Printable View
That's what helicopters are for.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Game, Set, Match!! :moses:
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
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
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 doesnQuote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
The cases I have ready come out on the side of implied easement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I screwed up my terminology -- I believe the correct term is easement by necessity. :frustrated:Quote:
Originally Posted by cilantro13
Has anybody thought about :rifle: not sure but just a thought :ne_nau:
Is it still tresspassing if no ones sees you? :ne_nau:
Just askin'
http://www.adelaideflashmob.com/wp-c...nja_crouch.jpg
:haha:
Looks like James has.... Ah, the old James. Was he on vacation or something???Quote:
Originally Posted by canyonguru
:roflol:
Tom :moses:
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...).Quote:
Originally Posted by cilantro13
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:
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).
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.Quote:
I have done this to limit the traffic and the trash left behind by some of the visitors in the past.
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
Then it looks like we are in agreement! :five: See we are both liberal hippies at heart. :hippy:Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Well your right involves a third party getting paid $500. My right involves me just walkinQuote:
Originally Posted by 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 $500. My right involves me just walkin
Guess I'll have to put this one on the poach list...not because Jim doesn't want anyone on his land, but that he wants anyone interested in doing Oak to bend over and take it hard from ZAC
Hey, where else can you PAY someone 400$ to let you jug 300 feet of rope???Quote:
Originally Posted by Reedus
T :lol8:
When you put it that way, it looks like a bargin!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
:roflol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmac
That's what I was going to say, but you said it much better. :2thumbs:
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.
What do think the split is between ZAC and Mr. Bird? 50/50? 60/40?
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: