The South Creek Trail has been blocked

User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by pasayten »

Thank you for the update. It is a good route to hike to Stehekin.
pasayten
Ray Peterson
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

It seems to have fallen by the wayside. The fires really put a damper on any activity. I suppose Jack was still able to go there, but don't know.
There was a movement afoot after the fires, but don't know how that is progressing. A lone backcountry horse person was started talks with the FS. I have not been on any formal trails this year and probably will not go on the South Cr. trail as it got so popular with people going to Louis Lk.
I was a bit up in arms, but since I'm not going to use it, most probably I have let it go. It's all Jack's now. But if he starts to build anything big, that won't fly with the FS.
Pearl Cherrington
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by pasayten »

How did the South Creek issue play out as the year continued?
pasayten
Ray Peterson
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

I think he was made to stop according to FS. And he could say, "I voluntarily stopped". What else would he do? I guess he could have kept working on clearing, but that would not have set right with the FS at all. AS in he could have said, "make me". Which he did not do. Yes, he did agree to stop. So it was voluntary. He probably didn't call up the FS and say, "ok, I'm volunteering to stop this illegal work I'm doing".
There is a reason why his statement doesn't jive with me. I remember talking to a former LEO and she said that Dave Graves had said he was trouble. This was a couple of years ago.

And your last statement made me laugh. I think your point is that we know the FS is famous for vandalizing the land.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

PAL wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:34 pm just trying to explain that what Jack did was wrong. He says he voluntarily stopped work. Right, after the FS told him to stop.
Is what you just stated a fact?
Because according to that article Mr. Cramer says he voluntarily stopped work on the road.

Do you have other information that contradicts what was stated?

And yes it was wrong to start clearing that road without a permit . We all know that you need a FS permit to vandalize public land. ;)
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

Looked like more than a trail and there were vehicle tracks. If I'm up again, I'll take a pic. 1/8 of a mile would be about right.
Of course, the BB isn't the only forum that can cause divisiveness. FB does.
Yes, that thread did explode. Many opinions. Definitely strong feelings. But people are not going to behave. Did you notice that many of us did not go on the BB for about 3 wks. once it was taken down. How sedate and peaceful and...boring. So I came over here. This is a good forum but not many of the dividers are here, it seems. Not that I'm not calling myself a divider, I am at times. Why? I have strong feelings and opinions about things. But I like to try to have a reasonable discussion. It's ok to disagree.
Yeah, by building you worked with many types of personalities and everyone had to work together.
As you know, if a fire or other disaster should come to the Valley, all this dividing falls away. Like Bill White and son and Mike Myers came and watered our place down-helped save our place. This was after the wolf incident. I had to reconcile the fact of what he did with the wolf and how he saved our place. Guess which won out?
So the BB will still have these subjects come up and we'll discuss and disagree, then they will take it down. They could kick us all off if they wanted to, but they haven't. I don't think there is anyone on there like Vern Hersst. Hear that Vern?
I digressed, but just trying to explain that what Jack did was wrong. He says he voluntarily stopped work. Right, after the FS told him to stop.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

PAL wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:36 pm Yes, the trail was closed before the BB rant. Someone did ask why it was closed and that brought it publicity. I still think if a person wanted access they could contact Jack via Facebook or his mailing address and kindly ask permission to cross.
I posted somewhere here, I thought, that he did indeed try putting a road in on the other informal trailhead side by cutting out logs on an old road. He only got about a long city block and had to stop and perhaps the FS stopped him. I went up there and looked at it.
His signs were vandalized stole from his property and perhaps people littered. By the same token he vandalized FS land, our land. He should not have done that, should he?
I don't blame him if there is trash. In fact the trail to Louis Lk and at the lake had little white tissues all over the place. I called the FS.
And when I went up this last time to the South Cr. trailhead, just off to the side, frigging white tissues in a pile. So this is how people behave.
Chris why do you care that the Methownet BB is more than a buy/sell/notification service? Actually, whoever posted the question about South Cr; that was a notification.
to answer your last question, because I see the harm that is being done to a community that I helped physically build by working in the construction industry. IMO, The BB is helping to further divide this community as is social media throughout the country. That thread may have started as a notification but it obviously didn't stay that way.

Same thing happened to Dr.Tuggy's appeal to get a vaccine. It Turned into a platform for disinformation.


As far as that old road that Jack started to clear, the article states.

"Cramer said he began to improve the trail last year, hoping the Forest Service would grant access, but voluntarily contacted the ranger district and stopped the trail work after 1/8 mile. "
Last edited by Fun CH on Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

mister_coffee wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:54 pm Except for the fact that the trail had already been closed by the USFS and blocked off by the landowner before that thread even started.

The thread was, I recall, actually started by somebody asking why the trail was closed.
the trail was closed by the landowner. The FS notified the public, the forest service didn't close the trail.

my take from the article was that he was considering opening the trail but by permission until that BB thread appeared.

