MoapaPk, is the road to the TH on your page for Mitchell Point in or out of the State Park boundaries?

I've wanted to ask you too if the actual high point of Mitchell Point is the same as the high point of that really dramatic looking butte that seems to jut out of the mountain when viewed roughly from Kelso Dunes? It doesn't appear so on the topo, but it's hard to tell.

When we toured the area a couple weeks ago, we found several wonderful dispersed camp sites in the area, especially up Macedonia Canyon, in the area of Columbia Mountain. Depending on the time of year, some of the springs in the area are wet as well. I'd like to go back soon, spend the night in Macedonia, and then try Mitchell and Edgar in a day. I don't know if I'm going to have a free weekend before it gets too warm though.

I think the most dramatic peak that one sees from Kelso Dunes is quite a bit lower. That NW side does look remarkable.

According to the last USGS map, the Mitchell TH I mention is well outside the state park boundaries, on BLM land. Edgar TH is in the state park, but a loop-around doesn't require a stay in the state land. I think I'd be inclined to spot a car there, though! The route to the S of Edgar is filled with spiky plants that are hard to avoid. There are lots of annoying washes that run ~N-S between the two, if you descend too low.

MoapaPk wrote:I think the most dramatic peak that one sees from Kelso Dunes is quite a bit lower. That NW side does look remarkable.

It sure does. My feeling was that it was lower too though. Hard to see from below. I feel compelled to get out on the end of that from Mitchell, even if it is lower and further from the east side of the mountain.

MoapaPk wrote:According to the last USGS map, the Mitchell TH I mention is well outside the state park boundaries, on BLM land. Edgar TH is in the state park, but a loop-around doesn't require a stay in the state land. I think I'd be inclined to spot a car there, though! The route to the S of Edgar is filled with spiky plants that are hard to avoid. There are lots of annoying washes that run ~N-S between the two, if you descend too low.

Thanks for that. A shuttle hike would be an interesting idea. Do you mean park a car at the closed gate to the park or further south? You're not suggesting continuing further south so as to pick up Fountain Peak too are you?

From the topo, it looks like it's about a little less than 3km (looking at it with UTM grid on) from the park boundary to the center/presumed parking area for standard Edgar TH access. So that would add not quite two miles of easy hike out. Or would you propose leaving the car elsewhere?

SeanReedy wrote:I just read this article that gave some good details on what it is taking to keep some of the parks on the closed list open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/25/efforts-continue-to-save-castle-crags-state-park/
.
.
Here's another recent thread in addition to the two related ones I see listed under related topics below:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/budget-cuts-and-our-mountains-t60466.html

This article about Castle Crags provides more details about what is happening to keep parks open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/25/nonprofit-seeks-state-park/

As Bubba Suess mentioned, the actual state park portion of Castle Crags is probably of little interest to most climbers and peak baggers.

SeanReedy wrote:

SeanReedy wrote:I just read this article that gave some good details on what it is taking to keep some of the parks on the closed list open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/25/efforts-continue-to-save-castle-crags-state-park/
.
.
Here's another recent thread in addition to the two related ones I see listed under related topics below:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/budget-cuts-and-our-mountains-t60466.html

This article about Castle Crags provides more details about what is happening to keep parks open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/25/nonprofit-seeks-state-park/

As Bubba Suess mentioned, the actual state park portion of Castle Crags is probably of little interest to most climbers and peak baggers.

Not to beat the horse into the sand but I am at least partially against a private concessionaire running the park. I applaud the efforts to keep it open and I think that in many other parks' cases it is a great solution. With the Castle Crags, it does not serve the long term problem, a problem there would be little motivation to solve if not for the current budgetary closures.

The bottom line is that the park actually DOES nothing except offer a campground. The only other draw are the trails and therein lies the problem with the park. All the trails save one do nothing but provide access to Forest Service land. None of them except the Sacramento Trail (a really cool trail if y'all have not been on it) go anywhere in the park. Rather, they all head into the Shasta-T. Consequently, the state park is nothing but a large tollbooth one must pay to get to land one does not have to pay for. It is a scam. Check out this map:



I think an ideal solution would be for the State Park to lease itself to the Forest Service for half the annual take the campground brings in. That way the State Park is making a little money and the Forest Service can make a small profit. All they have to do is maintain the campground. The benefit would be an appropriately free trail to Castle Dome.

