Fact or Fiction: Sibley Mansion "closed"?

[articulate]

I got an email from somebody today that said he'd gone to Sibley Mansion (on motorcycle) and came upon a fence and a sign:

Although there is now a gate so you can't get quite all the way to the mansion, it's on private land I guess. "No trespassing, video surveillance".

Since several folks are from the Tucson area, I wanted to pry. Is this true?

Are you rolling your eyes at me in wonder: Mark! Have you been living in a cave, buddy?.

 

[datrupr]

If this is true that would be a real shame. I have never been to Sibley Mansion and is on my list of places to visit. I hope it is not true.

 

[DesertRose]

Like most ghost towns associated with past mining, the Copper Creek area where Sibley Mansion is located is private property. No doubt the owners got tired of less sensitive individuals trashing the place, or their lawyer finally indicated the liability was just too heavy - getting sued because somebody got hit with a falling rock or something. We worry about liability with our own mine, as people seem to think if it's named as a point on a map, regardless of its ownership status, they have some sort of right to go there. People trespass all the time to gawk at our mine, which is named on all maps, since it dates to 1914 or so, and there used to be buildings or structures associated with it that old timers tell us about.

Sibley Mansion is a popular 4x4 and ghost town enthusiasts destination - so people do tend to forget that it's private.

Here's a trip report from an Expeditions West trip, in which Scott mentions that the place was already in danger of closure due to wildcat dumping, and he also rightly points out that you cross a lot of State Trust land and need recreation permits to go there, too (contrary to popular opinion, State land is not public land, it's owned by a trust on behalf of beneficiaries such as schools, and hunting, grazing, and other activities are permitted but not a right or a guarantee of access):

http://www.expeditionswest.com/adventures/2004/sibley_mansion/index.html

 

[articulate]

Like most ghost towns associated with past mining, the Copper Creek area where Sibley Mansion is located is private property. No doubt the owners got tired of less sensitive individuals trashing the place, or their lawyer finally indicated the liability was just too heavy - getting sued because somebody got hit with a falling rock or something. We worry about liability with our own mine, as people seem to think if it's named as a point on a map, regardless of its ownership status, they have some sort of right to go there. People trespass all the time to gawk at our mine, which is named on all maps, since it dates to 1914 or so, and there used to be buildings or structures associated with it that old timers tell us about.

Sibley Mansion is a popular 4x4 and ghost town enthusiasts destination - so people do tend to forget that it's private.

Here's a trip report from an Expeditions West trip, in which Scott mentions that the place was already in danger of closure due to wildcat dumping, and he also rightly points out that you cross a lot of State Trust land and need recreation permits to go there, too (contrary to popular opinion, State land is not public land, it's owned by a trust on behalf of beneficiaries such as schools, and hunting, grazing, and other activities are permitted but not a right or a guarantee of access):

http://www.expeditionswest.com/adventures/2004/sibley_mansion/index.html

Interesting info, Roseann. Thanks. I'm embarrassed to admit now that I had no idea that the mansion site was on "endangered" private property - I didn't know it was a sensitive area. When I went there several years ago, we camped a mere stones-throw from the mansion and built a fire on the ground. In defense, I do keep a current Trust Land permit (awwww...what a good citizen!).

I am a fan of signs like this, although I understand it is no one's duty to post these:

It's firm, friendly, and informative. We can all be on the same team now.

Now I wonder: how many mine sites (or other sites) have I visited that are on private property, and I wasn't welcome?

See, I learned a few things today. Thanks,

Mark

 

[DesertRose]

Hi Mark,

I like those signs a lot, too - it's a much better answer than just putting up Go Away signs.

I think in Arizona it's the private property owner's responsibility to fence and sign their property if they don't want trespassers, so the burden is not on you to know - except, as a courtesy maybe. When we're crossing private property and we know it, like you we always make sure we're well behaved and even pick up others' trash. But I think from a legal standpoint that if you as a property owner don't sign it, you can't prosecute for trespassing - we asked our Sheriff recently after a spate of OHVers were going onto our property (past no-trespass signs).

(On the other hand, I did find out that if it's federal land, the burden DOES fall on the individual and not the landowner - the feds - to know the boundaries and not do anything dumb - I got a ticket in the backcountry of Saguaro National Park for having a dog in an area closed to dogs but I didn't even know I was in the park - no fence, no sign - but the ranger said that's not their problem. Hmm)

So many cool spots are on or across private land in our region - like the Coyote Mountains, where there are some amazing pictographs and interesting sites, but the landowner had to close it recently because Tucson ORV weenies were coming out by the trailerload, parking off the road (creating a new de-facto parking lot), and roaring around by the dozen, throwing trash, and destroying roads and causing dust pollution.

Now none of us can get in!!

(And they had one of the signs you show, for about a year, before giving up.)

 

[calamaridog]

So many cool spots are on or across private land in our region - like the Coyote Mountains, where there are some amazing pictographs and interesting sites, but the landowner had to close it recently because Tucson ORV weenies were coming out by the trailerload, parking off the road (creating a new de-facto parking lot), and roaring around by the dozen, throwing trash, and destroying roads and causing dust pollution.

