Perhaps you don't live in the US.

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and so do not
understand that the word "walk" does not imply "hunt", "fish", "make
s'mores", "enter facilities", "fraternize with dogs" or any of the
other crap you've brought up.


Perhaps you can't read. All of the other "crap" was brought up.

By you.

Nope. By you. Fishing, taking pictures of trout, boating ....

And "designated off limits" is Your creation.

So you deny that you wrote:

"When was the last time you were at a ski slope? Or even out in the
woods? Plenty of areas are designated off limits and for damn good
reasons."

Nope. But I didn't suggest there were "designated off limits" signs.

So how does one become aware that the area is "designated off limits"?

"Trail Closed"

Which is fine if there's a trail. But I thought we were talking about
the woods, not some park.

or "No Fishing"

And again you're bringing up FISHING.

are a couple of specific examples. I
wonder if you've ever been in a National Forest.

On numerous occasions. And I have never seen any sign that suggest that
one is not to enter a particular area other than the domiciles of the staff.

If you can't even keep track of your own argument then perhaps you
should pack it in.

Perhaps you should. Unless, of course, you haven't exhausted your straw
yet.

Nope, I'm not the one who is making statements and then accusing others
of making them up.