man fined $31,000 for cutting down fence blocking trail - Mountain Buzz
 

Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Other Chatter > The Eddy


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-12-2007   #1
no tengo
 
mania's Avatar
 
Baytopia, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1876
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,865
man fined $31,000 for cutting down fence blocking trail

article here

seems a little harsh?

mania is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-12-2007   #2
gh
 
pnw, Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,408
Property rights are some of the oldest legislation we have. Given that you can be arrested in some states for just carrying wire cutters on your person, he probably got off easy.
__________________
"Yesterday I was clever and tried to change the world. Today I am wise and try to change myself." -Rumi
gh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2007   #3
 
scottsdale, Arizona
Paddling Since: 1979
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 18
He was not fined $31,000. he was ordered to pay that in restituition for the cost of the property he destroyed....there is quite a difference.
RRHB is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-12-2007   #4
JBL
 
Gnarnia, Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 659
Poor tactics on the part of the trail advocate. I too am an advocate of trails and access but there are effective strategies and organizations that can help resolve situations like this. Pulling out the wire cutters will cost you every time and could get you shot in some counties...
JBL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2007   #5
 
Vail, Colorado
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 334
I agree with RRHB - Restitution and fines are two totally different things. The guy was required to pay $31k, the cost of damage to the property. Not sure if you are aware but building a fence on that size of acreage is quite pricey. I am all about trail access to public lands but, I think he got what he deserves and that he should of, agreeing with JBL, looked for other avenues to create an access to the trail.

my 2 cents....

~Stevesie
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"~Gandhi
Steve Zizzou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007   #6
Roy
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Zizzou View Post
Restitution and fines are two totally different things. The guy was required to pay $31k, the cost of damage to the property.
You're right about their being two different things, but technically you're talking about "compensation" if he was paying for the cost of damage to the property, which would make sense. "Restitution" would actually be if the fence-cutter made a profit by his wrongful act and was ordered by the court to pay that amount. That doesn't make sense to me, so I wonder if the paper didn't get their terms mixed up in the article.
Roy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007   #7
 
Vail, Colorado
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy View Post
You're right about their being two different things, but technically you're talking about "compensation" if he was paying for the cost of damage to the property, which would make sense. "Restitution" would actually be if the fence-cutter made a profit by his wrongful act and was ordered by the court to pay that amount. That doesn't make sense to me, so I wonder if the paper didn't get their terms mixed up in the article.

res·ti·tu·tion /ˌrɛstɪˈtuʃən, -ˈtyu-/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[res-ti-too-shuhn, -tyoo-]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.reparation made by giving an equivalent or compensation for loss, damage, or injury caused; indemnification.

I do believe the legal term is restitution not compensation but I could be wrong. You are right though, compensation falls within the full definition.

~Stevesie
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"~Gandhi
Steve Zizzou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2007   #8
Roy
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 682
I'm no lawyer, I just play one on the internet!

OK, after googling around a little bit, the Colorado US Attorney's office indicates I'm the one off base here--restitution is the correct term.

Quote:
Explanation of Losses Subject to Restitution

Many victims are interested in how they can be repaid for their financial losses suffered as a result of a crime. This brochure provides an overview of that process.

...

The Act provides that 'identified' victims may be entitled to an order of restitution for certain losses suffered as a result of the commission of an offense as part of the criminal sentence imposed on the defendant, or as part of a plea agreement. Victims may be either individuals, or businesses/corporations.

It is important to begin keeping a record of all expenses incurred as a result of the crime, so this information can be used in determining what costs may be ordered by a Judge to be repaid by a defendant if convicted.
Roy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2007   #9
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 244
Turning his land into a ranch to save on taxes - just shows what a messed up tax system we have. Could we please just end the farm/ranch subsidies?
jaffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2007   #10
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
 
heliodorus04's Avatar
 
The Ranch, Colorado
Paddling Since: 04
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,134
The farm/ranch subsidy enables people who inherited land from their families, sometimes property owned by the familes for more than 100 years, to keep it despite the fact that they live on 18K a year. Personally, I think it does more good than harm.

I come from California where, in my youth, property values were rising so fast that seniors couldn't afford to pay the taxes on their homes and had to leave them. That's just not the America we are promised, IMO. In California, in 1978, Proposition 13 separated tax assessments from property values and instead linked them to original sale price, and then capped the increase from year to year to 2 percent. That allowed people who bought homes after WW2 to keep them when the real estate boom happened. It also put a huge cap on government spending (never a bad thing in my book).

If you want to end that kind of thing for ranchers, what I would guess (I'm no economist) is that you'll see a lot of people who enjoy the rural and mountain lifestyle having to sell their property, and lots of hotels and fancy commercial developments going up. Then wider roads. Reservoirs. And an even bigger crunch on Colorado's water supply.

Maybe that's just my fear. In general, most of the folks up there aren't assholes to those of us who seek to visit what they get to live in daily.
__________________
"self-aggrandizing jackass" - it says it right on the label
heliodorus04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Wire Fence Cable on Middle CO River Spade Hackle River Access & Safety Alerts! 0 09-30-2007 12:04 PM
Devil's Causeway trail watahwatah Kayaking | Trip Planner 2 04-16-2007 07:50 PM
Gunny gorge chuckar trail danvill Kayaking | Trip Planner 9 04-06-2006 04:00 PM
Gunni Gorge-Chukar Trail Shuttle spf Whitewater Kayaking 5 06-13-2005 03:50 PM
Colorado Trail mattdanitz Whitewater Kayaking 1 03-01-2005 11:16 PM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.