Now none of us can get in!!

(And they had one of the signs you show, for about a year, before giving up.)

It sucks when people abuse priveleges and everyone suffers. The private landowner bought and paid for a sign and it doesn't even help

I've been saying it, and will continue to say that we need more OHV riding areas set aside for the growing number of riders. Most people don't care about old mines and such, they just want some thrills.

We need to provide them with those thrills so they stay out of the areas that cannot support their use.

I would like to see mandatory education with the purchase of OHV's. I don't think we are far off from GPS tracking of recreational users either. They are considering doing it at Glamis to track the number of users in more sensitive areas.

 

[DesertRose]

Well put - couldn't agree more, and the sooner the better.

There is a big OHV park proposed outside Phoenix (there's a post on it in this forum). I need to make sure we register our wholehearted support of it - it's on BLM land, I think - both as 4x4 enthusiasts and as environmentalists/conservationists. I haven't had time to do so yet, but I will!

 

[calamaridog]

The bottom line is that most OHV users are looking for an adrenaline rush. If you provide open OHV areas they will flock to them, and stay away from less exciting places they should not be.

(You know, the ones we want to enjoy:elkgrin: )

And the underlying problem continues to be an utter lack of enforcement on County, State, and Federal rural lands. In San Diego, our law enforcement presence in the back country is shameful. Hopefully this will change soon, as there is a proposal to triple the rural detail.

Our Astrea (helicopter) crews do enforcement, when they have time, around the rural communities. They have even landed and written tickets to ATV and motorcyclists who are riding illegally. Of course, this is a band-aid approach.

 

[flywgn]

Hey, I haven't posted much lately. Been off doin' stuff. I apologize for posting something that I put up on another thread in response to an editorial (since lost) in the LA Times about "off-roaders" being nasty folks, but it seems appropriate. Some of you may have already read it. For that, I apologize as well.

[Posted 8/15/04]


Hey Gals and Guys,

I haven't posted anything for several months. Dealing with a family death and a move from CA to AZ, but this topic is near and dear to my wilderness-seeking heart. It must be a testimony to my age that here it is an early Saturday night and I seem to be the only one on this Forum.

Thanks Cecile for posting that editorial. It's not an unexpected POV nor is it singularly different. Unfortunately, many persons who own a 4WD think that it is their privilege, no, RIGHT to take their vehicle anywhere they wish to.

For twenty years I was a faculty member at a college-prep boarding school that owns 2800 spectacularly beautiful acres bordering the Los Padres Nat'l Forest. One of the 'hats' I wore during my tenure was that of Ranch Mgr. and I was responsible for overseeing the egress and ingress of the public through the school property.

There was a so-called 'county' road that transected the school property on its way to the NF. There were many spots where 'off-roaders' were too tempted to drive off the county gravel (it wasn't paved until the early '70's) and test their 4WDs on some attractive hill. The result was many ruts which would erode during the winter rains and damage the terrain for years to come.

One fall I had the extremely good fortune to be driving up this road when I encountered one of these 'off-roaders.' I have owned a 4WD of some type since 1962, so I am well aware of the temptations that we all must confront at one time or another. I believe that I have never, willingly, driven off established ruts and, even when I have found it absolutely necessary to do so, have felt guiltly for leaving tracks.

This kid, though, was having a blast driving his new four-wheeler up and over a small hill next to the road. As I pulled to a stop in my '64 CJ-5 he came down off the hill grinning from ear to ear, and I was certain that he wanted to challenge me to a hill-climb. His grin faded when I identified myself, took down his vehicle license number, and asked for his driver's license. He was reluctant to give me the latter until I showed him my sheriff's authority.

Then I proceeded to give him my sternest lecture on where and when to use a 4WD. In addition, I also schooled him on Trespass Law (the school property is posted along the right-of-way) and the consequences of what he had done.

His response was, 'Well, where am I supposed to try out my 4WD?'

I'm afraid that this is the attitude of many so-called 'off-roaders'. I agree with Bajataco. To some extent, any of us who venture onto dirt roads are 'off-road', and we know some dirt roads are worse than others. (Okay, let's not get into our favorite road south of Puertecitos.) It's unfortunate that the author of the editorial did not take the time to differentiate between those who use the benefits of 4WD appropriately and those who abuse the land because they can.

The outcome of the incident that I described above was beneficial. Instead of citing the kid for trespassing and pressing charges, I convinced him and his companion to come back and help me repair the damage he'd done. It took eight years for the land to recover, and that was with much help from us. In the meantime, that teen-ager matured into a young adult with a much better appreciation for restraining one's impulses. He missed only one or two 'sessions' during that eight years (His companion tired early.) and I believe that he took some pride of ownership in the results.

It's unfortunate that every off-road abuser cannot be confronted and made to serve in this manner.

... We should confront those who are abusing the land every chance we have. If we don't, we stand the strong chance of having many of the backcountry roads closed off.

This may be a personal response to this never-ending problem, but I am the eternal optimist when it comes to human nature and the responses we have a chance to elicit.

Allen R.