A couple other, utterly tangential benefits would come from doing this. First, those with dogs on the PCT would be able to bring them on the trail through what was the state park. Secondly, and this is just an idea I have been mulling over, the Forest Services assumption of control of the state park would simplify a rerouting of the PCT to connect with the Sacramento River Trail. This would eliminate the PCT's crossing of the river on a road, crossing instead on a cool footbridge. It would also add a mile or so of easy but really scenic hiking along the Sacramento rather than passing through dense forest cover. Here is my proposed route, if anyone cares:


The current route of the PCT is red. My amended route is marked in blue.

mrchad9 wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:

cdog wrote:I love this State and the parks, but I do feel like State employees are paid too much. Taxes keep goin up to cover high-paid employees and retirement checks.

This isn't meant to detract from the OP but I wonder what those State employees are getting paid at the AG Check Points at our borders, waving their arms all day long for cars to proceed that they never even check?

$179 million per year, for 1281 positions.

http://2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/ ... tment.html

$13-15 per hour. Horribly overpaid, eh?

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/spbpay2rd.cfm

$179,000,000/1281=139,734.58

$139,734.58/2080hrs=$67.18

I got $67.18 per hour. What did I miss?

butitsadryheat wrote:$179,000,000/1281=139,734.58

$139,734.58/2080hrs=$67.18

I got $67.18 per hour. What did I miss?

The link that shows the pay of the guy manning the agricultural inspection station.

Assemblymember Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, a long-time champion of environmental causes, has focused his attention recently on efforts to keep open all of California’s 278 state parks. His latest bill, AB 1589, sailed through the Assembly’s Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee last week with bipartisan support.

The bill is aimed at establishing reliable and dedicated funding streams to support the state parks, much of which the legislature would not be able to touch in times of deficit

Complete article:
http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2012/Parks-bill-attracts-bipartisan-support/

Bubba Suess wrote:

SeanReedy wrote:

SeanReedy wrote:I just read this article that gave some good details on what it is taking to keep some of the parks on the closed list open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/25/efforts-continue-to-save-castle-crags-state-park/
.
.
Here's another recent thread in addition to the two related ones I see listed under related topics below:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/budget-cuts-and-our-mountains-t60466.html

This article about Castle Crags provides more details about what is happening to keep parks open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/25/nonprofit-seeks-state-park/

As Bubba Suess mentioned, the actual state park portion of Castle Crags is probably of little interest to most climbers and peak baggers.

Not to beat the horse into the sand but I am at least partially against a private concessionaire running the park. I applaud the efforts to keep it open and I think that in many other parks' cases it is a great solution. With the Castle Crags, it does not serve the long term problem, a problem there would be little motivation to solve if not for the current budgetary closures.

The bottom line is that the park actually DOES nothing except offer a campground. The only other draw are the trails and therein lies the problem with the park. All the trails save one do nothing but provide access to Forest Service land. None of them except the Sacramento Trail (a really cool trail if y'all have not been on it) go anywhere in the park. Rather, they all head into the Shasta-T. Consequently, the state park is nothing but a large tollbooth one must pay to get to land one does not have to pay for. It is a scam. Check out this map:



I think an ideal solution would be for the State Park to lease itself to the Forest Service for half the annual take the campground brings in. That way the State Park is making a little money and the Forest Service can make a small profit. All they have to do is maintain the campground. The benefit would be an appropriately free trail to Castle Dome.

A couple other, utterly tangential benefits would come from doing this. First, those with dogs on the PCT would be able to bring them on the trail through what was the state park. Secondly, and this is just an idea I have been mulling over, the Forest Services assumption of control of the state park would simplify a rerouting of the PCT to connect with the Sacramento River Trail. This would eliminate the PCT's crossing of the river on a road, crossing instead on a cool footbridge. It would also add a mile or so of easy but really scenic hiking along the Sacramento rather than passing through dense forest cover. Here is my proposed route, if anyone cares:


The current route of the PCT is red. My amended route is marked in blue.

Bubba, that all looks great ! I can clearly envision what you suggest after poking around the area this past December under a seasonal closure (all prior visits were moslty just hikes to Castle Dome taking the standard route). I am aware of the issues for dayhikers, PCT hikers, and dog owners. So are these suggestions mostly for fun, or will they make it to somewhere beyond SP? I suspect you could find support for that proposal in your area, on SP, and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, information I have read in the media casts some doubt on the park turning a profit (sounds like it has been a money loser) and thereby on any suggestions that would lessen income potential. While my dad has said he likes the campground, I find it frustrating that folks like myself (who aren't interested in any services besides some very limited trail/road maintenance) will be restricted by a closure, the ongoing situation you have described, or the continuance of the same system under new management. It would be nice if those who wish to use the PCT, NF, wilderness, and trails beyond the general campground area did not need to be tied to those using the more civilized amenities near the freeway exit. I wish the NF could take on the campground more cheaply than the state or at least take over responsibility for the areas away from the campground, but I suspect it is more likely that a private group will run the campground and state land with higher fees and lower wages/more volunteers. The development of the area in and around the campground will be costly to maintain. Maybe whoever runs the campground (aside from the NF option you describe) won't be interested in managing/patrolling the outlying areas. Maybe mangement won't be opposed to PCT hikers with dogs taking the normal route instead of the detour....OR is part of managing the park maintaining funding of current law enforcement? Hopefully fees and restrictions for accessing areas away from the campground will be eliminated, reduced, or at least stay the same rather than increase. An interested group might need to be vocal and might need to volunteer ongoing support/work.

Anyway, I just saw an article describing development of a vision for the park and competing private entities interested in managing the park. Unfortunately, quotes beyond providing campgrounds were vague. The head of the non-profit (focus of the previous article) even participated in the online commentary below this article:
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/29/groups-line-up-for-castle-crags/

3Deserts wrote:.

Thanks for that. A shuttle hike would be an interesting idea. Do you mean park a car at the closed gate to the park or further south? You're not suggesting continuing further south so as to pick up Fountain Peak too are you?

From the topo, it looks like it's about a little less than 3km (looking at it with UTM grid on) from the park boundary to the center/presumed parking area for standard Edgar TH access. So that would add not quite two miles of easy hike out. Or would you propose leaving the car elsewhere?

Sorry that I took so long to see this. The DPS trip reports give a pretty good idea. You can head back to the (former) Mitchell State Park from Edgar, by the DPS route, without going over Fountain. The route over Fountain is scenic, but extremely rough-- class 4 in places, if you are lucky enough to find any passage.

Re: Castle Crags discussion in this thread &
Re: "Stumbling Forward" thread (found in related topics below)

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/may/18/park-groups-receive-grants-to-help-keep-sites/

Several groups, including the one attempting to run Castle Crags, received grants from the California State Park Foundation to support their efforts to keep state parks running. I've gotten literature in the mail from the foundation seeking donations. Passes and other items were offered as gifts for making a donation. I suspect anyone interested can donate via their website.

The article describes Castle Crags State Park as running at a loss of $100,000 per year. State parks I've looked into (for camping with some folks wanting a developed campground for car camping) now charge a whopping $35 a night to camp. I guess some unique spots will continue to draw crowds, but the kind of prices, development, and restrictions I associate with CA state parks does not appeal to me when I can easily go to federal or county land instead. Hopefully this all is not a sign of things to come in the places I (and many other SPers) prefer.

SeanReedy wrote:The article describes Castle Crags State Park as running at a loss of $100,000 per year. State parks I've looked into (for camping with some folks wanting a developed campground for car camping) now charge a whopping $35 a night to camp.

This is where I renew my assertion that the Shasta-T absorb castle crags state park. The state park accomplishes nothing other than taking peoples money to enter national forest land. A private company running the place is still a racket. If the forest service took over all they would really have to do is operate a campground. All the costs the state incurs (namely the numerous employees and there benies) are unnecessary if the land were part of the national forest.

A South Bay Area climbing and hiking spot will remain open.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_20839760/sempervirens-forges-deal-state-keep-castle-rock-state:
While groups across the state have been working feverishly to keep the 70 parks open, not all are likely to be saved. State Parks spokesman Roy Stearns said more than two dozen agreements are in place, and 15 more deals are in negotiations. Another 10 are going through a request for proposals to run the parks.
"I hope what we're doing here is bridging things to a brighter day," Stearns said. Holderman said Sempervirens Fund is providing money to the state because it wants to maintain continuity with state staffers rather than take over park operations itself. "The reason we did that is we don't want the state to lay off the people dedicated to the park," Holderman said. "We want to keep the state workforce in place doing their job."