SummitPost.org

I better chime in to clarify things since I'm good friends with all the peeps that were involved in this and have talked to most of them. Noone were physically restrained and there were no force used in this incident. From what I understand, after the spotlights were out and mass chaos subsided, both sides got to discuss in a civilized manner. The rent-a-cop were very careful in this regard, especially the head person. The hikers were asked for their ID, got photographed and were asked to leave, which they did. End of story. The rent-a-cop didn't have weapons. I believe only one of them did. Most of them were not law enforcement officers.

The water agency might be wrong for posting notice on your car about trespassing if your car is parked on public land. They go about with the assumption since you park there, you must be a hiker and about to trespass into section 33. The actual location where the group from the water agency engaged the hikers might or might not be in section 33.

This issue has been going around for years like mentioned previously. I'm not sure where the confusion is. There is a legal way to do it as has been posted previously.

Please do not make this out to be worst than it is. Please do not paint someone or a group in bad light without first understanding the situation and the history behind it. It is counterproductive.

brotherbbock wrote:

jhodlof wrote:Isn't the real issue accessing the mountain? Wouldn't it be smart to contact the DWA to talk about access and to work with them or the FS to gain better access? Section 33 is too low to be an important water producing area, so from the topo map and satellite images, the only thing that is there that looks to be worth protecting is a gauging station. The only thing that makes sense to me which would cause DWA to not want people on their land is liability issues, fire hazard or dumping issues. I would think there are better ways to handle this than just online bickering. Form a political interest group, start talking with the FS and DWA, hash out some kind of agreement and maybe this will be a non-issue.

The chief engineer is saying the whole mountain needs to be protected because of climbers defecating in the water shed. He specifically told us that they have seen the numbers increasing in their tests. These guys will fight to get it all protected if they possibly can.

There may be something additional here that has not been made clear. I don't know the local situation at all, but you may want to make some calls to the land administrator (FS or BLM?) and see what local regs may be for a designated watershed. It could be they only own section 33, but if the watershed is municipal, there could be plenty of additional regulations that apply to the entire watershed, even off their land. They would be wrong to use that to say they own it (outside of sec. 33), but some form of enforcement excluding people from elsewhere in the drainage may be entirely legal in this case. But I doubt acting as commandos themselves is appropriate or legal. Of course what I'm saying here may have nothing to do with the area at all, but I'm aware of a few similar situations where there are designated watersheds with provisions on both private and public land. As I read more of this thread I'm starting to suspect something like that could possibly apply here. (?)

brotherbbock wrote:Also notice that you have no right to photographic privacy in the "check if appropriate" area, They broke this rule when we were photographed at the power station parking area.

You have no right to privacy in a public place and can be photographed at will without your permission.

redneck wrote:

brotherbbock wrote:Also notice that you have no right to photographic privacy in the "check if appropriate" area, They broke this rule when we were photographed at the power station parking area.

You have no right to privacy in a public place and can be photographed at will without your permission.

Yes, but not under the pretense that we were doing something wrong or breaking laws. They should not be allowed to photo my license plate for their records when I indeed was on public land committing no crimes.

brotherbbock wrote:Yes, but not under the pretense that we were doing something wrong or breaking laws. They should not be allowed to photo my license plate for their records when I indeed was on public land committing no crimes.

I'm not interested in starting a fight, but that's absurd. It should be against the law now for people to go around photographing other people's cars?

There are already too many dumb laws on the books.

Put yourself in bbock's shoes. If you were in the parking lot of a grocery store and some stranger were to get out their camera and start shooting photos of your license plate and your face, and explained that they were taking photos for identification for the future potential of you vandalizing their vehicle, you probably wouldn't be too happy either.

leopop wrote:Put yourself in bbock's shoes. If you were in the parking lot of a grocery store and some stranger were to get out their camera and start shooting photos of your license plate and your face, and explained that they were taking photos for identification for the future potential of you vandalizing their vehicle, you probably wouldn't be too happy either.

Exactly. Take my picture all you want, but don't tell me your gonna use it against me for something that I'm not even doing. I'm sure even people like redneck would not be cool with that.

Have you seen the spike on rednecks ice axe? Dont mess with that man...

-CS

leopop wrote:Put yourself in bbock's shoes. If you were in the parking lot of a grocery store and some stranger were to get out their camera and start shooting photos of your license plate and your face, and explained that they were taking photos for identification for the future potential of you vandalizing their vehicle, you probably wouldn't be too happy either.

But there's nothing I could do about it, and rightly so.

There is plenty of rude behavior that remains legal. I'd like to keep it that way, personally.

Ok, I'm sure I'll be scalded by some of you for even bringing this up but it's all I can think about as I'm reading this. Let me begin by saying that I do carry a gun everywhere I go when hiking. Some of you might think that is dumb but - to each his own. The parking lot incident would've pissed me off to no end but nothing like what apparently happened with the group that felt they needed to run for their safety. Did these idiots identify themselves as they began chasing climbers? I mean, guys in full camo?!!! WTF?!! I would like to believe that I and whomever I was with would've handled this situation in a mature, safe way but jesus. Seriously, if this happened to me and they didn't ID themselves very loudly from a distance, I'm afraid of what could've taken place.

MBS1017 wrote:I'm afraid of what could've taken place.

Wow, you sound like someone who can definitely handle something like that in a

mature, safe way

Spazzy - I am in fact.

redneck wrote:

leopop wrote:Put yourself in bbock's shoes. If you were in the parking lot of a grocery store and some stranger were to get out their camera and start shooting photos of your license plate and your face, and explained that they were taking photos for identification for the future potential of you vandalizing their vehicle, you probably wouldn't be too happy either.

But there's nothing I could do about it, and rightly so.

There is plenty of rude behavior that remains legal. I'd like to keep it that way, personally.

Redneck is correct in this. While you or I may not like having our license plate photographed at a grocery store or a trailhead, or in front of your house, legally there's not much you could do about it. . . Except what, punch the guy in the face?

Gary Schenk wrote:This little cat and mouse game between climbers and DWA has been going on for decades. With sort of a wink and a nod climbers have gotten through DWA land in twos and threes. They know they are not supposed to be there, DWA knows they are just going through to climb.

Now all of a sudden organized groups of 18 are announcing their plans on the Internet. This changes the game. The DWA wants to protect their land and water rights and escalates their efforts relative to the climber escalation.

So it goes.

Completely agree. Given the recent internet traffic about the route and outings it was bound to happen.

SoCalHiker wrote:

Gary Schenk wrote:This little cat and mouse game between climbers and DWA has been going on for decades. With sort of a wink and a nod climbers have gotten through DWA land in twos and threes. They know they are not supposed to be there, DWA knows they are just going through to climb.

Now all of a sudden organized groups of 18 are announcing their plans on the Internet. This changes the game. The DWA wants to protect their land and water rights and escalates their efforts relative to the climber escalation.

So it goes.

Completely agree. Given the recent internet traffic about the route and outings it was bound to happen.

I also agree. If people are going to post TR's on this they need to start doing the climb the legal way and skirt around grid 33. That way the DWA has no legal right to complain or harass climbers in legal parking areas.