A power auger mounted on a tractor helps a lot. Even that isn't
foolproof as we found out when trying to plant trees at the local rifle
range. I don't think the kind that are sort of mini pile drivers have
enough stroke. They're great for driving metal fence posts but the posts
are only 6 to 8 feet or so. Beats the hell out of
although long term use of one of those will give you pecs and triceps
Be happy you're dealing with bicyclists. When I was with the FS I went
out checking gates before hunting season. A lot of the gates are locked
then to level the hunting field. Someone took exception to one of them.
It was a standard Powder River gate. The posts were 3" steel pipe set in
buried 55 gallon drums filled with concrete. I don't think a Warn winch
could have done the job. They must have used a log chain and got a
running start. The gate was bent into a V shape and the drums were half
out of the ground. They didn't get through though.
Must have been kids with too much beer. Real men would have thrown the
portable oxy rig in the pickup for those little annoyances.
Then there's the signs... They make great 100 yard targets for sighting
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:04:41 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote:
Moving the mailboxes would be a *final* resort, because it would only be
done if there was a locked gate, which is also a final resort.
So, it's on the table, but technically, it's trivial to move the mailboxes
and have a gate built - so that was never the question.
I think the question is answered though, which is that the road signs and
road stencils will work nicely to provide the notice that the police
So I think the solution is at hand.
I was thinking 10 foot posts, but they cost twice as much as the signs.
Even this 8-foot u-shaped post is over forty bucks each!
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:59:13 -0600, rbowman wrote:
The neighbors like their mailboxes being a half mile closer to their house
than if they were at the junction with the public street.
If life were as simple as just telling them to screw their mailboxes, life
would be easy indeed.
I have no need, nor desire, to make them move their mailboxes.
It's not the goal.
The goal is to prevent trespassing.
That has nothing to do with mailboxes.
I don't know the back and forth with some of the cluster boxes around
here. I live pretty much at the end of pavement although the road goes
on for about 20 adventure filled miles before it comes back out on a
maintained road. It's not private it's just rough. There's a cluster box
a little past where it turns to dirt. I don't know if the residents
thought it was a good idea or if the USPS said 'You want mail? This is
as far as we're going." It's a contractor that does the deliveries.
It works for me. I drive by the cluster going in and out almost every
day so there's no inconvenience and it's not like I'm sitting on the
porch waiting for the next batch of bills and political flyers to arrive.
I can understand the resistance though. 'It's my mailbox, it's always
been there' and by God it's going to stay there.'
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:24:18 -0600, rbowman wrote:
Yup. I don't have any goal of antagonizing the residents who have the
easement on my property.
The goal is to keep out the trespassers.
So the mailboxes will stay put unless the post office doesn't want to
travel past a no-trespassing private road no public access sign.
I am almost afraid to ask them their rules.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:27:28 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Better to pay for signs now, than to be sued later.
They can still sue for anything, but if I've been having them arrested,
they have less of a case (but it all depends on how a judge thinks).
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:51:48 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
I agree with you that trespassing needs to be stopped even if it existed
You don't want trespassers if for no other reason that just liability (what
if someone falls and breaks their leg for example).
Also we all have kids. Why would we want unknown trespassers on our lands
at any point in time?
Up until now you were pretty much logical.
But now you're not.
If the public wants to use my land, they can *pay* me for the costs
I'm not asking for that, but they're not offering to pay either.
So it makes no sense for me to have my tools stolen when they're sitting on
my yard, and to have my kids accosted by foul-mouthed strangers, and to
have my peace and quiet disturbed, and my costs for maintenance and my risk
for liability and my inability to close a road, etc., if they're not
willing to pay for their fair share.
Nobody is offering - and I'm not asking - but anyone who wants to use my
land should compensate me for the loss and that compensation is so high
that any one individual isn't willing to shoulder that cost.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:58:31 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
You don't consider the goal of behaving with love for your neighbor**
to be logical? Wow.
**Neigbhor in the Bible doesn't refer to the people who own the lot
next door. It refers to people in general. If you don't claim to
have a religion and you don't find the Bible holy, than I woudln't be
on this topic, but I first asked if you adhered to a religion and you
didn't answer, so I'm talking as you affiliate with one that holds the
There have been no costs incurred.
Have any of your tools been stolen? Were your kids exposed to bad
language at any other tmie than the while you were arguing with the
bicyclists? I think you shoudl do what the police said to do.
You haven't lost anything yet, and you won't.
You don't have anything I want and I don't even like you.
I'm too logical not to be an atheist.
Religion started as a science, and it fails at being a science.
However, very clever people learned how to subvert that science to the
point that it because a lucrative set of political controls.