I think it is appropriate to take him at his word.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

Yes, the trail was closed before the BB rant. Someone did ask why it was closed and that brought it publicity. I still think if a person wanted access they could contact Jack via Facebook or his mailing address and kindly ask permission to cross.
I posted somewhere here, I thought, that he did indeed try putting a road in on the other informal trailhead side by cutting out logs on an old road. He only got about a long city block and had to stop and perhaps the FS stopped him. I went up there and looked at it.
His signs were vandalized stole from his property and perhaps people littered. By the same token he vandalized FS land, our land. He should not have done that, should he?
I don't blame him if there is trash. In fact the trail to Louis Lk and at the lake had little white tissues all over the place. I called the FS.
And when I went up this last time to the South Cr. trailhead, just off to the side, frigging white tissues in a pile. So this is how people behave.
Chris why do you care that the Methownet BB is more than a buy/sell/notification service? Actually, whoever posted the question about South Cr; that was a notification.
Pearl Cherrington
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by mister_coffee »

Except for the fact that the trail had already been closed by the USFS and blocked off by the landowner before that thread even started.

The thread was, I recall, actually started by somebody asking why the trail was closed.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

Once again Marcy nails it with her outstanding reporting.

And once again the Methownet BB shows its disservice to our community by trying to be more that a buy/sell/notification service.

Mr. Cramer, owner of the private land along the South Creek trail, was considering offering free access across his property even after a few folks vandalized and stole from his property.

Then a few of Methownet BB members reared up their disrespect for Mr. Cramers rights as the BB staff allowed this conversation to continue for over 5000 views until they pulled it. But predictably the damage had been done.

From the MVN article.

"Then came the bulletin board. Cramer said the discussion included veiled threats and harassment. As a result of the theft, vandalism and harassment, he abandoned his plan to issue user permits, he said."

There is and old saying that's goes: you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.

So because of vitriol spewed on that BB towards Mr. Cramer, no more access.

Is anyone really surprised by this?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

Ha Ha Ha Chris. I said, if a trail had been in use on my land for 80 years(by humans, not furry animals) then perhaps permission would be granted. We are not talking about a new trail here. I know, you are being funny.
Well, that could be plausible about what you say about Natives and ownership. Maybe not ownership, but they definitely had their territory they covered and regarded as their lands. It's kind of like no one can own the river, supposedly, but we know it is owned.
I do have an experimental letter prepared to send to him, but again, I want to see what Marcy says. I say experimental because I may not get a response or I may. It is very polite. Not antagonistic at all.
In a way, I wish him success with his life. (I didn't in the letter.) Not knowing someone, why wouldn't I wish them success in their life? But in this instance, access across his land would be good. He may grant it on a case by case basis, with people humbly asking permission. Oh, I'm a great speculator!
Hey, I said was going to be off awhile. See what you made me do?
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

I don't know to much of what was written on the other BB concerning this issue. And yes I'm aware people only desire to take part of Jack's land.

If he is bluffing as you say, it appears to be working. As I said, respecting the guys rights may go a long way to regaining permission to pass.

Quote:"When you talk about the Native Americans, you know they did not believe a person could own the land. They were baffled by the white man's "owning". End quote

That sounds like one of those myths white people used to justify taking their land but the concept does warrant further learning.

You do know that It was determined that the local tribe owns the Black Hills.

"The United States Court of Claims on June 13, 1979, in a 5-2 majority, decided that the 1877 Act that seized the Black Hills from the Sioux was a violation of the Fifth Amendment. ... The Sioux declined to accept the money, because acceptance would legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the Black Hills.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Black Hills land claim - Wikipedia

When can we start construction on the trail through your property? ;)
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

The BCH have been maintaining alot of the trails they use, simply because the FS doesn't have the funding supposedly and the personnel. Although the past couple of years they've hired contract trail crews, usually of 2-4 people from what I have seen.
I am definitely not organizing a lawsuit; other persons or groups may. They do not want to do that at this point. At this point, people I have talked to are waiting to see Marcy Stamper's article in next weeks paper. And I would think before there is any lawsuit, any legal "experts" would have to answer those questions in my last post. Also, to find out how long it's been in the family versus the trail being there. That could have some bearing.
Chris, you make it sound like people are taking all of Jack's land. There are many many horse people concerned about this as well as hikers. These are probably people you know. Why don't you ask them about it?
The other BB, as you know, had many views. Many of the viewers did not make comments or reveal themselves. A few have contacted me because of what I wrote and my reasonableness, so I was told. Although, yes, I know, you do not think it is reasonable at all, to use a trail that has been used many years, by many people, and then all of a sudden blocked.
From what I have learned, I think Jack is bluffing. The signs, the little rope, the camera are there, but he is bluffing. He probably will be tested by people that will ignore the signs and the rope. Rope, no gate.
If there had been a trail through my land for say, 80 years, people might not sue me, because I might just let them use it. It's a good question you ask.
When you talk about the Native Americans, you know they did not believe a person could own the land. They were baffled by the white man's "owning".
So this white dude, Jack own's the land and doesn't want anyone to pass through, just because he wants to run an ATV up there and can't and is hoping we all pressure the FS to let him do it. Talk about not respecting the land. I know, it has been said he can do what ever he wants with his land. Hold on.
Planning Dept. has something to say, if he wants to build. If he wants to mine, that's another subject, which Planning may not have any say over.
Ok, now, I'm done.
I do have to admire how steadfast you are to your beliefs! Take care.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

Does the FS really maintain that trail? Most often I see a dedicated volunteer crew using hand saws maintaining the trails up the Twisp River in the Wilderness Area. I'm guessing the horse riders also maintain that trail.

Just as mtn Bike riders and Motor cycle riders maintain the trail system where I ride.

Mostly I see Forest Service Personnel taking surveys at the trailheads and I did see once a Forest Service employee with a chainsaw on one of the trails off of Highway 20. I'm guessing they have their hands full with the fire mitigation and firefighting duties and Trail work has a low priority.

Quote:"The law would interpret what the legality is of his closing off the trail, that's all."

Are you the one who will be organizing that law suit or are you writing to inspire others to take Jack's land?

How would you feel if someone sued you to try to gain public access through your land?
Last edited by Fun CH on Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

The trail has been there many years, maintained by the FS, before he came around. The law would interpret what the legality is of his closing off the trail, that's all. It would define whether or not the public has a right to use that trail. The FS is not taking action. It is up to the hikers, according to the FS.
I asked if you knew him as he is a BC skier and is known amongst the crowd.
I think he wants to avoid the court system.
All for now.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

PAL wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:26 am Chris, do you know Jack?
I don't know Jack and I really don't care what his motive is to close off his private property to the public.

He has that right and anyone who thinks seeking legal action to take part of his land because they don't like his motives or thinks they are entitled to take any part of his land for their own use is wrong IMO, and only furthers conflict where there should respect for his private property rights.

Maybe showing respect will get the public what they desire as opposed an internet tantrum and/or demanding that the FS take action to open that section of trail.

Years ago I heard a local tribal leader speak on KVLR about how land in the Methow was taken from tribal members. He said something to the effect that the tribe would never seek return of that land because they know how it felt to have land taken from them and would not inflict that same pain on another human.

That heartfelt sentiment shows us what is a true path to being human, free of reasoning that serves our self interest.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

Chris, do you know Jack?
Pearl Cherrington
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

I know I am banging my head against a wall here. I will say it again, we don't want the whole property, just access through it. It is his right to close it but it is because he wants to use an ATV to haul up stuff so he can build.
I am going to write him a letter, very kindly and ask for his permission for me to cross his property on the existing trail. I will let you know what his response is, if I get one.
The landowner in this case is using the hikers and horse people for collateral and it will not work.
I guess it is self interest, but Chris you must have been up to South Pass and looked into the basin and beyond. So access to that will be lost.
There are others working on this right now. Marcy is doing an article in next week's paper.
All I would like to see is that people can use the trail. But we are back to what may make the most sense if I get no response and that is to do the bushwhack.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

PAL wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:54 am
And here is what I can't stand about your post and others on other BB's, is that you bring up what a person would have supported in the past about Native Lands. You are trying to make a point. Yes, we know it was wrong to do that to the Natives but that is not what is being discussed. Dredging up wrongs in the past is only to make a point and it is a tiresome point. Ok?
the point is that taking native lands was wrong then and so is taking private land today. Just because a group of people see some sort of self interest gain or oppose the land owners motives for closing his property does not entitle that group to do the same thing that was done in the past to the native inhabitants of this land.

Yet many who would oppose the taking of native land, and other examples that David cites, or what the proposed methow Recreation District would have done in the taking of private land, have no problem with taking this private land in question.

Be careful what you wish for. The issue of the methow recreational District may come up again as people with unlimited wealth and a need for more "convenience"services move here. Like that guy who wanted a soccer field for his daughter and publicly supported the methow recreational District.

I for one don't want my property deemed beneficial to the public good, forced to go to court,and forced to accept fair market value for my property.

I have already deemed my property beneficial to Wildlife the way it is. And that personal justification is beneficial to my personal well-being.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by mister_coffee »

Fun CH wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:11 am ...
"The Supreme Court has made exceptions to the warrant rule through several cases.
...
If you read up on the Border Patrol controversy they have claimed the unilateral right to enter any private property with 25 miles of an international border and conduct a search of that property, without a warrant. The only exception is that they need a warrant to search a private residence. So in theory if you have an office in San Francisco or Port Angeles or Mazama the Border Patrol can come in any time and search you. The courts haven't sorted this one out yet so good luck to you if armed border patrol agents want to search your detached garage.
Fun CH wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:11 am David would you've also supported the taking of Native American land back when that was happening?
No, of course not.

