TacoDelRio wrote:They're checking for permits, which are available at... uh.... um... wait a second...

Exactly

KathyW wrote:It might be a good idea to keep Snow Creek reports...etc. off the internet. The sheriff was down at the beginning of the route last night/this morning and the park rangers were sitting up on San Jacinto waiting for those who got past the sheriff at the bottom.

This has been suggested, regarding this climb, many times on various websites and threads (even here) but some folks just never get a clue. The sport of climbing is very often best served by keeping things "under the radar," but some people just have to spray...

vainglory ruins it for others

Hi,

Please see http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52729 for a consolidated discussion. I usually don't care if ornery old dudes disparage my decisions, but since no one really knows me on this site and I would rather not be forever tarnished by an out-of-context remark from someone like Kris, from the aforementioned thread:

It looks like I might owe an apology to those harassed. I did post a partner request on SP, which in hindsight was silly because this is a sensitive issue with the people who own the land, since in the past people have trespassed on it.

However, my party was going to stick strictly to the legal approach outside of the DWA land. I was not soliciting partners for trespassing. Some people responded to the original thread with disparaging comments about my judgement in posting such a thing on SP, but I stand by my decision to do that, since I was simply asking if people wanted to join me on an awesome, legal hike.

Now what we have to work on is this mistaken response from DWA. I am going to try to get in touch with them and the SJ rangers to point out what I think is the legal approach. Hopefully, once they are informed and the route descriptions on various internet pages are updated, they will not accidentally harass climbers doing nothing wrong.

Please discuss in other thread.