Status of Oak Creek Access

[Iceaxe]

From Yahoo:

Hello I am one of the owners of the land that needs to be crossed to get to all three of the forks of Oak Creek. In fact to get to any of the forks including the north fork you will need to cross my land, as well as other private lands. This includes going down from the four way spot. I have posted in the past and I am doing so again here. The only way to the Oak creek canyon via my property is through the Zion Adventure Group. I have done this to limit the traffic and the trash left behind by some of the visitors in the past.

In other words to get into Oak canyon via my property other than with the Zion Adventure Group is trespassing. There are sign posted all over this area and more will be placed this year.

Thank you
Jim Bird

.

[Stick]

I was hoping to get to eye of the needle this year. Oh well. At least there are a lot of other good canyons to go down.

[nelsonccc]

Once could argue that the Oak forks that have water year round i.e. "The Eye/South Fork" fall under the new Utah statute regarding stream beds and the water.

From the utah Dept of wildlife resources website "The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 18, 2008 (Conatser v. Johnson, 2008 UT 48) recognizing that the public has a recreational easement to walk the privately owned bed of state waters while engaging in lawful recreational activities that utilize the water. In doing so, the court reaffirmed its 1982 ruling in J.J.N.P. Co. v. Utah, 655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) that the public has a right to use the surface of state waters for recreational purposes."

Some additional clarification "The easement is limited to "state waters" and allows public recreational access on the surface and bed of natural lakes and natural flowing rivers, streams, and creeks on private land. The easement allows the public to walk on the privately owned bed while engaging in recreational activities that utilize the water."

Regarding the landowners liability "Under the Act, landowners are not liable for injuries or damages sustained to people using a waterway for recreational purposes, unless the injuries are caused by the landowner's deliberate, willful or malicious acts or omissions. Easement users assume the risk of injuries and damages that occur while using the waterway."

Now the state does clarify that access must be gained lawfully "The easement does not allow the public to trespass across private property to gain access to state waters. Access to and from the surface or bed of the water must be obtained at a lawful access point, such as a highway right-of-way, public property, or private property with written landowner permission."

This is the real problem. It would seem that gaining access would be the crux. But you could go to where the road crosses the head of the south fork and hike down from there. that begs the question, is the road public or private? If the road has been there as access to public land for more than 10 years then RS 2477 would apply and a judge could rule that access must remain open to the public. I think there is a fair bit of evidence that the road is public and should not be gated.

Since the exit out of the south fork dumps into BLM land, one could argue that Mr. Bird, in his agreement with ZAC, has essentially established a R657-55. This is when a recreational lease of private lands is established for free public walk-in access, especially if there is money exchanging hands for this agreement. This is normally established for hunting and fishing rights through the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Looking at Google Earth and Topo maps it looks like there might be several locations once could come across the top of the South Fork. If we were to stay in the creek bed then we could walk all the way down to the technical portions.

My thoughts on the matter.

[moab mark]

From Yahoo:

Hello I am one of the owners of the land that needs to be crossed to get to all three of the forks of Oak Creek. In fact to get to any of the forks including the north fork you will need to cross my land, as well as other private lands. This includes going down from the four way spot. I have posted in the past and I am doing so again here. The only way to the Oak creek canyon via my property is through the Zion Adventure Group. I have done this to limit the traffic and the trash left behind by some of the visitors in the past.

In other words to get into Oak canyon via my property other than with the Zion Adventure Group is trespassing. There are sign posted all over this area and more will be placed this year.

Thank you
Jim Bird

.

Is ZAC just guiding it or do they sell permits? :hail2thechief:

Mark

[Iceaxe]

ZAC is guiding and not selling permits to the route....

The canyon is still accessible if you really want to add it to your tick list. You just have to go with Zion Adventure Company. So the route is not completely out of bounds. It just has a few hoops to jump through and a price tag attached. I'm as unhappy as anyone that the route is closed to general access, but I am happy that it is not closed completely and you can still visit the canyon if you seriously want to.

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

[moab mark]

If I am reading their site right $395 per person.
No group discount.

Mark

[Iceaxe]

Once could argue that the Oak forks that have water year round i.e. "The Eye/South Fork" fall under the new Utah statute regarding stream beds and the water.

Good argument... but as I recall the year round flow in the south fork begins at a spring in the middle of the property.... but I could be wrong. Its been a long time since I last visited Oak Creek.

:fishing:

[nelsonccc]

Once could argue that the Oak forks that have water year round i.e. "The Eye/South Fork" fall under the new Utah statute regarding stream beds and the water.

Good argument... but as I recall the year round flow in the south fork begins at a spring in the middle of the property.... but I could be wrong. Its been a long time since I last visited Oak Creek.

:fishing:

When we went across the road to the north fork last year in the spring and the fall it had water. I always understood that it flowed year round and that the spring is on the north side of the road crossing.

[Iceaxe]

If I am reading their site right $395 per person.
No group discount.

Last time I checked Oak Creek was classified as a "High Adventure Day" by ZAC

One on One $479.00
Two or More $249.00 per person
Group Discount 8 or more 10%

I couldn't find a direct mention of Oak Creek on their website today.

.

[oldno7]

Sounds like a court matter. We need a volunteer to get arrested, where did trackrunner go? :lol8:

[trackrunner]

Sounds like a court matter. We need a volunteer to get arrested, where did trackrunner go? :lol8:

still in jail. But I'll volunteer.

Maybe we should charter helicopters to drop us off at BLM land starting at 5 AM in the morning. It's legal, but would you rather have someone walking in your wash or buzy by in the FAA controlled air.

[nelsonccc]

Sounds like a court matter. We need a volunteer to get arrested, where did trackrunner go? :lol8:

Not that I'm condoning such actions. But with a little caution its nearly impossible for someone to know if you're in there or not. There are plenty of places to park that are far enough away that the vehicle would not be assocaited with a canyoneer. It merely adds 20-30 minutes of downhill hiking. If one is quiet and sensible, practicing a low-key approach through the neighborhood then I doubt there is any problem. Especially during the week! Just plan on doing this canyon on a thursday when there is nobody up there.

Keep in mind that we tried it the first week of June last year and turned around due to the massive snow drifts we encountered in the other Oak forks. Kolob last year had drifts all the way into July.

[Iceaxe]

Sounds like a court matter. We need a volunteer to get arrested, where did trackrunner go? :lol8:

I once had a similar argument with Ranger Ray in regards to Kolob. I mentioned that since the creek was the park boundary if I stayed on the north side of the creek I didn't need a permit. Ranger Ray's response was something to the effect of.... if you try it you will get a ticket and you can argue your side to the judge.