And there are a lot more recent injustices in the uncompensated taking of private property, consider:

(1) The taking of homes and farms owned by the Issei and Nisei at the start of WWII.
(2) The taking of land and water rights in the Owens Valley to provide water for Los Angeles.
(3) The forcible displacement of many people of many ethnicities when hydroelectric dams were constructed here on a large scale. For two very different cases consider the Wanapum Indians and the nice people who lived in Kettle Falls. In general your odds of getting a fair price for your property went up if you were (a) white, (b) wealthy, and (c) politically well-connected.

For a condemnation and eminent domain process to work, I would (at a bare minimum) expect:

(1) That accountable elected officials authorize it and set up a framework for it. In this case I would expect Congress to appropriate money for private land purchases and define cases where it is appropriate. So it would be reasonable to purchase an inholding (or condemn an inholding) at fair market price if it met certain transparent criteria set by elected officials.
(2) The landowner should get a fair and transparent hearing in court where the condemnation is approved and a fair market value is determined. Reasonable legal costs for the court process should be borne by the condemning agency.

I think the fair and reasonable solution is that the landowner be bought out at a fair market price.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

The whole property would not be taken. That trail has been there for years. Yes, it is his right to close off his property. It's just not very nice.
And here is what I can't stand about your post and others on other BB's, is that you bring up what a person would have supported in the past about Native Lands. You are trying to make a point. Yes, we know it was wrong to do that to the Natives but that is not what is being discussed. Dredging up wrongs in the past is only to make a point and it is a tiresome point. Ok?
I do not support that recreational district proposal, by the way and not many people do.
We can write the owner a letter asking for permission, is one way to approach this.
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by Fun CH »

mister_coffee wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 6:30 am This isn't a simple issue of property rights. Property rights are finite. As some examples:

Could you store radioactive waste on your property?

Could you grow opium on your property?

Can the Border Patrol enter your property without a warrant? (Consider https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/fi ... rights.pdf)

yes to all those. The first two would require permits, the last one, if a crime is progress you bet that law enforcement can enter your property without a warrant..

"The Supreme Court has made exceptions to the warrant rule through several cases. The exceptions that allow police to enter your person or property without a warrant are as follows:

Search incident to lawful arrest - the police enter a home to make an arrest. They can search the immediate area of the arrest.
Plain Sight - Police are lawfully in a place where they can see evidence in plain sight. They can seize the evidence and it may give them probable cause to search further.
Consent - You allow the police to search your home.
Dangerous weapon - The police have reason to believe that you have a dangerous weapon which they fear may be used against them.
Automobile - if the evidence can be moved and never recovered while the police seek a warrant the police can search.
Exigent Circumstances or Hot Pursuit - If someone in the home is in danger or the police follow a person into a home while pursuing them for committing a felony."

https://intermountainlegal.net/criminal ... t-warrant/

Once again, yes this is definitely a property rights issue. The owner has the right to close his property to the public.

What surprises me most is that people with a liberal mindset would even consider taking this property using eminent domain as a justification. (Or maybe its not surprising given the liberal support for the formation of a methow recreational District which included the ability to take private property for public use)

David would you've also supported the taking of Native American land back when that was happening?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by PAL »

Agree with you David.
Pearl Cherrington
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: The South Creek Trail has been blocked

Post by mister_coffee »

This isn't a simple issue of property rights. Property rights are finite. As some examples:

Could you store radioactive waste on your property?

Could you grow opium on your property?

Can the Border Patrol enter your property without a warrant? (Consider https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/fi ... rights.pdf)

Since the trail is being closed not because of specific issues with trail users, but as an ineffective negotiating tactic to get the Forest Service to grant access for motorized equipment on a trail in designated Wilderness. I say "ineffective" because the Forest Service can't legally just grant that access, there is a process that needs to happen with things like an environmental assessment, public comment, an environmental impact statement, and an implementation plan. All of that would need to happen at the expense of the property owner, not the taxpayers. Any improvements to the trail required by the process would also be at the expense of the property owners. A rock-bottom estimate for the costs of all that would be around $250,000, which I am extremely doubtful the property owners would be willing or able to pay.

In some ways I think the property owners in this case have outsmarted themselves. Under eminent domain they are entitled to compensation at the fair market value of their property. Unfortunately for them if they are not developing the mineral rights and are intent on developing the property as a "resort" the fair market value is likely to be a lot closer to the assessed value of the property than to the value with hypothetical mineral values taken into account.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests