Hey ANF you can LOVE ME TENDER!! You can shove your fees too!!!!

 

Sorry to rag on you, but that is just the attitude that will end up getting a lot of our riding areas across the country closed for good,I know some area laws and fees are a drag,but it pales in comparision to losing trail systems forever.These days,more than ever,all riders need to stick together to keep the public on our side, and not enrage the tree ***** with any nose-thumbing of rules and regulations. One reckless rider can ruin it for countless others. Yes, you got away with it this time, but at what cost ??

Just my .02

 

Next time save your 2 cents for something better. If you dont live and ride in Pennsylvania then you have no idea what I am talking about, or why I would feel so angry in the first place. I am sure you have your own problems in Minnesota, so leave this topic to the Pa folks. Its WAR out here pal!!!!!!

 

You think you're at "war" in PA? Come on out west, amigo. Constant battles for Pismo, we're really gaining ground on Glamis. We're doing it the "right" way also.

You ride in a closed area, you just helped the greens.

And no, it isn't just "your" battle; it's all our battle. Join the BRC. I did. And CORVA. And the ASA.
Put your money up and do it right.

 

Amen, man, I am with you 100 % I am a member of a local club, and ATVAM,fighting to keep trails and rights open for ALL riders, justifying a breaking of any law with "they just pissed me off" does none of us any good, and as you said, puts more fuel on the tree hugger fires. Every state seems to be having problems lately, and flying off the handle just to sneak one by "the man" shows you and all other riders in a bad light. If you are so adamant about the rules and fees in your area, DO something to change it,join a club,write or call senators and congressmen,get all your friends involved. We all need each other in this war, so lets not start fighting among ourselves.

 

Ok before all you guys jump me, you need to read the post about the $35 dollar fee to ride in the ANF. And maybe I need to reword what I said about the war here, its a war every where, but each "battle" is different and has different circumstances. So like I said before if you dont live in PA then you dont know what I am talking about. I will not say I am sorry for riding that trail. And I am sure that the other 20 or so people who also rode it arent regreting anything. If you dont want to read the post mentioned above then dont bother responding.

 

Who said we didn't want to read the post? Where did that come from? I obviously read it because it did interest me as to why people would so blatantly do something like that.
No, I don't live in PA, so what?
You can't justify breaking the law because you're angry about having to pay a fee. If you can't afford to pay, DON'T PLAY!
How would you like our fees? Registration on quad $21 every other year. Camping for a weekend at Glamis, $10. Camping for one night in Hungry Valley, $6.
The twenty or so other people that broke the law with you cannot justify what you all did. Didn't your mother ever tell you that "Two wrongs don't make a 'right'"? Think! You're shoving a logical fallacy at me and it isn't going to fly.
Fight back legally. Like I said, put your money up where it'll do some good.
Keep riding in illegal areas, soon, YOU WON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO RIDE!!
Get a damn clue and wise up!

 

mx87trx, It's pointless to argue with some people...as long as you don't ride on private property without the owners permission it's all good. The state and federal "governments" don't own anything and what they claim to own has been stolen. Heres a little something on "the law"....


The “Law”

by Bill Malloy

What about the “law”? Isn't it at least a good idea to try and reach agreement with one another that certain basic rules of conduct with respect to each another ought to be commonly known, and understood? That is a tempting proposition that looks almost indisputable. First, let’s analyze what the “law” is. Briefly, the “law” is a threat or command backed by force.

1) “If you do act A, we will do X. If you do not do B, we will do X,” where X is an act of force
(arrest, and subsequent incarceration, trial, and punishment).

2) “If you resist, we will escalate the force necessary to gain your compliance. We will continue
to escalate the use of force up to and including killing you, if necessary.”

Now, at this point the distinction between who initiated force becomes difficult for most people to see. It is hidden by the very belief in “authority”, which implies the right-to-rule. If I have the right to order you around, and I issue you an order to stop doing something, then you are initiating force if you do not obey. However, if I do NOT have the right to order you around, and I tell you to stop doing something you want to do, and further more I threaten to act against you, up to and including lethal force, then I am initiating force against you by making that threat. The “law” is just such a threat. The law itself is an initiation of the use of force, just as any other threat to commit bodily harm is.

