Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

DWA illegally harrasing hikers at snow creek

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the Golden State. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the California Climbing Partners forum.
 

Postby simonov » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:36 pm

The Chief wrote:Some people think that they have the right/entitlement to just go do anything they want, regardless of infringement on other peoples rights, no matter who those people are.


A common sentiment here on SP. Witness all the chest thumping about hiking and climbing without required permits.
User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Costa Mesa, California, United States
Thanked: 464 times in 268 posts

Postby KathyW » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:04 am

Per public records, Desert Water Agency is the owner of Section 33, Township 3S, Range 3E. All of the sourrounding sections are owned by the USA. So, other than that one square mile, the area is publicly owned land. Access to Snow Creek shouldn't be an issue unless people are crossing the Desert Water Agency's property boundaries to get there.
KathyW

 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:07 am
Location: Redlands, California, United States
Thanked: 52 times in 38 posts

Postby Rick Kent » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:10 am

Kathy,

Part of the problem is that hikers were being harrassed OUTSIDE the DWA property. Anyone parking nearby was automatically assumed to be a trespasser and received citations or was told to leave.
User Avatar
Rick Kent

 
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 12:35 pm
Location: Bakersfield, California, United States
Thanked: 8 times in 6 posts

Postby The Chief » Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:20 am

Rick Kent wrote:Kathy,

Part of the problem is that hikers were being harrassed OUTSIDE the DWA property. Anyone parking nearby was automatically assumed to be a trespasser and received citations or was told to leave.


Why didn't any of these "Poor Harrassed Souls" immediately call 911 during the incident and get the SBC Sheriff involved?

KathyW wrote:Per public records, Desert Water Agency is the owner of Section 33, Township 3S, Range 3E. All of the sourrounding sections are owned by the USA. So, other than that one square mile, the area is publicly owned land. Access to Snow Creek shouldn't be an issue unless people are crossing the Desert Water Agency's property boundaries to get there.


That is one of two 640 acre parcels that is under the DWR Title of ownership and/or lease. The other I believe is part of the established Flood Plain just north of that parcel which you referenced.
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby KathyW » Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:45 pm

The Chief wrote:
Rick Kent wrote:Kathy,

Part of the problem is that hikers were being harrassed OUTSIDE the DWA property. Anyone parking nearby was automatically assumed to be a trespasser and received citations or was told to leave.


Why didn't any of these "Poor Harrassed Souls" immediately call 911 during the incident and get the SBC Sheriff involved?

KathyW wrote:Per public records, Desert Water Agency is the owner of Section 33, Township 3S, Range 3E. All of the sourrounding sections are owned by the USA. So, other than that one square mile, the area is publicly owned land. Access to Snow Creek shouldn't be an issue unless people are crossing the Desert Water Agency's property boundaries to get there.


That is one of two 640 acre parcels that is under the DWR Title of ownership and/or lease. The other I believe is part of the established Flood Plain just north of that parcel which you referenced.


Chief: I stand corrected about public access to sections of land just because the USA is the owner of record. It is very possible DWA might have rights to other parcels. DWA, or any other entity, could have a leasehold interest in the property to the north or any of the surrounding parcels. There are many pieces to the property rights puzzle. Just because a parcel is listed as owned by the USA doesn't mean there aren't restrictions to access or rights that have been sold, leased, or severed in some way.

Rick: I understand that climbers who are staying on public land are being harassed, and that's a shame. At the same time, not all climbers have stayed on public land. I don't think the fact that a few climbers have quietly gone through DWA property over the years is the big issue. I think it's the fact that they have not done it quietly and have made access to that area more difficult for people who might want to climb the route. I have slowly learned that it's best not to advertise certain things on the internet, but I still screw up and post what I shouldn't at times. The internet has changed so much - for the better and for the worse.
KathyW

 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:07 am
Location: Redlands, California, United States
Thanked: 52 times in 38 posts

Previous

Return to California

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.