Oak Creek now open to limited access

[Iceaxe]

Oak Creek, just outside Zion, is currently closed to public access. Zion Adventure Company has established a permission agreement to guide a small number of low impact trips to South Fork of Oak Creek each year. Currently this is the only option to legally visit the canyon.

Zion Adventure Company has priced the route as a "High Adventure Day". $249 per person with 2 or more participants, $425 as a one person private event.

I know some of you are going to bitch about having to drag a guide along..... but at least the canyon is now legally open to anyone who wants to visit it.

Zion Adventure Company
http://www.zionadventures.com

Climb-Utah Oak Creek
http://climb-utah.com/Zion/oc-sf1.htm

http://climb-utah.com/Zion/Files/oc-sf1.jpg

[Iceaxe]

And from the grape vine..... I hear the canyon was originally closed because the canyoneering community was being inconsiderate of the area by littering and causing parking/traffic problems.

I hear the landowner even witnessed a pair of canyoneers making whoopee on top of his water tank, before hiking away with packs and wetsuits.

:getiton:

Unfortunately, the result was the canyon is now closed to general public access.

:popcorn:

[CarpeyBiggs]

I guess now would be a good time to take the beta off your site then?

[Scott Card]

Good thing I have been there, done that. I am not about to pay that kind of fee for that canyon. Fun but not 249 bucks fun. Also probably the coldest canyon I have been in. And what is with the private canyon trip. Any one do that sort of thing.... for 425 bucks?

[stefan]

Good thing I have been there, done that.

making whoopee on top of a water tank before canyoning? :haha:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Good thing I have been there, done that.

making whoopee on top of a water tank before canyoning? :haha:

Is that covered by the 249 dollar fee? If so, I bet Nelsonccc would pay that in a second.

[Jaxx]

Good thing I have been there, done that.

making whoopee on top of a water tank before canyoning? :haha:

Is that covered by the 249 dollar fee? If so, I bet Nelsonccc would pay that in a second.

I think that is what the $425 covers. In vegas they don't call it canyoneering though.

[Iceaxe]

I guess now would be a good time to take the beta off your site then?

NOPE! Bad idea.... nothing worse then no information being available, particularly on a route that is well known. That's just asking for more abuse.

But the Climb-Utah website has already been updated to include all current information, including the fact that the canyon is closed to the general public and only available on a limited bases through ZAC. The web page also includes information on how to contact ZAC so you can arrange a trip.

:cool2:

[Iceaxe]

Yeah sir.... I'd like to order one "water tank adventure". :haha:

I'm just waiting for one of you clowns to own up to being the water boy..... :roflol:

[Scott Card]

Good thing I have been there, done that.

making whoopee on top of a water tank before canyoning? :haha:

:haha: Very funny fellers...it twern't me. I need all all the energy I possess just to canyoneer. A needless waste of energy to climb the tank. :lol8:

[CarpeyBiggs]

NOPE! Bad idea.... nothing worse then no information being available, particularly on a route that is well known. That's just asking for more abuse.

But the Climb-Utah website has already been updated to include all current information, including the fact that the canyon is closed to the general public and only available on a limited bases through ZAC. The web page also includes information on how to contact ZAC so you can arrange a trip.

:cool2:

Seems like the prudent thing would be to remove all the beta, and refer people to ZAC with the page, to keep people from continuing to trespass. The owner would probably find that a generous act. After all, you are the one who released this beta to the public, and are probably the most responsible for the damage that was done. Without your beta, the canyon stays relatively untouched, except for people in the know. Scrubs like me wouldn't have done it...

BTW, when I went to do this canyon a few years ago, your beta told us to approach from Camp Kolob, which is what I assume most people were doing. What property does this owner refer to, exactly? Is this the owner on the north side of the canyon? I bet it's only since camp Kolob has been restricted that most of this damage has occurred, since most traffic would've come down the trail from Camp Kolob, which is heavily used and easy to follow.

As for who owns the canyon proper, it is still unclear to me. Can you shed some light on who the actual owner is and which property you are referring to? From the maps I looked at, it appears there are multiple people who own different parts of the approach to the canyon, ownership of the canyon proper is confusing. Can you post some detailed beta that shows what we are talking about, and which owner is refusing access?

[Iceaxe]

Looks as if you want me to do all your homework for you :haha:

The entire canyon is on one parcel of private property (not muti owners property)..... A guy named Jim Bird is the feller ya need to talk to.

[CarpeyBiggs]

No need to do my homework, I've already done it once. Just want to make sure you do yours.

I found the map I put together last time this discussion came up. Couldn't remember if I had access to it in my email. The property lines are accurate. The possible trails are not, though they should be close. First Rappel is estimated.

Depending on how you access the canyon, you can cross many different parcels of land. Not sure how you get to Bird's property, there is probably a private drive not shown on this map. Never been over there. Bird's, I'm assuming, is the parcel I have labeled #8. He may own the other parcels as well. That is my best guess.

Orange is the Kolob Camp trail (not sure how accurate it is). Blue is the watercourse. Black is for roads.

I will say I hope that we could work something out with Jim, other than the ZAC option, but it is his property, and I am all for respecting it. I will also disclose that I have trespassed to get to this canyon, but it was not marked anywhere from where we entered, and I honestly didn't know it was trespassing, even though I got more than a few pokes from some of you about it. We were under the impression just the church camp was off limits, not the areas surrounding it. After a chastisment, I researched this map. I now know better... Which is also why I suggested to you Shane that the beta be removed entirely, so people don't make any mistakes about it, or get tempted

I do know that people access the canyon from Kolob (not canyoneers) who are just down there on hikes and what not. The trail obviously sees some traffic down from the camp, as it is very well worn. We met a handful of people a few years ago when we were scouting around who were LDS youth checking it out. We aren't the only ones around down there. Litter could've come from other sources besides us.

I believe the ZCC has been in contact with Mr. Bird, and he has posted recently on the Yahoo group. Let's hope for a resolution in the future.

In the meantime, I suppose we should be happy he has given us an alternative.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I take that back. Jim Bird actually owns parcel number 3 on the map I made. I never actually checked it before, just assumed. Just did with the Washington County Treasurers webpage. That would make sense, because I imagine many people would try to park there and cut down his property to the head of the canyon.

Plot 8, which holds the canyon, actually is registered to a couple from Hurricane, and Camp Kolob is registered to the LDS Church.

[sparker1]

Never mind.

[Iceaxe]

I know Jonathan at ZAC has this all worked out so he could get permission to guide the route. ZAC also had to work out all the details so they could get insurance for the routes they guide and include the landowners who's property they cross. Insurance is one of the major costs of guiding that many folks forget about. If you really want the details Jonathan is probably your best starting point. I am not the best source as I have not kept real up-to-date on the finer details of land ownership in regards to this route.

Honestly.... I have little interest in routes where I have to jump through hoops and participate in a dog and pony show. That is one of the big reasons I seldom visit Zion anymore. Plenty of other canyons where access is not an issue. When I'm done with all of them I'll start to worry about the ones on private property.

:rockon:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Plenty of other canyons where access is not an issue. When I'm done with all of them I'll start to worry about the ones on private property.

:rockon:

Ain't that the truth. Too many canyons, not enough time...

[James_B_Wads2000]

:gloom:

Well just flat out say it: this is a f*cking joke. I am sorry to be so blunt, but access issues like this really piss me off and I

[tanya]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]:gloom:

Well just flat out say it: this is a f*cking joke. I am sorry to be so blunt, but access issues like this really piss me off and I

[CarpeyBiggs]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]First of all the LDS Church and Joe Blow or whatever his name is doesn

[tanya]

[quote=CarpeyBiggs][quote=James_B_Wads2000]First of all the LDS Church and Joe Blow or whatever his name is doesn

[CarpeyBiggs]

I posted the map, take a look at it. They own the entire technical portion of the canyon that we all want to do. And how do we know they don't give a crap? They bought the property, they must care about it enough to own it.