Some how that response always felt like strong arming by the NPS to me....

:cool2:

[ratagonia]

Sounds like a court matter. We need a volunteer to get arrested, where did trackrunner go? :lol8:

I once had a similar argument with Ranger Ray in regards to Kolob. I mentioned that since the creek was the park boundary if I stayed on the north side of the creek I didn't need a permit. Ranger Ray's response was something to the effect of.... if you try it you will get a ticket and you can argue your side to the judge.

Some how that response always felt like strong arming by the NPS to me....

:cool2:

Or just the truth.

I've made the same argument, but I think convincing the judge would be unlikely.

Tom :moses:

[cilantro13]

I agree in principle, and have argued the same on the Yahoo group. Although the following points have been met with some snarky comments in the past, an analogous fact pattern exists with beaches.

Beaches are public land and anybody is allowed to be on the beach (in essence, there is no such thing as a private beach). A number of cases (sorry I cannot give exact cites, it has been quite a while since I was studying the cases in property law) held that the public has a right of ingress and egress to the beaches via land routes. To solve the problem, most developments provide planned pathways to the beaches so that private property remains private. The public therefore has access and need not trespass on private property to get to the beach (which they would otherwise be justified in doing if the paths didn't exist).

So my question is this: if the public has a right to the waterway, shouldn't the public have a right of ingress and egress to access the waterway? The unique fact pattern with Oak Creek, or any canyon for that matter, is that they are one-way -- i.e., you don't access oak creek from the bottom, it must be from the top. In other words, you cannot access the top of the canyon by coming in through public lands.

Bear in mind, I am not saying there is an affirmative right of access or not, I am just making the point that having a public water way is sort of pointless if you can't access it; in essence the spirit of the statute is violated without a reasonable route of ingress and egress.

As for Mr. Bird, I for one am unwilling to just take his word that you have to cross his land to get the South Fork. In the past, I have always gone through the girl's camp, but as a Mormon, I have always felt a certain justification in that provided there girls camp wasn't full of young women. As for Mr. Bird, what motivation would he have to represent there is no access to Oak Creek except through his land... hmmmm... oh, yeah, the fact he licenses ZAC to cross the land. (BTW - not a knock on ZAC or Mr. Bird - just a lingering distrust of representations without evidence when there is money involved -- call me cynical.)

My family, including my extended family, have had land on Kolob mountain for decades. I know that many of the owners are more than a little crabby about anybody disturbing their tranquility. I get that. But with all due respect to Mr. Bird, I am going to rely on the platte and a title rather than his word. I will be the first in line to apologize to him if it turns out that he is correct in asserting that S. Fork cannot be accessed without being on his land. So let's see that title and platte. He could solve himself a lot of problems by providing it in this forum.

Moreover, if the county is grading and maintaining the roads, I would be very surprised that there is not an easement for public access which might be a way to get into the waterway via the intersection of waterway and road. That too would also be interesting to look into at the Washington County recorders office. Even if a gate goes up and no trespassing signs are affixed, you can't transform the rights granted granted via an public easement with a sign.

Another last theory is that of prescriptive easement (i.e., an easement that is granted by continual illegal use -- yes, you can get legal rights in land via illegal occupation/use of the land if certain criteria are met). If anybody deals in Utah property law, I would be interested in hearing them weigh in. Unfortunately, that isn't my area. But I will bet that canyoneers have been accessing at least S. Fork for the requisite time to form a prescriptive easement, unless access actually does cross Mr. Bird's land, in which case his enforcement actions on his property would most likely prevent a prescriptive easement.

Rant over. (Again.)

[ratagonia]

Nice arguing, but incorrect on several points.

--- In Bogley, , "Christian" <nelsonccc@...> wrote:
>
> One could argue that the Oak forks that have water year round i.e.
> "The Eye/South Fork" fall under the new Utah statute regarding
> stream beds and the water.
>
> From the utah Dept of wildlife resources website "The Utah Supreme
> Court issued an opinion on July 18, 2008 (Conatser v. Johnson, 2008
> UT 48) recognizing that the public has a recreational easement to
> walk the privately owned bed of state waters while engaging in
> lawful recreational activities that utilize the water. In doing so,
> the court reaffirmed its 1982 ruling in J.J.N.P. Co. v. Utah, 655
> P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) that the public has a right to use the surface
> of state waters for recreational purposes."
>
>
> Now the state does clarify that access must be gained lawfully "The
> easement does not allow the public to trespass across private
> property to gain access to state waters. Access to and from the
> surface or bed of the water must be obtained at a lawful access
> point, such as a highway right-of-way, public property, or private
> property with written landowner permission."

1. you would be required to transit the canyon without touching anything that is outside the streambed. This would be quite challenging.
>
> This is the real problem. It would seem that gaining access would be
> the crux. But you could go to where the road crosses the head of the
> south fork and hike down from there. that begs the question, is the
> road public or private? If the road has been there as access to
> public land for more than 10 years then RS 2477 would apply and a
> judge could rule that access must remain open to the public. I think
> there is a fair bit of evidence that the road is public and should
> not be gated.

2. RS2477 does not apply here unless the road was created before 1976 across Federal land, and other complications. I have checked with Washington County and the BLM, and they do not have a clear claim on the road, or an interest in pursuing one.. EVEN if there WAS a valid RS2477 claim, it is not an ownership claim and ONLY a right-of-way claim, and the COUNTY would need to assert that claim, not individuals. The county has de facto given up a claim, if it had one in the first place.

It would also require that when the road was built it was on Federal land. I
know not the history of these plots, but I suspect they have not been Federal land for quite some time.

The road is currently gated. It is up to the County to object to the gating of the road. The landowners have been maintaining the road for quite some time, and have signed it as a private road for quite some time.
>
> Since the exit out of the south fork dumps into BLM land, one could
> argue that Mr. Bird, in his agreement with ZAC, has essentially
> established a R657-55. This is when a recreational lease of private
> lands is established for free public walk-in access, especially if
> there is money exchanging hands for this agreement. This is normally
> established for hunting and fishing rights through the Utah Division
> of Wildlife Resources.

3. I am unfamiliar with R657-55, but the agreement between Mr. Bird and ZAC is not for public access - it is a private commercial agreement between two entities. You are welcome to attempt to negotiate a public access agreement with Mr. Bird, Christian.

>
> Looking at Google Earth and Topo maps it looks like there might be
> several locations once could come across the top of the South Fork.
> If we were to stay in the creek bed then we could walk all the way
> down to the technical portions.