Now, it looks different when you start from the obvious reference point of the law that is made as an attempt to enforce a universally accepted morality. The obvious example is, “Do not initiate deadly force against someone,” or don’t commit murder. “If you do, we are already committed to using force against you in retaliation.” It is easy to see how people might view that as an a priori justification for responding to the initiation of force. However, that is because the individual confuses his own judgment with that of the state.

It is one thing for an individual, charged by his own judgment with his own self-defense, to issue such a warning. That is honest, and forthright. When a group of people issue that threat, they imply that someone other than the individual has a right to pre-empt the individual’s judgment. They remove from the individual any discretion to retaliate or not, depending on his own judgment. In effect, they are superseding his judgment, and therefore negating it before he has a chance to use it. The group (state) is overriding his sovereignty. It is tempting to overlook that fact, especially when dealing with such a clear case when the “law” and popular morality are in agreement.

However, consider the victimless crime laws, such as the prohibition against self-medicating (the euphemism for using drugs), and we find wide latitude for disagreement, because people disagree on the morality of drug use. Yet the “law” makes no distinction between murder or smoking pot when it comes to the ultimate force it is prepared to use. The only difference is the INITIAL reaction to breaking the “law”. For murder, it may well be the threat of death as the initial response: “If you kill someone, we are prepared to kill you in response.” For smoking pot, the initial punishment might be a citation (in California . . .). However, the ultimate punishment, should you disagree with the state and resist its attempt to arrest you, is to escalate the response up to and including killing you, if necessary, to gain compliance.

Therefore, each “law” to be honest might as well state, “If you commit act A, we are prepared to kill you. If you do not do B, we are similarly prepared to kill you.” It sounds okay when that applies to murder. How does it sound when you consider that it also applies to a parking ticket? So, the “law” against smoking marijuana means, existentially, “If you smoke dope, we reserve the right to kill you.” The statist will say over and over, and with every law (especially the tax law), “That’s crazy. No one is killed for smoking marijuana (or, not paying taxes).” However, people are killed for resisting arrest, which would not have happened if the “law” had not given some thugs the illusion that they had the right to initiate force against someone simply because the politicians wrote it down on a piece of paper and voted on it.

There is no way around it: The “law” itself represents the initiation of force, and the inevitable result of escalating resistance to that threat is death. Most people do not trace the premises of the “law” back to the base assumptions that make that truth obvious. Instead, they operate under the assumption that the “law” is just, and righteous; that it has “authority”. The widespread acceptance of that belief is quite literally a form of mass hypnosis, a condition that allows people to believe they are necessarily acting morally if they only obey the “law”. Years of behaving under that delusion and having it reinforced by cops, others, the fact that they believe they are acting in accordance with the “law” and the apparent absence of negative consequences for doing so, conspire to harden that acceptance into the illusion of reality.

--Bill Malloy

 

Actually,M249SAW, the goverment owns everything. You do not own any land. If you think you own your land try not paying your land taxes on it and see what happens, the goverment will take your land, put it up for auction and that will be the end of the story. If they want to put a road or highway or airport on your property, all they have to say is this is how much we are going to give you for it. Take it or leave it, but you will be off of this property tehy really do nto even have to give you anything for it. The goverment owns it all, you just rent it.

 

MountainCat, I guess it's just how you want to look at it. The "government" thinks it owns everything but in reality I bought it and I own it. The "government" is just a gang of thugs who practice the act of extorting money or other property from people and it is nothing more then theft. Just because someone steals your car doesn't mean they own it. They may be in possession of it but in the end it doesn't belong to them. The agency most people erroneously identify as "government" today is in reality a gang of lawyers, armed thugs, and con artists backed by an army of bureaucrats, which operates an immense array of protection and other rackets financed through extortion and fraud.