I know too much about both science and recorded history to be controlled by
Man invented god simply because, at first, man needed to explain why
lightning killed people. Then man invented a variety of spirit gods to
explain why trees fall down on people. Finally, a cunningly enterprising
man invented a political god who acted just like a king (fancy that) with
all the evils and mean spirited thoughts that people have.
And that is the man-invented political god we have today, in some form or
the other, who is used as a tool to control people just as a homeowner
association is another government upon a homeowner.
Are you willing to pay for the signs?
They'll cost something like $100 to $150 each, installed.
There will be about 10 of them overall on my property.
You can send me the check any time.
Of course. I don't know *who* stole my tools, but they were stolen when
they were left near the road. I doubt my neighbors stole them, but I don't
know who stole them.
My kids have run up to me telling me there are strange people on our
property, and I go down and tell them to leave immediately.
Again, you can send me the check for the signs I'm putting up, each one
will cost around $100 to $150 installed.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:33:24 -0600, rbowman wrote:
I'll stop responding if you continue down this disrespectful tack.
You can write what you want on Usenet; but you should also be a tiny bit
logical when you write stuff.
Did you see the picture of the roadblock?
That was up for two entire days, from 7am to 5pm, and the police were
called by an irate biker and they showed up and explained that I need
Do you think they would have let me block a public road?
Do you think whomever you are intimating has an easement would let me block
them from passing?
While I do understand that this is the wild west of Usenet, you have to be
somewhat logical in your accusations.
My title company knows of no easements other than the other property
owners. That's all I can tell you. There is nothing being ignored.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 05:07:12 -0000 (UTC), Henry Jones
What was disrespectful. You snipped what he was replying to, so
it's harder to tell what he meant, but I went back and looked and he's
referring to what the other homeowners on your road might not be
He ends his sentence in a question mark, so he's plainly suggesting a
hypothesis. What is disrpectful about that? That he suggests you
would ignore it? Well maybe they haven't told you about it, or for
all he knows, they told you once and you dont' believe them, but I
dont' see how either is disrspectful. Things like that happen.
And it was logical too.
Sure. If no one was complaining, or in this case, no one but people
who had already passed through.
"The police are not there to cause disorder; they are there to
preserve disorder." ;-)
You mean "whoever". He was clearly suggesting the bicyclists had
an easement, and they did not "let you block them". They rode through
despite your objection and then called the police.
That applies equally to you.
They are referring to easements that have been registered with the
county clerk's office, not those that havent' been adjudicated yet.
If you're talking about unknown unwritten unrecorded easements, that *can*
happen, but none could apply to *my* property unless the previous property
owner of my property gave that unwritten unrecorded easement.
All I can tell you is that I don't know of any unknown unrecorded unwritten
easements on "my" property that the title company can find.
Nobody else can sell an easement on my property; so it doesn't matter what
easements the neighbors have.
You are correct!
Thank you for clarifying that it was "who he is" not "whom he is".
The title company is privy to recorded easements.
There are no recorded easements for the general public.
The recorded easements are for the few homeowners served by the road.
I am unaware of any unwritten or unrecorded easement for the general public
to use the road for any purpose.
You are correct.
If there is any easement, recorded or unrecorded, written or verbal, for
the general public, neither my title company nor I are privy to them.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:37:35 -0600, rbowman wrote:
I agree that the roadblock was symbolic.
It wouldn't stop a determined terrorist for instance.
But what else would you suggest to get the word out?
Yes. So that's a bit disconcerting. Why would their map be wrong?
I don't know the answer to that question.
If they want it to be a public road, then the county is gonna have to put a
few hundred thousand dollars into it. So that might be a good thing. But
it's not gonna happen.
It's hard to talk to "the county" since all you get is a person in a
department, but the Road Dept. said they don't maintain the road.
That's par for the course in this county. Some are Forest Service, some
are old logging roads that are indifferently maintained. The land
ownership goes back to when the Federal government was giving land to
the railroads in a checkerboard pattern. Most of the railroad lands
passed to the lumber companies who built roads. The companies like Plum
Creek have went into the real estate business and are subdividing some
of the sections. This leaves the road ownership a touchy subject since
there were a lot of easements to provide public access to the state or
federal sections on the checkerboard.
Even the FS gets into the game. Some landowners have refused the Forest
Service access to FS lands. Maybe legal, maybe not but the FS takes the
unofficial position of "when the forest behind your house burns, call
somebody who cares.'
As I mentioned. the Republican gubernatorial candidate tried to block
fishing access and lost. Being a billionaire doesn't impress people in
this state. Now he has the chutzpah to run political ads inviting people
to go fishing at the site. It ain't his to invite.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.