I didn't see anywhere in the Sheriff's response that they Sheriff's office was dedicating resources to crack down on the night riding, outside of a phone call to a bike shop to inform the shop manager that what they are doing is technically illegal and if a person or persons were caught, then they would be cited as described. I would imagine that aside from criminal trespassing, if a shop is organizing a group ride on private property that is clearly marked as off limits during certain hours, then they might also be liable in a civil case if there was any injury or property damage/loss.
Now I've ridden a ton at night in Mac forest and wouldn't hesitate to do so again. Knowing that what I was doing was illegal technically, I wouldn't advertise it or set up an an official shop ride. I would also try contacting my local advocacy group and see who or what would be the appropriate person or agency to talk to to try and get the no trespassing reversed.
Huh? since when?
Originally Posted by Sparticus
There is no liability or insurance reason for limiting access at night. The law on recreational use liability in Oregon is quite clear, with no special provisions for night use:
"105.682. Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products.
(1) Except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, and subject to the provisions of ORS 105.688, an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products when the owner of land either directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. The limitation on liability provided by this section applies if the principal purpose for entry upon the land is for recreational purposes, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products, and is not affected if the injury, death or damage occurs while the person entering land is engaging in activities other than the use of the land for recreational purposes, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products."
If anyone does decide to approach the new Mac-Dunn recreation manager, it's important to be aware that liability is not an issue. People opposed to access love to toss it out there to smother any further discussion, but it's not relevant here.
Interesting. . . I'm doing winter in here in Austin where your local sheriff is very well known for supporting something besides ridiculous outdated trail closure rules
I wasn't aware that an elected county official is required to even comment on federal policy whether constitutional or not. I never realized the true meaning of liberal till I decided to check out the rest of the country for awhile.
She is an elected official, as you point out, so she is really speaking to her constituency in this situation. Benton County is pretty liberal and her statements are exactly what her voters want to hear.
Originally Posted by pedalitup
Likewise with Sheriff Mueller in neighboring Linn County, who started this whole flap with his letter to VP Biden. Linn is a far more conservative county and Mueller was simply saying what his voters want to hear.
Not that any of this has anything to do with night riding in Mac Forest. Sheriff Simpson is not obligated to enforce federal gun laws, but she IS required to enforce trespassing claims made by local land owners (OSU in this case). Her statements are consistent with that, even though it's hard to imagine that they will actually dedicate any deputies to Mac Forest night patrols.