Sign in or 
Location: Washington
Discussion: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Category:
Discussion Forum /
5--Rock Hounding
Share this
Dogglesnoffer |
Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 12:58 AM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 16 2009, 1:03 AM EDT
We went on a day trip out to Adna today and the pullover spot and the other side of the street with the primitive road are plastered with 'No Trespassing' signs. What happened?I thought that was BLM land. Is it privately owned or recently purchased? I know Lucas creek has had some shady digging practices this year (and I noticed some similar issues at Adna but not quite as severe) but the signs differ from there. I hope the end is not here...... I was just getting my feet wet. Other than the newly posted signs nothing seems to be different; no clear cutting, no houses going up, no filed in pits....... Confused and super duper bummed, Brennan Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
None
|
gamaliel114 |
1. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 1:17 AM EDT
| Post edited: Oct 21 2009, 3:17 AM EDT
WARNING!!!!!Do not take any thing on this thread as permission to trespass. KNOW the rockhound's code of ethics and KNOW the law, not just your rights but everyone's. Please refer to the "Washington Forest/ Weyerhaeuser UPDATE" http://cash-and-treasures-wiki.travelchannel.com/thread/3398714/Washington+Forest%2F+Weyerhaeuser+UPDATE thread Sounds suspicious to me. was there a phone number? If it's a creek you should still have the right to walk along it, irregardless of the ownership of the creek-side properties. At least that's what I will always assume no matter what signs are posted. Locals often overstep their rights in when it comes to creeks, trying to block off all access points so they can have their own private playground. It's pathetic. i recently had an issue with the main collecting area on a creek, where technically they couldn't restrict your access to the creek, but they tried to make it look that way with a "private road" through a wilderness, and "no trespassing" signs in the only other access point. Total bs. They even had the nerve to post that you couldn't walk on the gated road, as if it were some kind of military installation. If anyone ever questions my right to be there, they will be in for a world of hurt. When I'd get done with them, their property will be a public park. I can't stand selfish greedy sobs. ~Zeke Do you find this valuable? |
washatonian |
2. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 1:44 AM EDT
Not sure you would be on solid ground zeke if the ownership were Private & not Public. Best to know beyond a shadow of doubt "Who's land it is".Aman Do you find this valuable? |
|
Dogglesnoffer |
3. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 1:47 AM EDT
I thought it looked a bit sketchy as well especially since this has been a 'known' spot for a long time now. No phone numbers added to the signs. So you think we all should choose to not see the signs and carry on business as usual? I for one agree with the creek part being public however if the signs remain next year I may choose to skip the pits. Do you find this valuable? |
|
washatonian |
4. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 1:51 AM EDT
If that land is PRIVATE..............that creek is PRIVATE.Aman Do you find this valuable? |
|
Dogglesnoffer |
5. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 2:00 AM EDT
Poop!Do you find this valuable? |
Rockhound5555 |
6. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 3:05 AM EDT
Our advice would be to contact the BLM and ask them. If they can't help maybe they could point you in the right direction. Good luck !Sharon Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
7. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 3:23 AM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 16 2009, 4:20 AM EDT
not so, the creek is not private, it is a public creek. i don't know about adna, I just know when locals try to disguise an area as off limits when it is not. I am not aware of any major wild creeks in Washington that are off limits to the public...small streams maybe, but certainly not creeks in an established Wilderness area. They were careful not to put "no trespassing" signs up, but in their stead, they placed "no unauthorized vehicles or persons" up on the road that follows the creek for twenty miles. thus giving the impression to anyone venturing in the area that all was off limits. It just ain't so. Nor is the road private for the first mile, though you can't tell that by the postings lower on the road. I avoided the area for that reason all year. Many communities around creeks are reasonable, this one seems very unwelcoming. I know my rights, and I know that access cannot be restricted in such a manner to close off public land to the public. It's bluster, no property rights are being violated on my part. These are public lands with a private road (i'm looking into who) and that isn't right. nor is it right for the locals to post "no trespassing" signs in reference to the creek itself, which is how they made it appear. for those who don't realize it's public, they miss out on enjoying their country. If there is a problem with vandalism, and illegal activity in the area, call the police, don't restrict my legal right to access (or make it look like I am restricted), I simply will not put up with that bs. no one says anything, because they know i have the right. i strongly believe a similar thing has happened on adna. Maybe they do own that property, but they can't own the creek, unless the government has started giving away the public's land without anyone knowing. Not likely in Washington.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
gamaliel114 |
8. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 3:23 AM EDT
Currently they are disparately trying to save the creek from the damage done by irresponsible clear cutting they allowed to occur there. That's my tax dollars, my creek. my Wilderness. My Country.~Zeke Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
9. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 4:13 AM EDT
I could not locate the actual law, but here is the law in Washington State in abbreviated form...simple and sweet:"No one owns navigatable waterways in Washington State. If you can legally access it and float a boat on it, it is open for public use. However, the law does not allow you to illegally trespass on tidelands or shorelines. You also cannot trespass land to get to land locked public lakes." By making it seem that you are not allowed near the creek or on the lower residential portion of the road, they are breaking the spirit of the law. the access point to the creek is at the end of the non private portion of the road, which runs directly against the creek bank. The only other options are to walk up the creek from the river behind folks residential properties (legal but rude), or walk along the logging roads twenty miles away owned by the same company. I also believe the area has been designated "wilderness" as no more logging is allowed in the lower section. I know my rights. and I recognize when locals abuse theirs. You want a view, you'll have to put up with recreationists. that's just the way it is. i just don't like being d***ed around about it. ~Zeke Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
10. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 4:22 AM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 16 2009, 4:59 AM EDT
And logging companies can kiss my ...SPI, an out of state operation...really? I don't think their signs are anything but spit in the face of Washingtonians. Why do they need signs like that when all the other companies don't? sorry, I'm right on this one. it is clearly a public access creek.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
gamaliel114 |
11. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 5:17 AM EDT
and to make it clear "waterway" is where the water channel flows all year, not just the water that's in it at the moment. timber companies that deny access to "their" property are simply evil, and should be run out of town. They even put a sign in the upper reaches of the creek (National forest) indicating that you shall not pass a certain point on the creek...illegal. They are not our neighbors, and that creek is ours.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Dogglesnoffer |
12. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 5:51 AM EDT
You go with your bad self!!!!Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure and look up these laws and print them out so I can have some cred to back me up if I ever get into any sticky situations. I'm sure to look into this further. Glad you're on our side, Brennan Do you find this valuable? |
|
washatonian |
13. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 8:36 AM EDT
"I could not locate the actual law, but here is the law in Washington State in abbreviated form...simple and sweet:I like your attitude Zeke but caution you about your presumption of accessibility of private lands that contain riparian areas. I'm hard pressed to wrap my thoughts around your interpretation of Navigability of a Creek as opposed to a the Navigability of a waterway. You will have to make me a believer by citing specific Washington State case law before I can accept your arguments. Respectfully Aman Do you find this valuable? |
|
rockhuntress |
14. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 3:20 PM EDT
My husband is a master flyfisherman (my title for him), and more and more streams are closed to fishing. In Colorado, if you own the land UP TO the river, stream, creek, you own the land up to the middle of the creek. This has caused Dave so much angst! I just don't understand it! The idea that WATER is private makes me crazy! What will happen, when the fish realize that there is no fishing for x amount of feet, they'll start to congregate there and the stream, in my way of thinking, will get worse outside the private waters. i realize you're talking about a different state and different circumstances, but i just had to toss in my two cents worth! nan Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
15. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 10:36 PM EDT
Waterway is a scientific term, and refers to the path the water takes. That includes the gravel bars that are exposed during low water. shoreline in the line where the water does not go past in high water. (Major flood events not with standing). In large creeks such as this one that is quite a swath of land. The locals know their rights, they have turned the first 1/2 mile of the creek into a waterpark. They know they are allowed there, they just don't want you to know that. I may sound rather harsh toward logging companies, that's just how I was brought up. There is just something wrong with a company owning that much of a country and denying access to the people of that country when for most decades the land is completely unused. The truth probably is they wouldn't bother you if they caught you walking on their road as long as you weren't causing trouble. But they sure don't make it look that way. When it comes to the private property of individuals, I go out of my way to respect it.I don't know if Adna qualifies under this law. The law seems not to apply to waterways too small for boating (think kayaking as the lowest end on that scale). That is probably the compromise in the law to protect farmer's rights to their little creeks and streams. I tend to believe creeks going through private agricultural land is off limits as they tend to have water rights as well. And they will let you if you ask. My problem is with wilderness being blocked off for no good reason. It's hard to imagine why a logging company would care weather you hike up their road. maybe they don't want you to know what they have done. Or how beautiful the land is, least there be a call for it's return to the public. Hopefully it is just a liability issue, and they really don't care. Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
16. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 10:37 PM EDT
if all the companies closed off their land it would be a public relations nightmare, because that effectively shuts down non park access to the wilderness in the country. I also feel that if they have the right to log our public lands, then I have a right to walk on their private lands. there is no reasoning that could convince me they have the right to limit my access to the wllderness. ~Zeke Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
17. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 10:57 PM EDT
This should clear up the matter a little;A quote from the Washington Real Estate Law book - Riparian Rights, Navigable Waters "All navigable waterways in the US are owned and controlled by the federal or state government. When land borders on an ocean, sea, or navigable lake or river, the property owner only owns the land above the mean high water mark. Land below the high water mark and all lake or river beds of navigable waters are owned by the government. There is a public easement for right-of-way on all navigable waters, which means that the public has the right to use the waterways for transportation. The public also has the right to make reasonable use of the surface of the water (for swimming and boating, for example) unless specifically prohibited. A landowner who owns property bordering navigable waters may also apply for a permit that would allow him or her to use a certain specified amount of water for a designated beneficial purpose." Do you find this valuable? |
|
gamaliel114 |
18. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 11:15 PM EDT
The issue with "tidelands" has to do with grandfathered in deeds that granted tideland rights to some owners in Puget Sound. the rules in regards to puget sound are thus confusing at best...best to believe the signs...but if you just walk in the water as you pass their property, you are technically Ok I believe...just don't fish or clam or anything, just pass through. it is sad that folks would deny you the right to pass along a beach. But if you are prepared to get wet, you can go anywhere:-)
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
gamaliel114 |
19. RE: Adna, Washington ((((No Trespassing???))))
Sep 16 2009, 11:44 PM EDT
better info for puget sound Beaches:Adopted November 11, 1889. Washington State Constitution ARTICLE XVII TIDE LANDS SECTION 1 DECLARATION OF STATE OWNERSHIP. The state of Washington asserts its ownership to the beds and shores of all navigable waters in the state up to and including the line of ordinary high tide, in waters where the tide ebbs and flows, and up to and including the line of ordinary high water within the banks of all navigable rivers and lakes: Provided, that this section shall not be construed so as to debar any person from asserting his claim to vested rights in the courts of the state. ............... Public Ownership The extent of public ownership on any particular piece of state-owned tidelands varies depending upon the date the uplands were patented, i.e., transferred from government to private ownership. For tidelands where the uplands were patented prior to statehood (November 11, 1889), the private upland ownership extends to the mean high water line or to the meander line, whichever is further seaward. Uplands patented by the United States after November 11, 1889 extend to the line of mean high water. For an interactive map as to public tidelands: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/beachreg/index.htm Do you find this valuable? |
