kevin trieu wrote: Private land cannot be trespassed, but citizens have the right to access their public land.

They sure do. But not by violating the rights of any LM or LO's in order to gain access to "their public lands". Infringing on the PP of anyone in order to do so is wrong, unlawful and only brings more distaste in mouths of many LO's when dealing with any public entity that insist they should have the right to access their lands by trespassing onto and then through the posted PP. Which is indeed the case of what really occurred last year at Snow Creek according to RC Sheriffs Office and the PSPD after their investigations of the incident.

lilbitmo wrote:Chief - none of the people that I've hiked/climbed with want any part of going on the DWA property what-so-ever after the crazy incident that happen last spring. It's still debatale as to whether they have that one squre mile marked in the appropriate spots to alert the climbers to the corners of the boundaries - if anyone has better info on that I'd like to see it or pictures. I for one have told everyone to go around the property - end of story.

Best approach yet. Thank you!!!!

Edit: Addition.

willytinawin wrote:No, but in my opinion those fellas (DWA agents) are making a beach blanket out of some lint. They are using agency resources to hassle a few hikers who are probably not even damaging the watershed as most of them are trying to get past sec. 33 as quickly as possible.

I would bet a dolloar that the CWA is at least partially bound by health regulations. Stringent control over human activites within the watershed may be mandatory as well as being a scientifically sound natural resource management decision.

willytinawin wrote:The way humans damage watersheds is when they hang out, like camping or living.

Humans damage watersheds in many different ways.

willytinawin wrote:I bet the houses at the base of Snow Creek are doing far more damage to the aquifier than any thru-hikers ever did.

My understanding is that the drinking water source is from surface waters, specifically streams, not ground water.

The real answer here is that DWA needs to work with the climbing community to solve the access issue rather then trying to ambush and arrest climbers. They could A) Permit, and thereby educate, restrict, and control access, which would most likely solve 99% their trespassing issues with the mountaineering community. Or B) actually use their abundant resources to develop a alternate access trail. Regardless the bulk of their trespass issues are with skinny dippers, canyoneers, and sightseers. I don't think they understand that Snow Creek mountaineers just want to get through their property as quickly as possible.

As Snow Creek is coming into season, my guess is that, once again, the DWA will be monitoring all that is written on this board. I invite the agency to be proactive, to join the conversation, and resolve the access issue permanently through positive actions and cooperation with the climbing community.

Hyadventure wrote:The real answer here is that DWA needs to work with the climbing community to solve the access issue rather then trying to ambush and arrest climbers. They could A) Permit, and thereby educate, restrict, and control access, which would most likely solve 99% their trespassing issues with the mountaineering community. Or B) actually use their abundant resources to develop a alternate access trail. Regardless the bulk of their trespass issues are with skinny dippers, canyoneers, and sightseers. I don't think they understand that Snow Creek mountaineers just want to get through their property as quickly as possible.

As Snow Creek is coming into season, my guess is that, once again, the DWA will be monitoring all that is written on this board. I invite the agency to be proactive, to join the conversation, and resolve the access issue permanently through positive actions and cooperation with the climbing community.

Why should they give a flying ratass if you want to get to the climb faster???

If people keep allowing their dogs to shit on your lawn, then walk away, is it then your responsibility to educate the dog owners that it is your property and they are responsible to keep their dog from shitting on it? Even if their excuse is that they are in a rush to get to work etc etc etc???

I believe that the reverse is in order. The DWA needs to do nothing. It is the climbing community that needs to educate themselves on their ACCESS responsibilities and the respect of LMs and their PP.

The DWA owes you, me or anyone, nothing. It is their land. Period.

When is the last time any of you "climbers" approached any of the senior area DWA folks, asked for a formal meeting concerning this ACCESS issue and began any or some constructive dialogue with them? When?

It works when a respectful attitude from "us" to them is generated. It works when "we" demand nothing and respectfully request something. I know it works. I did it and do it on a regular basis. Mt. Williamson/Baxter ring a bell. Amongst other local ACCESS issues that I have been involved with.

Get involved, be respectful and communicate. Do Not blame the DWA. Blame yourselves.

The Chief wrote:If people keep allowing their dogs to shit on your lawn, then walk away, is it then your responsibility to educate the dog owners that it is your property and they are responsible to keep their dog from shitting on it? Even if their excuse is that they are in a rush to get to work etc etc etc???

Excellent analogy-- plus, pretty funny.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the attitude people have... about letting their dogs crap in your yard, and other property issues. And the dog owners seem to think they have some sort of innate right to let the dogs crap in your yard.

if folks just climbed for themselves, this issue would still be small potatoes. but nooooo, badass climbers need glory for their non-technical hike up the north side of the mountain. so, they go in big groups, inviting all to join, and then have the smarts to brag how they beat the LM at their game... go figure...

all on a public forum... seems as though we need to return to natural selection.

whatever happened to discretion... now its payback and more regulations, and more managers thinking climbers are all the same... lazy, sackles city slickers who have no respect for the law.

Hyadventure wrote:The real answer here is that DWA needs to work with the climbing community to solve the access issue rather then trying to ambush and arrest climbers. They could A) Permit, and thereby educate, restrict, and control access, which would most likely solve 99% their trespassing issues with the mountaineering community. Or B) actually use their abundant resources to develop a alternate access trail. Regardless the bulk of their trespass issues are with skinny dippers, canyoneers, and sightseers. I don't think they understand that Snow Creek mountaineers just want to get through their property as quickly as possible.

As Snow Creek is coming into season, my guess is that, once again, the DWA will be monitoring all that is written on this board. I invite the agency to be proactive, to join the conversation, and resolve the access issue permanently through positive actions and cooperation with the climbing community.

some people have selective listening, others have selective reading.

is anybody reading what Bob Burd said?

what we really need is for the Chief to come down to Palm Springs and take care of business. the crowds in Palm Springs will defnitely love him.

I read Bob B's comments, and found it a reasonable and worrisome analysis. But I also agree with the Chief, that if DWA owns section 33, that pretty much sums up their rights on section 33, no matter how stupid the DWA claims.

My comment and Bob's response was to the fact that the DWA seems to act as if they own more than section 33.

I agree anyone trying to climb there should avoid section 33 at all cause. No need to cause problems. However it will be interesting to see if DWA enforce outside this boundary.

So far, not one post has suggested (or condoned) trespassing on this section of land.

How well is this section posted or fenced? Do people inadvertantly enter onto it without knowing?

Of course the DWA has every right to enforce their rules. There are ways to do so without exhausting themselves, though.

Having big, menacing looking signs with threats of this and that will just prompt some to enter onto the land, just to annoy the man. It's not just hikers. Given the proximity to Palm Springs and the Banning/Beaumont areas, I would image a large number are bored teens looking for a place to drink/screw/fight/smoke.

Having signs that say "Private Land, Watershed Management Area" will drive the message home a lot better. Will it stop all trespassing? No, but it will stop a lot of it.

The analogy of having someone sit on your porch isn't quite right. There's an obvious difference between what is clearly someone's home versus a parcel of uninhabited property. The vast majority of people who would trespass in the second case would not in the first case. If they do, then yes, get the gun.

There are private in-holdings all over the west interspersed with public/state lands. We encounter private land even if we don't want to. The worst cases are the checkerboard patterns where the private land essentially shuts out access to the public land. Absentee landowners are not entirely blameless, and often, there's no way to know if you've crossed onto private land. It does not sound like the DWA is like this, which is good.

Short point: a little courtesy both ways works wonders. We're all reasonable.

From what little I know, it seems to me that there's a chance, a small chance, that the DWA ENJOYS their sting operations. It makes them feel important, and when they have their monthly meetings, they could say "We need to allocate "X" dollars from the budget to patrol section 33, if we don't those monsters will besmirch your drinking water with fecal matter", some variation of this new "nuisance problem" is probably already in the budget. And it gives them (DWA agents) a chance to tell all the residents of Palm springs how hard they are working to ensure a clean, hikerpoop-free water supply for their users. In these times of job uncertainty, you must impress those that pay you how vital your work is.

Just for the record, I do NOT advocate trespassing. I think the best solution is to pioneer a route around their property. That way they'll (DWA people) have to scramble to find new "important" tasks in order to keep their jobs. I'd bet they've already spent thousands and the payoff is that may have prevented a pile of poop or two at most. But that's government, spend a lot, get a little.

No one has answered my question.

Has anyone or any group approached the local DWA Seniority and attempt to come to a common ground via respectful and mature communications????

Hello... anyone?

Yes, I had a long talk with the gent in charge of the area back in 04. He was friendly (at the time) but not interested in any compromise.

If you're familiar with traditional/illegal trail you'd know that it has ZERO impact on the 2 creeks that run through the forbidden section 33. Without going into great detail, it very hard if not near impossible to access either the Snow Creek drainage of the Fall Creek drainage from the trail within section 33. Whereas the new legal route crosses Fall Creek outside (above) of the forbidden zone, directly impacting water quality. If the DWA is really interested in protecting water quality working with the climbing community is in there best interest.