[tanya]

I am talking about it (the canyon and the people) in general terms.... not just one canyon or any people in particular.

[James_B_Wads2000]

I should probably count to ten before posting angry, but my position still stands. The technical portion of this canyon maybe on land

[sparker1]

Down here, the issue is beach access. Everyone owns the beach, but individuals own land that could be used to access the public beach. The rights of those property owners have been established. Towns hold back small tracts of land just for beach access, to avoid the conflicts of people parading through private property. In some cases, private property owners have tried to keep people from walking on the beach behind their property and that can't be legally done.

James, I think you would lose if the property owner went after you for trespassing, no matter how angry you might be.

Maybe Scott could help us here.

[stefan]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]I should probably count to ten before posting angry, but my position still stands. The technical portion of this canyon maybe on land

[Iceaxe]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]I don

[Jaxx]

Just trolling here but...

James' rant sounds like the argument the ORV crowd has in the Moab area. One person owns a piece of land that they restrict so no one can access a 4x4 route. Of course hiking was bestowed upon us by the heavens and only heathens drive 4x4s so the situation is "different"

I just want to add a few more pages to this thread.

[ratagonia]

As noted, Mr. Bird does not own the canyon, but the access from the north side. Due to problems with people accessing through Camp Kolob, I scoped out and released access via the North side several years ago. Since I am a follower of all the RS2477 BS, I suggested people park on the county road and follow an old county road down to the canyon rim and down into the canyon. I checked with Washington County and with the BLM, and the both told me they had no way of knowing if they owned the road or what! Thus I entered the pantheon of Jim Bird's devils.

The landowners were upset last year due to various persons coming into the area, partying all night with big fires and possible firearms, and leaving lots of trash. Canyoneers? I think not, but who knows. People passing through Camp Kolob during church services did not really help matters either.

If land is not posted, you are not trespassing. There is access to Oak Creek by parking discreetely in the woods and hiking down into the watercourse, and following the watercourse to the first rap. Choose a place where there are no "No Trespassing" signs.

Tom

[stefan]

thanks, tom

[Iceaxe]

If land is not posted, you are not trespassing.

Actully the land is posted..... just not correctly (or that was the case last time I was in the area). What that means is you can probably beat the ticket in court..... if you were actually issued a ticket and wanted to spend the time and money to fight it.

Properly posted is a big issue with the hunting and fishing crowd. You can google the law but this link is a good start.
http://www.cwmuutahwildlife.org/trespass.htm

One other tid-bit.... if you are asked to leave and do not then you are trespassing.

:cool2:

[James_B_Wads2000]

I know this post is dead as a doornail but I had one rebuttail for Ice.


I also believe the prices these canyon guides charge are fair and reasonable. As a business owner I'm aware of all the hidden expenses these guys have to cover with insurance, taxes, advertising, payroll, yada, yada..... and after all that there isn't a lot left over for the pocket at the end of the day.

:cry1: Oh boo hoo, these poor small business owners can only make their poorly planed inherently flawed business model profitable by making sweetheart deals with land owners that illegally restricting access to public lands. How are those hippies going to be able to bring home the tofu? :hippy:

Reasonable? How is $250 per person reasonable? I think you have applied a double standard here. You have stated a couple of times in your posts, like the one below, in regards to the Zion Permit system that the permit price is unfair because the extra $25 could make those with limited means (poor folks) unable to go. If $25 bucks it unfair then how is $250 per person reasonable?

Maybe you mean reasonable as far as guided service costs but this is my whole point, many people can

[nelsonccc]

Good thing I have been there, done that.

making whoopee on top of a water tank before canyoning? :haha:

Is that covered by the 249 dollar fee? If so, I bet Nelsonccc would pay that in a second.

Hell no. That stuff is a hell of a lot cheaper here in town.

[nelsonccc]

[quote=Iceaxe][quote=James_B_Wads2000]I don