mstateglfr 

I'm curious why its such a taboo topic. I dont own guns and have no interest, so I am certainly not coming from a perspective of advocating for them, but I'm not sure why its inappropriate to discuss(respectfully, I will add) a survey about a legal product.

threads veer off original topic all the time and nothing is done. Here one veers off while staying respectful and analytical, and it may be moved. And again, it's over a topic that is legal and many on this board (presumably)have.

just odd at face value.

For what its worth, I'm good not discussing the survey anymore so by all means keep the thread here.

BillyD

Surely you already know the answer.
1. It's a volatile topic and over the years we've found those fights NEVER end well.
2. It's simply not cycling related, period.

JerrySTL

Well said!

Many of the landowners are very unhappy as how their land was taken from them to create the Katy Trail. If a person is caught trespassing, there's a chance that their 'stealth camping' will be done inside a jail cell for a while. There are many No Trespassing signs along the trail many of which are placed there by the landowners.

But people shouldn't get the wrong idea. There are plenty of places to camp and most people are very friendly to cyclists.

spinnaker

I would be curious to know why someone would think it is OK to trespass on someone's property along trails like the Katy when designated campsites are so readily available. I can't think of one expect maybe a real emergency like break down, injury or sickness that would not allow you to move on. Poor planning on the riders part as in biting off more than you can chew is not an emergency. It is poor planning period.

JoeyBike

I start looking for a place to stay the night at 2:00 pm - mostly due to "blue collar Miller time" hits the back roads soon after that. I like to get an early start and an early stop. This is my style. I almost never get caught out looking for a hideout. And I can afford motels and private campgrounds.

Others wake up late, leave camp late, and bike until it gets dark. With the last few moments of light they find a spot to hide - most often on private property. Another issue is that many parts of the USA close up their state parks and campgrounds after Labor Day. For those who can't afford hotels there is often little choice but to hide out at night.

So if by "poor planning" you mean that every bike tourist should be rich and only tour at times of the year when there are ample services open and available, then you are correct. For those on a budget or trying to stay on the road for months or years, the allure of a FREE spot to hide out is very tempting. Yes, they are breaking the law. So long as they don't burn the woods down in the process and leave no trace of their stay it's difficult for me to get all ruffled about it. I know a guy from Australia who paddled a kayak down the Mississippi River from Minnesota to the mouth of the river and camped on the river bank without permission every single night until I put him up at my house in New Orleans for a couple nights. He never got caught, and no one cared to catch him either. It can be done, and some travelers really don't have a problem with doing it. It's not for me, but I find it hard to care.

spinnaker

You don't need to be "rich" to camp. If you can't even afford to camp then sorry you should not be touring. I don't car if you don't leave a trace. Staying on private property without permission (regardless of local laws) is trespassing and akin to stealing in my book. And if you indeed are breaking the law then you belong in jail. There you get to stay for free.

saddlesores

sorry, guess i growed up in a different time. i just don't get the entitlement mentality where ya somehow feel you have a right to use someone else's property for without permission. we might could argue the morality of stealing bread to feed your sick children, but this is a freakin' vacation...

indyfabz

+1.

spinnaker

And for trails like the Katy (or any route popular with cyclists for that matter) it is way more than just using property without permission (even if you leave no trace) . It is about pissing off property owners and risking ruining things for your fellow cyclists. Stealth camping because "you can't afford" to pay for camping is awfully selfish. Stay home and get back to work if you can't afford to pay your way.

alan s 

spinnaker

Already happened here. Explained above. And the Katy was almost not the Katy explained above. And property issues are creating an issue with the Rock Island Line from becoming a trail.

So don't say you can't ruin it for others.

indyfabz

Locals can make all sorts of trouble for state agencies/trail managers, if only via constant complaints. I can even imagine a nuisance law suit against something like a state park agency that manages a trail. Not all residents are happy about trails, especially those who believe (rightly or wrongly according to the law) that the property being used should have reverted/passed to them. Some don't care about the money. Some don't want outsiders out of pure spite.

JoeyBike

Nobody is talking about breaking and entering, then sleeping in a stranger's bed without permission. Or poaching game on the property. Stealth campers I have met pick a spot in a neglected hedgerow or woodlot far from the owner's residence, if the owner actually even lives in the area or in that state. Or they camp on a highway right-of-way which is state property generally. I never said it was right, or that people should do it. I will say that some bicycle tourists do it all the time and somehow the Earth keeps turning. An unlucky/unwise few likely get busted for trespassing. Maybe they should learn to hide better next time. Or stop touring all together. Many of the "kids" I have met on bike tours were out for the summer on very limited funds, not very organized, late risers, and pretty smelly. I have a difficult time caring that they pull over in a poison ivy patch after dark and catch some sleep and collect some tics and Lyme disease.

I'm trying to remember if I ever stealth camped on a tour, and I have spent about 2.5 years total on the road. Maybe once in Maine. I did stiff a couple of state campsites with "iron ranger" money deposit thingies, mainly because I didn't have the $7 in change and I was not dropping a $20 in there. My conscience is not damaged.

bbbean 

I think it is wonderful that you know someone who camped out on the banks of the Mississippi without a problem. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

One of the aspects of private property that occasionally gets overlooked is that the property owner gets to decide what is and isn't worth getting "ruffled" over. It isn't up to you or me to decide what might be OK on someone else's private property. They get to decide. In the case of the Katy, many of the adjacent landowners have made it very clear that they don't want you setting foot on their property. Even if they hadn't, you know the property isn't yours, so it shouldn't be that hard to stay off it.

Good planning doesn't require being a rich cyclist in the summer. It requires planning - something anyone can do. You'd agree that good planning would require a patch kit, a few rudimentary tools, and an adequate supply of food and water, right? Why would having a good idea of where you're going to camp be any different?

