Status of Oak Creek Access

[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-p...yoneering-day/

Tom

That is a tad pricey. How much is a tresspassing ticket? 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.

[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.

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.



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:



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

.