4. Possible, but that presumes you can get through Mr. Bird's property without touching anything outside the stream bed. Unlikely. Without GPSing it carefully I cannot say for sure, but my reading of the map is that Mr. Bird's plot 146749 includes the first 5 rappels or so.

Tom

[James_B_Wads2000]

It is wrong to block access to public land. I know that the approach crosses private land put at some point you enter BLM or national park land. The same thing happen in Bells Canyon in SLC. Ownership of a couple of acres can not trump the public

[ratagonia]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]It is wrong to block access to public land. I know that the approach crosses private land put at some point you enter BLM or national park land. The same thing happen in Bells Canyon in SLC. Ownership of a couple of acres can not trump the public

[cilantro13]

If the private land next to public land has to allow public access, how about the private land next to that? and next to that? And how about access via quad? or via hummer? How about the hummer through my living room???

Tom :moses:

Tom, you're starting to sound like a law school professor... javascript:emoticon(':mrgreen:')

How about this one... a parcel of square land is subdivided into nine equal portions (think tic tac toe grid). A man and his brother buy the center square and one of the outer squares, where the man with the middle square accesses his land via the outer square his brother owns. His brother falls on hard times and loses the outer square to Mr. Bird. Mr. Bird doesn't want the man driving his truck, ATV, etc. over his parcel of land because he wants to let the land revert to nature, so he gates it off and puts a no trespassing sign up. No access easement was ever granted. (In real life, there is an implied easement, but for the sake of this fact pattern, ignore that).

Should the man have access to the middle square? Assume Mr. Bird owns all the outer squares. Or, assume that the man's square is surrounded on all sides by cliffs that are impassible with a vehicle making the only avenue of ingress and egress through Mr. Bird's land.

As I see this problem, the facts are similar. You have a natural feature of the environment that is inaccessible but for access on a narrow passage of land. Moreover, the canyon is public land. Even if not public, a statute has declared that the land is to be accessible as long as you remain in a river bed (arguably the entire canyon floor qualifies for narrow canyons). So really, the only issue is whether there is an implied easement to access the land over Mr. Birds land.

Keep in mind, the whole point of property rights are to make productive use of the land.

Just throwing out food for thought. I don't know the answer, and I go back and forth with this issue, but at the end of the day letting one person dictate access to public lands doesn't sit well from policy perspective with me. In effect, Mr. Bird is appropriating for himself the entire canyon by denying access to it because you can't get to it from the bottom unless you have a REALLY big grappling hook.

As for reality, well, I think it is much less clear. I find this to be a fascinating topic just because I can see valid arguments on both sides of this coin.

[ratagonia]

Beaches are public land and anybody is allowed to be on the beach (in essence, there is no such thing as a private beach).


My apologies if you find this snarky. In CALIFORNIA, that may be the law, but it is different in other states. And the details of what access can and cannot be removed are developed slowly via case law, or legislated which sometimes makes them more clear. In other states, the laws both legislated and case law, are different.



So my question is this: if the public has a right to the waterway, shouldn't the public have a right of ingress and egress to access the waterway?


If you feel strongly about this, take it up with your legislators.



... in essence the spirit of the statute is violated without a reasonable route of ingress and egress.


I'm not sure it was by statute. The case was about people publicly accessing a waterway that then crossed private property.

You can access the entire length of the streambed by climbing up the streambed whenever you wish. Fitting through the 12" culvert might be a challenge. If your climbing skills are insufficient to make the climb, perhaps you should spend more time in the gym.... :haha:



As for Mr. Bird, I for one am unwilling to just take his word that you have to cross his land to get the South Fork. In the past, I have always gone through the girl's camp, but as a Mormon, I have always felt a certain justification in that provided there girls camp wasn't full of young women.


So trespassing on clearly posted church land is not a sin? A crime perhaps, but not a sin? When you say "full", how full does it have to be for it to be a sin? Does that apply to non-Members as well? Is this covered by a Temple Recommend? or is there a separate Trespass-at-will Recommend I could ask my Bishop for? Does the LDS Church and the local Sheriff recognize Recommends issued by my Unitarian Minister?

Thanks for the opportunity to be snarky! :five:

Mr. Bird has never asserted that you HAVE to cross his land to get to the South Fork. Read what he says carefully.



As for Mr. Bird, what motivation would he have to represent there is no access to Oak Creek except through his land... hmmmm... oh, yeah, the fact he licenses ZAC to cross the land. (BTW - not a knock on ZAC or Mr. Bird - just a lingering distrust of representations without evidence when there is money involved -- call me cynical.)


Cilantro - you are cynical!
(See, I fulfill requests, well, at least the easy ones).



My family, including my extended family, have had land on Kolob mountain for decades. I know that many of the owners are more than a little crabby about anybody disturbing their tranquility. I get that. But with all due respect to Mr. Bird, I am going to rely on the platte and a title rather than his word. I will be the first in line to apologize to him if it turns out that he is correct in asserting that S. Fork cannot be accessed without being on his land. So let's see that title and platte. He could solve himself a lot of problems by providing it in this forum.


It is a public record. Asking him to do YOUR homework is a little bit impolite, don't you think. And again, that is not what he said.

http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/cusapress/oak.htm



Moreover, if the county is grading and maintaining the roads, I would be very surprised that there is not an easement for public access which might be a way to get into the waterway via the intersection of waterway and road. That too would also be interesting to look into at the Washington County recorders office. Even if a gate goes up and no trespassing signs are affixed, you can't transform the rights granted via a public easement with a sign.


I have checked with the county, and these are not county roads. They are maintained by the homeowner's association, and are private roads. I believe they are private from where they leave the Kolob Terrace road, but I am not sure. I believe there is a "Private Road" sign up there, but no gate.



Another last theory is that of prescriptive easement (i.e., an easement that is granted by continual illegal use -- yes, you can get legal rights in land via illegal occupation/use of the land if certain criteria are met). If anybody deals in Utah property law, I would be interested in hearing them weigh in. Unfortunately, that isn't my area. But I will bet that canyoneers have been accessing at least S. Fork for the requisite time to form a prescriptive easement, unless access actually does cross Mr. Bird's land, in which case his enforcement actions on his property would most likely prevent a prescriptive easement.

Rant over. (Again.)

May I recommend:

How to Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie
ISBN-13: 978-0671027032
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243980525&sr=1-1

[ratagonia]

Tom, you're starting to sound like a law school professor... (':mrgreen:')

Should the man have access to the middle square?

That's what helicopters are for.

Seriously, it HAS come to case law, and the courts decided the gentleman involved could not build a road across several miles of Wilderness Area to get to his property. But he could walk, ride a horse or come by helicopter.

Game, Set, Match!! :moses:

[moab mark]

On a side note in moab and mountain green I know of two cases where the public won one and loss one. In Mountain Green a friend of our families owns property that the weber river runs thru. He was tired of the fisherman leaving a mess every where etc. The fisherman were using the argument they were in the stream. He finally got into it with one fisherman and had the sherriff write him a tresspass ticket. THis eventually ended up in the utah supreme court and as I understand it the fisherman won. The state ruled he could cross the property to enter the stream.
In moab those of you familiar with rock of ages. The jeep trail going up pritchett has been there for a very long time. The land owner who owns the first couple of hundred yards of this road closed it down recently. He then started charging a fee to cross his land. The jeep club went to court arguing the right of way had been there for years. I am pretty sure they lost because they are still charging a fee. So who knows how a judge will rule on each situation.

Mark

[cilantro13]

LOL Tom. I will read the book. :haha: And good try with the snarkiness. You have to really feel snarky to come across as snarky. And I just didn't get that. :five:

As for the law, all the western states have very similar law and my extent of property law knowledge comes from the testing that Utah and California share in common (does its screw stuff up that I grew up in Arizona and that I am further tainted?) But admittedly, my knowledge is at the general principle level, not in the minutia of the statutes or case law. But I didn't represent that I had the level of insight, and I don't even for California property law. But the principles apply pretty much everywhere with slight variation, much of which is regulated on a Federal level by the circuit courts (for full disclosure Ca and Ut are not in the same circuit). But I don't know any of that. I do know that if I were licensed in Utah, I would represent the first guy to get arrested pro bono on this topic.

Not sure that it is my homework to check who owns what. We have a guy near me sitting on state park land on a bike trail who has pasted no trespassing signs everywhere (and even threatened mtn bikers via gun... I know... gasp!!!... in California where rumor has it guns are illegal), but he doesn't have a valid claim. He is a squatter acting as if he owns the land for who knows what reason. So I am loathe to take Mr. Bird's word about his claim, especially when I know that if you can get other access if hurts his bottom line.

That said, I doubt anybody here regularly checks titles for the land they are on to ensure it isn't private before they hike or canyon. Just saying.

And now, to figure out how to make friends. Oh, and influence people too.

:2thumbs:

[James_B_Wads2000]

So, you too do not believe in "private land"?

Sure I believe in private land. I also believe in public land. I believe that by this guy trying to stop access to public land and that is stealing in my opinion.


If the private land next to public land has to allow public access, how about the private land next to that? and next to that? And how about access via quad? or via hummer? How about the hummer through my living room???

If in fact his land does cover all access points to the publicly held parts of the canyon then he must provide reasonable access to that public land. Since that public land is rugged/undeveloped then allowing simple foot traffic across his property would be sufficient. It doesn

[cilantro13]

Seriously, it HAS come to case law, and the courts decided the gentleman involved could not build a road across several miles of Wilderness Area to get to his property. But he could walk, ride a horse or come by helicopter.


The cases I have ready come out on the side of implied easement.

[cilantro13]

Seriously, it HAS come to case law, and the courts decided the gentleman involved could not build a road across several miles of Wilderness Area to get to his property. But he could walk, ride a horse or come by helicopter.


The cases I have ready come out on the side of implied easement.

I screwed up my terminology -- I believe the correct term is easement by necessity. :frustrated:

[canyonguru]

Has anybody thought about :rifle: not sure but just a thought :ne_nau:

[Iceaxe]

Is it still tresspassing if no ones sees you? :ne_nau:



Just askin'


http://www.adelaideflashmob.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ninja_crouch.jpg
:haha:

[ratagonia]

Has anybody thought about :rifle: not sure but just a thought :ne_nau:

Looks like James has.... Ah, the old James. Was he on vacation or something???
:roflol:

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

Seriously, it HAS come to case law, and the courts decided the gentleman involved could not build a road across several miles of Wilderness Area to get to his property. But he could walk, ride a horse or come by helicopter.


The cases I have ready come out on the side of implied easement.

Well, to some extent. People don't usually go to court unless they have a pretty good claim (unless you're a Utah County using my tax dollars...).

It's crazy, liberal moi arguing for basic property rights with (mostly) a bunch of conservatives! Private property is private property. Zoning Laws are the context within which the property is private, and can be changed following a substantial process. Private property is subject to various rights of way and access agreements, but establishing use or "rights of passage" is iffy at best.

Bunch of SOCIALISTS..... :frustrated: OOPS, gonna have to take it over to the Political Wastebasket if I keep talking like that...

Tom :moses: :twisted:

[mmac]

I'd like to point out that if "we" (and I use the term loosely for anyone wanting to cross this guy's land) are responsible for the fact that he's closed it off to public access? It seems like he used to allow people access until he got fed up with the impact (I.E. trash, noise, whatever).


I have done this to limit the traffic and the trash left behind by some of the visitors in the past.

Maybe instead of ragging on this guy for wanting to have a nice home, we should be trying to control our own impact to this site (and every wilderness site) and educate others to do the same. If the users of the land are responsible and respectful he would have no reason to limit access to ZAC led groups.

I fully understand that this it's impossible to make everyone behave the way they should, but it's something we should keep in mind.

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (http://www.lnt.org/)

[James_B_Wads2000]

Private property is subject to various rights of way and access agreements

Then it looks like we are in agreement! :five: See we are both liberal hippies at heart. :hippy:



but establishing use or "rights of passage" is iffy at best.

Well your right involves a third party getting paid $500. My right involves me just walkin

[ratagonia]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000]
Then it looks like we are in agreement! :five: See we are both liberal hippies at heart. :hippy:

Well your right involves a third party getting paid $500. My right involves me just walkin

[Reedus]

Guess I'll have to put this one on the poach list...not because Jim doesn't want anyone on his land, but that he wants anyone interested in doing Oak to bend over and take it hard from ZAC

[ratagonia]

Guess I'll have to put this one on the poach list...not because Jim doesn't want anyone on his land, but that he wants anyone interested in doing Oak to bend over and take it hard from ZAC

Hey, where else can you PAY someone 400$ to let you jug 300 feet of rope???

T :lol8:

[Iceaxe]

where else can you PAY someone 400$ to let you jug 300 feet of rope???

When you put it that way, it looks like a bargin!!!

:roflol:

[Felicia]

I'd like to point out that if "we" (and I use the term loosely for anyone wanting to cross this guy's land) are responsible for the fact that he's closed it off to public access? It seems like he used to allow people access until he got fed up with the impact (I.E. trash, noise, whatever).


I have done this to limit the traffic and the trash left behind by some of the visitors in the past.

Maybe instead of ragging on this guy for wanting to have a nice home, we should be trying to control our own impact to this site (and every wilderness site) and educate others to do the same. If the users of the land are responsible and respectful he would have no reason to limit access to ZAC led groups.

I fully understand that this it's impossible to make everyone behave the way they should, but it's something we should keep in mind.

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (http://www.lnt.org/)


That's what I was going to say, but you said it much better. :2thumbs:

[Scott Card]

I am personally qualified to do all the Oak Creeks without permission or the ZAC. I watched the movie at the back country desk last Friday. I have lost all desire to have an impact on the environment, so much so I just may not enjoy myself.

[Deeps]

What do think the split is between ZAC and Mr. Bird? 50/50? 60/40?

[canyonguru]

IMO i don't think he cared so much about the impact on his land ZAC just gave him a sweet deal to guide one of the best canyons in the area that dosen't need a park permit. I don't blame the guy he probably lost most of his retirement when the market took a dive and he is looking to make up for some lost wages.

I'll tell you what i would do if i was him. I would build a nice trail leading straight to Oak Creek with nice little entry and everything. Then i would make people pay me what the park permits cost 5 bucks a head. That should cover any impact the people make on his land. Then everyone wins. :2thumbs:

[ratagonia]

What do think the split is between ZAC and Mr. Bird? 50/50? 60/40?

I don't know and have not asked, but in most cases like this I have seen the venue fee be about 10% of the total.

Tom

[tanya]

I am personally qualified to do all the Oak Creeks without permission or the ZAC. I watched the movie at the back country desk last Friday. I have lost all desire to have an impact on the environment, so much so I just may not enjoy myself.


:roflol:

[Iceaxe]

Then i would make people pay me what the park permits cost 5 bucks a head.

I'm no lawyer but I do know this.... if you start charging for admittance you open yourself up to liability issues. I'm guessing the fact that ZAC has the ability to cover this guys insurance concerns, does not make a nuisance of themselves, and provide him with a small stipend is why they are allowed to guide the route.

You guys always have a tendency to focus on the dollars and that is normally only part of the equation.

:cool2:

[frank'n'beans]

So what im getting out of this is you need a permit to go down this/these canyons... And to get this permit you need to go through ZAC... and the cost of this permit is $500.00??? lol what??? Did ZAC take lessons from the park on pemits?! Sure sounds like it to me. I have spent well over $1000.00 at ZAC for some reason... Where is my oak creek voucher!!! I thought a few people didnt agree with permit systems?! How much is a tresspassing ticket? May be cheaper than the $500 dollar permit lol. :ne_nau:

I kid... Kinda... I would never treaspass onto private property.


Now if you will excuse me I will step back into my lurking shadows.


:popcorn:

[Iceaxe]

So what im getting out of this is you need a permit to go down this/these canyons... And to get this permit you need to go through ZAC... and the cost of this permit is $500.00???

If that's what you are getting you have it wrong..... there are no permits for this route. The route is on private property (allegedly all on Jim Bird's property). ZAC worked out a deal with Bird that allows them to guide on his property. The only way to currently access the canyon is to hire ZAC as your professional canyon guide.

.

[frank'n'beans]

Still sounds like a permit lol. To go down this canyon you have to sign papers, follow someone, and pay them to do so. If you don't follow those directions you MAY be fined.(If caught) Just really sounds like the permit system to me.

:peepwall:


Kind of :lame:

[Iceaxe]

I guess my thing is...... I really don't understand why everyone is picking on ZAC in this deal.... Bird closed his property to canyoneering. ZAC saw an opportunity to make a little coin as a private company and took it, hard for me to fault ZAC for that.

Now should ZAC have tried to negotiate access for all of us? It would have been nice, but that is not their job. Seems to me if the canyoneering community wants access everyone needs to stop bitching and see what can be done to open the route back up. Someone needs to take the lead on this.... Maybe some type of service project each year to clean up the route would get things rolling in a positive direction.

Just my 2 cents....

:popcorn:

[frank'n'beans]

Your right Ice I really like all the people at ZAC and their services. But the only way your able to get down that canyon is to pay lots of money that I dont have and I'm sad about that lol. Mabe ZAC could offer a cheaper trip for returning customers!

But its still lame the guy cut off access. Mabe he would be hip to the service project.

[Iceaxe]

I'd still like to see a plot plan of who actually owns what up at Oak Creek.... that would be a great first step for a group seeking access and it should be public record I'd guess... I always take it with a large grain of salt when someone tells me they own everything as far as you can see in either direction....

[Cirrus2000]

Now should ZAC have tried to negotiate access for all of us? It would have been nice, but that is not their job. Seems to me if the canyoneering community wants access everyone needs to stop bitching and see what can be done to open the route back up. Someone needs to take the lead on this.... Maybe some type of service project each year to clean up the route would get things rolling in a positive direction.
Someone who combines a soup

[Iceaxe]

I have already had my turn in the barrel.... :haha:

[Odie_Canyon]

from the Washington County Recorder's Office

http://maps.washco.utah.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=washco_main

My neighbor (though I don't know them personally) owns 12/20ths of the undivided parcel, of which Washington County owns 1/20th, as well as several other people/families. The South Fork/Eye of the Needle I understand is on the undivided 20 acre parcel.

All the beta I have seen enters from the end of the road in Kolob Pines, travels through the church property to the canyon...

[Udink]

I'd still like to see a plot plan of who actually owns what up at Oak Creek.... that would be a great first step for a group seeking access and it should be public record I'd guess... I always take it with a large grain of salt when someone tells me they own everything as far as you can see in either direction....
I made this from this website:

http://maps.washco.utah.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=washco_main

Hopefully I got the right place. :lol8: This is Oak Creek just above where it joins up with Kolob Creek.

[canyonguru]

Not sure if this helps any but back on toms website it has a map of the surrounding land and plots of who owns them. I am pretty sure thay the Reber piece of land is a very good friend of mine. He has told me that he owns land up there but i never really inquired about it. There are a lot of Reber's in southern utah so that might not be his but when i get a hold of him i will let you guys know. If this is the case can we go to his property and then take the creek down staying in the creek bed?

[Udink]

D'oh! Beat me by a minute. :roflol:

[Iceaxe]

So looking at this.... the route I have posted only crosses LDS Chruch property and is not even close to Bird's property....

[trackrunner]

Does it look like one could start from BLM land hug the canyon rim of south fork and not even cross Mr. Birds or LDS Camp Kolob land?

[moab mark]

So looking at this.... the route I have posted only crosses LDS Chruch property and is not even close to Bird's property....

Is the kolob pines subdivision gated off or can you drive right to the lds property?

[moab mark]

By reading the byrd email I am betting he thinks or owns the piece that says no owner of record.

Mark

[Brian in SLC]

Your right Ice I really like all the people at ZAC and their services.

Geez, me too. Especially when they go outside their guide permitted area and do "community service" in some other canyons in Utah. Didn't they clean up some anchors in some canyon...tryin' to think...something about "Mindbender" or some such.

Maybe folks could return in kind and perform that same public service in the Oak Creek forks? In fact, I remember when someone from ZAC told me that Oak Creek wasn't bolted, and, should stay that way to respect the established route.

I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of natural anchors, or, folks could just use longer ropes in there.

Maybe start with Oak, then move "South"?

Hee hee hee...

-Brian in SLC
ps: great land owner maps!

[nelsonccc]

So looking at this.... the route I have posted only crosses LDS Chruch property and is not even close to Bird's property....

Is the kolob pines subdivision gated off or can you drive right to the lds property?

you can drive right to the gate, but the problem is that you're in the Kolob Pines subdivision which would be considered private. The trick is to just take the time to hike there and park farther away in a spot that does not immediately give you away as a canyoneer. If a low key approach is practiced nobody will know you're in there!

[moab mark]

Does anyone know what lds stake owns this camp? I think our high adveture boys need an adventure.

Mark

[trackrunner]

Does anyone know what lds stake owns this camp? I think our high adveture boys need an adventure.

Mark

I once heard it was out of vegas

[nelsonccc]

Does anyone know what lds stake owns this camp? I think our high adveture boys need an adventure.

Mark

I once heard it was out of vegas

Its definately out of vegas. I'm not sure what stake but I know its one of the henderson stakes.

[Stick]

Last I heard Camp Kolob is owned by the Logandale stake. It is in the Las Vegas area.

[moab mark]

So does ZACS go across theLDS property or a different way? Climb Utah states cutting through the Church property. If cutting through camp kolob are you trespassing on the Bird property? By looking at the map MIA is not exiting on Camp Kolob? Is the MIA on private or public property?

Mark

[ratagonia]

So does ZACS go across theLDS property or a different way? Climb Utah states cutting through the Church property. If cutting through camp kolob are you trespassing on the Bird property? By looking at the map MIA is not exiting on Camp Kolob? Is the MIA on private or public property?

Mark

ZAC uses Mr. Bird's property for ingress and egress.

Cutting through Camp Kolob is trespassing, and their property is posted.

The MIA exit is a long way away, through property owned by another Stake, which grants the public a hiking access as long as they stay away from camp in session, which works easily because the camp is further down the peninsula where people are not interested in going.

Tom

[moab mark]

I realize the church prop is posted but if you go in that way are you staying off of birds property? A phone call from one Stake Pres to another can probably get a young mens group permission to cross their camp.
Mark

[Kuya]

I realize the church prop is posted but if you go in that way are you staying off of birds property? A phone call from one Stake Pres to another can probably get a young mens group permission to cross their camp.
Mark

Has anyone tried doing this?

[moab mark]

Not I, I quit Canyoneering with the Scouts, to much headache and liability.:angryfire:Just go as a group of a couple of Dads and their Boys now.

[moab mark]

Does ZAC's still have access?

[ratagonia]

Does ZAC's still have access?


Zion Adventure Company (ie, ZAC) has access to the Oak Creek canyons via an agreement with the Bird family.

I'm not sure when the renewal date is.

But that other company... ZAC's, must be the ones thats doess guidings nears Zions Nationals Parks, and I ams unfamiliars withs theirs agreementss. :naughty:

Tom

[2065toyota]

Zax has pretty good pizza though

[moab mark]

:fitz:
Zion Adventure Company (ie, ZAC) has access to the Oak Creek canyons via an agreement with the Bird family.

I'm not sure when the renewal date is.

But that other company... ZAC's, must be the ones thats doess guidings nears Zions Nationals Parks, and I ams unfamiliars withs theirs agreementss.
Tom

:fitz:

[moab mark]

What is the cost to have my hand held thru Oak Creek?

[ratagonia]

What is the cost to have my hand held thru Oak Creek?

C'mon Mark, you've done a ZAC trip haven't you? We don't hold your hand, we empower you to hold your own hand, and make sure you are holding it at all times.

This trip we call an Extreme Adventure Day.

http://www.zionadventures.com/zion-park-tours/canyoneering/trips/extreme-adventure-canyoneering-day/

Tom

[Kuya]

What is the cost to have my hand held thru Oak Creek?

looks like it is:



One on One

$695.00


Two or More

$395.00 per person


Group Discount

Not Available






gah... so much $$ to have some one go with you when you know you can do it yourself. I guess some things in life just don't work out the way you wan't them.

[ratagonia]

looks like it is:



One on One

$695.00


Two or More

$395.00 per person


Group Discount

Not Available








gah... so much $$ to have some one go with you when you know you can do it yourself. I guess some things in life just don't work out the way you wan't them.

The trip is, of course, oriented toward people who cannot do it on their own.

And, just to be clear, you cannot just go do it on your own, legally, since the canyon and access are on private land.

Tom

[Kuya]

The trip is, of course, oriented toward people who cannot do it on their own.

And, just to be clear, you cannot just go do it on your own, legally, since the canyon and access are on private land.

Tom

yeah that is the problem I guess. In order to experience this section of canyon now, an experienced canyoneer now has to pay a guide $400+ to go. :lame:

Looks like I will need to call up the property manager and reserve the church camp ground for my family. hehehe

[Iceaxe]

And, just to be clear, you cannot just go do it on your own, legally, since the canyon and access are on private land.

Tom, do you have a copy of the map showing land ownersship? I know I've seen one floating around.

[ratagonia]

Only a paper copy. Try Washington County - they have a pretty-good on-line system.

Tom

[Slot Machine]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the watercourse itself is nobody's property. Is this correct?

If a canyoneer were somehow teleported to the first rappel and then descended the canyon, would this be considered legal?

[Iceaxe]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the watercourse itself is nobody's property. Is this correct?

No, that was someone attmpting to justify using some right-of-ways established for fishermen to access the canyon.



If a canyoneer were somehow teleported to the first rappel and then descended the canyon, would this be considered legal?

One of the reasons I wanted to see a map. If I recall the tech section of the canyon was not on private property or only a small portion was on private property. But yeah... if you can get to the edge of the private property you are golden for the rest of the trip.

[moab mark]

C'mon Mark, you've done a ZAC trip haven't you? We don't hold your hand, we empower you to hold your own hand, and make sure you are holding it at all times.

This trip we call an Extreme Adventure Day.










http://www.zionadventures.com/zion-park-tours/canyoneering/trips/extreme-adventure-canyoneering-day/

Tom

That is a tad pricey. How much is a tresspassing ticket?:lol8: The exit sounds like a different twist.

[moab mark]

looks like it is:



One on One


$695.00



Two or More


$395.00 per person



Group Discount


Not Available







gah... so much $$ to have some one go with you when you know you can do it yourself. I guess some things in life just don't work out the way you wan't them.

Im sure they have to pay to cross the property which increases their costs. They are not looking for you or me as a client. They want that guy from New York who is looking for a once in a lifetime experience. I have several out of state friends that would not even blink at the cost to do that. Helicopter skiing-all day Scuba Diving etc. all have a steep price tag. When Guides get involved the cost of fun goes up substantially.

[Kuya]

oh I am sure that they do. there are all sorts of fees that they cover as a guide service. BUT the rest of the canyoneering community is punished and required to pay that to do the canyon. I guess it limits the traffic on the guys land and that is probably what he wants. understandably so, but still. To see pictures of that beautiful canyon and not able to do it with out forking over major $$ makes ya crazy.

[ratagonia]

One of the reasons I wanted to see a map. If I recall the tech section of the canyon was not on private property or only a small portion was on private property. But yeah... if you can get to the edge of the private property you are golden for the rest of the trip.

The technical portion of the canyon is on private land, but it is not posted.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: I've beat two trespassing tickets in my life (the only two I have received), because the property was not posted correctly. Of course I still had to go to court to fight the tickets. To be legal a property owner can't just nail up a sign, the requirements for correctly posting private property are pretty stringent and most property is not posted correctly. In Utah you are allowed on private property if it is not posted. One other piece of useful information is if a property owner asks you to leave his property you must do so immediately or you can be cited.

"Properly posted" means that signs prohibiting trespass or bright yellow, bright orange, or fluorescent paint are clearly displayed at all corners, fishing streams crossing property lines, roads, gates, and rights-of-way entering the land; or in a manner that would reasonably be expected to be seen by a person in the area.

Not that I'm advocating trespassing, I just figured the information above fit into the conversation. Originally the property owners of Camp Kolob had no issues with canyoneers crossing their property. But a couple of canyoneers made an ass of themselves when a girls camp was in session and that was the end of that. Part of the problem was they were asked to leave the property immediately and didn't.

:popcorn:

[ratagonia]

FWIW: I've beat two trespassing tickets in my life (the only two I have received), because the property was not posted correctly. Of course I still had to go to court to fight the tickets. To be legal a property owner can't just nail up a sign, the requirements for correctly posting private property are pretty stringent and most property is not posted correctly. In Utah you are allowed on private property if it is not posted. One other piece of useful information is if a property owner asks you to leave his property you must do so immediately or you can be cited.

"Properly posted" means that signs prohibiting trespass or bright yellow, bright orange, or fluorescent paint are clearly displayed at all corners, fishing streams crossing property lines, roads, gates, and rights-of-way entering the land; or in a manner that would reasonably be expected to be seen by a person in the area.

Not that I'm advocating trespassing, I just figured the information above fit into the conversation. Originally the property owners of Camp Kolob had no issues with canyoneers crossing their property. But a couple of canyoneers made an ass of themselves when a girls camp was in session and that was the end of that. Part of the problem was they were asked to leave the property immediately and didn't.

:popcorn:

Did you look up the statute or is that from memory? MY memory is that the statute in Utah is kinda vague, but along the lines of what you say... but a lot is left up to the judge, who is most likely a buddy of the landowner.

In Oak Creek, part of the problem is that the road into the area is a private road, posted on the gate that is always open, but posted nonetheless. So as soon as you drive past that gate, you are trespassing.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

As I said... I've been to court twice on the deal and the trespassing charge is pretty easy to beat because most land is not posted properly. A simple sign posted on a road doesn't cut it. A judge has some descresion but he still must follow the law.

Sent using Tapatalk

[2065toyota]

(c) "Permission" means written authorization from the owner or person in charge to enter upon private land that is either cultivated or properly posted, and must include:
(i) the signature of the owner or person in charge;
(ii) the name of the person being given permission;
(iii) the appropriate dates; and
(iv) a general description of the property.
(d) "Properly posted" means that "No Trespassing" signs or a minimum of 100 square inches of bright yellow, bright orange, or fluorescent paint are displayed at all corners, fishing streams crossing property lines, roads, gates, and rights-of-way entering the land. If metal fence posts are used, the entire exterior side must be painted.



(i) without the permission of the owner or person in charge, enter upon privately owned land that is cultivated or properly posted;
(ii) refuse to immediately leave the private land if requested to do so by the owner or person in charge; or
(iii) obstruct any entrance or exit to private property.


(6) Any person who violates any provision of Subsection (2) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

[Iceaxe]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say Toyota?

There is a lot more to the law than what you posted... what you posted looks like what is printed in the hunting and fishing proclamations.

Last time I dealt with the problem there were some rules on what constituted a proper no tresspassing sign. It had to be so many square inches with letters so tall on a contrasting background, yada, yada...

Also... I don't think the general no tress passing

Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

Also I don't think the general "no trespassing" sign on the oak access road would hold up as each individual landowner must post their own property. In fact it is illegal to post property (public or private) that is not yours.

But I'm not a lawyer, I just played one twice in court where I'm batting 100%.... consult you own attorney before playing the game as I could just be full of shit.

Sent using Tapatalk

[2065toyota]

It was from the hunting regulations, but posting and trespassing is the same for hunters as it is for hikers. Many states don't have to post private property, it is the persons responsibility to find out property ownership and if they can be there. The only reason Utah posts their property is because the government owns so much of it we have to post what they can't have

Utah Code Annotated A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains unlawfully on property, defined as a dwelling, and intends to cause annoyance or injury to any person or damage to any property. A violation is a class B misdemeanor. 76-60206 (2)(a)(3)(a).
A person is guilty of criminal trespass if knowingly his entry or presence is unlawful, he enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner; or notice is given by posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders. A violation is an infraction. 76-6-206 (2)(b)(3)(b).

[shagdeuce]

This is a property lines map that I created in 2010. The disclaimers are (1) things may have changed since then and (2) this is an overlay of a few maps...so it may not be perfect.

62765

At the time, we were going to try and drive down the road and see if we could find access, but were discouraged by the gate on the road (with the no trespassing signs). We did Boundary instead. There are too many accessible canyons to try and get into the South Fork of Oak questionably. Hopefully the American Canyoneers can work on access here (or we can all get together and buy the property it sits on).

[Slot Machine]

This is a property lines map that I created in 2010. The disclaimers are (1) things may have changed since then and (2) this is an overlay of a few maps...so it may not be perfect.

Cool! Thanks for sharing this.

Would you mind posting a zoomed-in section of your map? (Since it is a little tough to read) The area immideately surrounding The Eye of the Needle would be helpful. (obvious, I suppose)

Bob

[shagdeuce]

Cool! Thanks for sharing this.

Would you mind posting a zoomed-in section of your map? (Since it is a little tough to read) The area immideately surrounding The Eye of the Needle would be helpful. (obvious, I suppose)

Bob

Here you go:

62767

I checked the Washington County Plat Maps and it looks like things have largely stayed the same. The lots that I have labeled as Jim Bird lots are registered under Nida Pajaros LLC. The Nevada SoS website lists that entity as managed by a couple with the last name of Pearson. I'm not sure if I misassociated them with Jim Bird, but it seems like in 2010, I tied the entity back to Jim Bird some how. Anyway, take it for what it is worth.

It is worth noting that the plat that Oak sits on (the one owned by 10 Owners) has Washington County as one of the minority owners (2 acres of the 76?). I'm not sure if the owners have defined lots within the plat (and the detail is just not shown on the recorder's map) or what...

Anyway...a lot of analysis on this little canyon...restrictions bread lore and desire I guess.

[Iceaxe]

Looks like MSH Investments is who someone needs to talk with?


Sent using Tapatalk

[TheBird]

Has anyone tried to ask for permission from Jim Bird himself? Much of my families ranch property in Montana is posted "no trespassing" but we have always let those who contact us use it. usually hunters. we just like to know who is roaming around on our land. I'm not sure what kind of guy Mr. Bird is, but it seems to me if you were respectful and let him know you don't wish to trespass he could be a bit more understanding. although you might still have to slip him a Benjamin. still cheaper than going with ZAC though. don't know, just a thought.

[shagdeuce]

Has anyone tried to ask for permission from Jim Bird himself? Much of my families ranch property in Montana is posted "no trespassing" but we have always let those who contact us use it. usually hunters. we just like to know who is roaming around on our land. I'm not sure what kind of guy Mr. Bird is, but it seems to me if you were respectful and let him know you don't wish to trespass he could be a bit more understanding. although you might still have to slip him a Benjamin. still cheaper than going with ZAC though. don't know, just a thought.

I have not reached out to him, but this is from the first post in this thread. If you search more, you will find other posts from him saying he doesn't want the community going through his land (as I recall, there was an incident where some canyoneers screwed things up with him). This, of course, was his stance 4 years ago. Maybe it has changed (although I doubt it). Again, it would be awesome for someone from the AC to reach out to him and the other land owners in an official capacity and let us know what they say.


From Yahoo:

Hello I am one of the owners of the land that needs to be crossed to get to all three of the forks of Oak Creek. In fact to get to any of the forks including the north fork you will need to cross my land, as well as other private lands. This includes going down from the four way spot. I have posted in the past and I am doing so again here. The only way to the Oak creek canyon via my property is through the Zion Adventure Group. I have done this to limit the traffic and the trash left behind by some of the visitors in the past.

In other words to get into Oak canyon via my property other than with the Zion Adventure Group is trespassing. There are sign posted all over this area and more will be placed this year.

Thank you
Jim Bird

.

[shagdeuce]

Looks like MSH Investments is who someone needs to talk with?

Sent using Tapatalk

Agreed. They hold a lot of land in that area. I can't imagine they care as much about access to their property as a private land owner would. We were going to go down and see if their land is posted or if a way can be found around the LDS property...but like I say, we bailed out after seeing the gate on the road with signage.

[reflection]

Tresspassing - Oak Creeks

From the LDS/Stake side - South Side of the Canyon: With authorization or permission one would be allowed on the property and would have permission to enter the technical corridor. Otherwise there is a gate - most often locked - with a no tresspassing sign on it. If one has approval though, one can access the technical start without having to travel through the "built up" camp zone. Normally there is a camp manager on site and during the week, many young people and adults.

From the Private Property - North Side: Mr. Bird (above) has posted his statement and intention. (Re access to the S Fork), Canyoneers should also note there is a Middle Fork and a North Fork to Oak Creek. Different land owners involved here. Middle is not much of a "canyon" & is often used as the exit (ascending exit) when ZAC customers finish traveling down the S Fork.

For those curious re the ZAC S Fork route. (I'm NOT connected with ZAC) The trip, most often, involves taking a 1-2 200 ft ropes, or a pull cord and rope through S Fork. If exiting the Middle up - via ascending; there is approx 350 "up" on the venture. A sloped 50 ft. or so up from the canyon floor, then a walk, then a wall maybe 80-90 ft., a short walk and then a big wall - over 200 ft up to a the ledge. Then it's an upclimb and walk back to the road. With ZAC, somebody (guide or?) gets to carry wet ropes up the the exit and on the ascent. On a private trip (if one does it) there are wet ropes, (wet) wet suits and then the other ropes "set" for the upclimb. OR, there is the option of "going down canyon and out the MIA exit; or there are other options for ascending, if one "legally" goes down the South Fork of Oak.

Tresspassing citations/arrests are normally issued by public safety officers - not by citizens. Often a private property owner will see and or notify a tresspasser and then phone or notify a sherriff or deputy. If photos though are taken of tresspassing citizens or vehicles and the property is properly posted, there is likely a legal "presumption" that a/the party (without permission) is trespassing. Parked vehicles with plates; angy owners with cameras and access to officers. Reminds me of angry rangers in Zion chasing after rope bearing canyoneers exiting (you name it). Would be nice if a "public" S Fork entry/exit were agreed to by interested parties. Wonder what the tipping point - dollar leverage - would be, for an isolated group of canyoneers?

[bruce from bryce]

Cilantro13 said,
"Keep in mind, the whole point of property rights are to make productive use of the land."

Where did that come from and who is to define what I feel is 'productive'. You, no way! If I want to let canyoneers use my property but do not allow runners to do so, that is my right. If I want no recreation on the land and only want to utilize the view from it, that is my right! If I want to sell the mineral rights to my land and let people drill on it, that is my right (whoops I might have gone too far; heh, heh).

Now, if you are homesteading the land then I know there are provisions that state what must be done to the land for you to maintain your ability to live there.

Have a great year,

bruce from bryce