Northwest Dive Club

Perhaps I missed this somewhere, I did a search but couldn't find anything. Jorsted Creek is now posted with signs that identify the tidelands as being private, and access to the beach is probited. Looking through old threads regarding octopus hole it seems that the DOT has some easement. The boundary of which I dind't fully understand, but it seems that it would be limited to within 25-50 feet of the road. At Jorsted water access is further than that.

So with that it seems that Jorsted Creek is no longer a shore dive and can only be accessed by boat. Does anyone have additional information?

The owners of that land are the Hamma Hamma Oyster company.

I havent dove Jorsted for over a year, this would seriously suck. But typically when a road is put in, the easement is bigger than the road.

Might be interesting to contact the company and see why it was closed off, as that piece of property there is pretty much useless other than the beach and beach access itself.

Unfortunately I just looked it up on the Mason County GIS website, and it's just a crappy java script map they use, but they don't show the easement for 101 hitting the water between Jorsted, and Hamma Hamma Creeks.

To the best of my ability I think this is the parcel in question

32434-42-70381 (Parcel Number) 32434-42-70381
RUSSELL TRUSTEE, JOAN
91 - Undeveloped - Land


I did talk to Hamma Hamma yesterday. The identified to me that they put those signs up becaues divers are tresspassers, and they want them to stop accessing their land. They were short tempered, and isistent on it.

The interesting thing on the land is that it's appraised at $2,295 and they are paying $20/year in taxes. It sounds to me like they are using a land management program for tax relief, and I wonder if that program would allow public access.

sounds like it, because even the beach frontage is worth more than that.

Although if thats all its worth, we could probably pool and buy it.

kitsapdiver wrote:Perhaps I missed this somewhere, I did a search but couldn't find anything. Jorsted Creek is now posted with signs that identify the tidelands as being private, and access to the beach is probited. Looking through old threads regarding octopus hole it seems that the DOT has some easement. The boundary of which I dind't fully understand, but it seems that it would be limited to within 25-50 feet of the road. At Jorsted water access is further than that.

So with that it seems that Jorsted Creek is no longer a shore dive and can only be accessed by boat. Does anyone have additional information?

The owners of that land are the Hamma Hamma Oyster company.

This is a function of the fact that there are basically no tidelands at Octopus hole. The WSDOT easement extends to the low water mark where DNR takes over as owner. I took a peek and you are right the Mason County GIS site is totally lame. As far as I could tell before I gave up on that damn website, you would have to enter south of Jorstad Cr.

Jeff Pack wrote:Although if thats all its worth, we could probably pool and buy it.

I doubt they want to sell their lucrative nearly tax free oyster beds.

CaptnJack wrote:

Jeff Pack wrote:Although if thats all its worth, we could probably pool and buy it.

I doubt they want to sell their lucrative nearly tax free oyster beds.

Yea, 20$ a year is a pretty sweet tax break for waterfrontage.

Lame - I think I have a good 50 dives at Jorstad.
I wouldn't even be that upset if they charged me for beach access to dive there.

Can the Washington Scuba Alliance do anything in this regard to help show Hamma Hamma how to protect their oysters but allow divers to dive?

Serious bummer if this stands...

Just out of curiosity, is there a WSA buoy on the site?

Furnari wrote:Just out of curiosity, is there a WSA buoy on the site?

No buoy on Jorsted.

Here's the list on the WSA web site - It seems to be a bit out of date:
http://www.wascuba.org/projects.htm#mooring

Furnari wrote:Just out of curiosity, is there a WSA buoy on the site?

There really isn't a need for one at this site either. It's an easy site to find while there is a wall there (that is also easy to find) there is more to the dive site than just the wall with outcrops of rock sin the shallower sections. It's really just a nice site where you can jump in and find good diving.

Regarding whether or not this will stand, I think it will unless some engages the owner in a responsible manner. The right answer here is not to ignore the signs and "call the owners bluff". As divers we can try to compromise with the owner (what if we provided a clean up for the site semi-annually or addressed his concerns for cleanliness/oyster ussage/or whatever else it is).

The other manner is to see if there are any standing easements or allowances based on land use programs that the site is involved with. However, until we, the dive community, have an agreement with the owner, or validation of a legal means of access we will do more harm than good with regards to landowner relations by continuing to unlawfully access the site.

I have asked a couple of the WSA board members a few times to look into this and talk to the land owners.
So far I don't think they have done anything.