BB

bbbean 

At this moment, there is an ongoing battle over whether the State of Missouri will develop the Rock Island Line into a cycling trail. Trespassing, privacy concerns, property rights, and security are the primary reasons opponents are working to stop the trail. Trespassing on the Katy hurts both property owners and cyclists.

FWIW, the choice on the Katy or the Rock Island Lien isn't between a bike trail and a freight line. The railroad is gone. There will be no more trains. But if the trail isn't developed, the easements return to the original landowners. That is to say that the farms and properties currently split by the trail get the property back and their farms and no longer split by a recreational trail they have no control over. Can you see how that might be appealing to a farmer or rancher?

BB

JoeyBike

Agreed. Many don't want us on roads either because we "don't pay gas tax". If they are in a car, it's their road. Most cyclists are pretty used to that outlook and just ignore it.

alan s 

JoeyBike

How do we know exactly which persons purchased that land after the railroad went through? The railroad didn't steal anything from them.

spinnaker

LOL greed because someone wants to keep people off of the property they own. It really doesn't matter what you think They have the right to protect tier property by any legal means necessary. It is their property.

I came very close to buying a home along a local bike trail. My attitude would have been if you asked I would welcome you with open arms. Might even let you use the shower and maybe even treat you to a meal. I have been doing similar through wramshowers for years.

But if you decided to just plop yourself down, I would be metting you with the police and hopefully at 2AM if the police were willing to cooperate.

indyfabz

Actually, I have worked on the reversionary issue as part of my job. It's not always cut and dried. It all depends on what the abutting land owner's quality of title is and the particulars of applicable state law. Given the right wording in a deed, an abutting land owner can have a sustainable claim of reversion after a rail line has been formerly/legally abandoned. When the railroad was built is not a factor.

Also, how and who granted the railroad interest can be determinative. A while back there was a case that made it all the way to the SCOTUS. It involved a grant of land to a railroad under a specific federal statute and a trail. The rail line was eventually abandoned and a trail created. One land owner through whose property a portion of the trail passed argued that, under the land grant statute, the grant to the railroad consisted of an easement only and that the easement was extinguished when the line was legally abandoned. The government argued that it created a fee title and thus the landowner had no claim to the property that had hosted the former rail line. The SCOTUS, in what I believe was a unanimous decision, held in favor of the landowner.

Then you have the issue of what's known as "rail banking." Claims of adverse possession can also come into play. The typical scenario in the latter is that a landowner who had granted a railroad fee title to a strip of land that abutted (or ran through) his property makes use of the property (classic example is the construction of a shed or other outbuilding) after abandonment of the rail line for whatever the particular state's prescribed period is (often 22 or 22 years) and claims ownership as a result.

There are even seemingly absurd examples running against landowners: Predecessor in title grants a railroad a strip of land through the middle of his square parcel "for use as a railroad, and for no other purpose." Railroad is there for a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng time. The line is eventually abandoned. Current owner argue that the railroad no longer has a claim to the strip due to abandonment. Seems credible. Not in Michigan, as its courts have ruled that, without any express revisionary language in the original deed to the railroad, the grant to the railroad created fee title notwithstanding the deed language saying that the grant was only for railroad purposes.

alan s 

spinnaker

None of that excuses trespassing on adjoining property. And it doesn't change the fact that trespassing and right / desire to privacy aren't going to be a road block to the development of new trails.

Nor does it change how trails can be detoured to keep property owners happy rather than trying to fight it in court. .

Indy, aren't many of these rails to trails private entities and not under direct control of any government?

jon c. 

Things may have been different in the 50s, but when I was growing up in the 70s we 'stealth camped' on both bicycle and motorcycle trips. Easy Rider images aside. We didn't think of it as stealth camping, or even camping. We were just sleeping for the night. As AFAIK no one ever cared. The few landowners ever encountered were always friendly. And the roles were reversed at times. We had a vineyard and on more than one occasion we arrived to find bike tourists who had spent the night there getting ready to depart on their next leg. We didn't care that they used the property. And who knows how many others did that we never saw. If they leave no trace, we don't know and why would we care? But I guess that was an odd period in which people were trying not to be so hostile to their fellow man. And everyone liked bike tourists back then.

I find the current attitude sanctifying the absolute exclusivity of private property to be disheartening. I'm guessing they don't allow the full lyrics of "This Land is Your Land" into schools.

Having said all that, a public trail is a whole different matter. I understand land owners wanting to be more restrictive when there is the potential for much greater use. Such use would lead to a host of potential issues and who needs the headaches. I would be hesitant to buy property abutting a public trail for that reason. Once you transition from 'a guy laying down a bedroll for the night' to 'public use', the rules of accommodation change a great deal in my view. A bike tourist in that setting should be cognizant of the realities of a public trail and stay off private property. Being accommodating to your fellow man goes both ways.

alan s 

I’m certainly not into stealth camping and don’t advocate anyone doing it, but property owners take it too far when they use the mere possibility that someone may stealth camp on private property adjacent to a rail trail as an argument against rail trails in general. As I said earlier, those that make such arguments are greedy, selfish or both. The abandoned ROW is a unique and very valuable resource for everyone, including the landowner, and only in rare circumstances should the property revert back to the original owner.

tcs

They were years getting all the old railroad land strung back together for the Northeast Texas Trail. A small number of land owners, fearful of 'hippies' (a.k.a. trail users) trespassing and generally making themselves at home on the adjacent farms, took their historic grants of easement to court, burning years and money that could have been used for trail development. Even though that phase has passed, there are still some sections where the local attitude is negative towards the trail and its users.