PDA

View Full Version : Claims at the South Pass Mine.



Ghosttowns.com
07-22-2003, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Ryan Hill

: On the 22nd of July, 2003, I recieved this e-mail from a previously unknown party. Please read carefuly, until the end of the e-mail, I'll explain further....

: To: Mr. Ryan Hill
:
: From: Michael K. Ward
:
: Subject: Duncan Mine Property,
: Atlantic City/South Pass Wyoming
:
: While surfing the internet, I encountered a website called ghosttowns.com that had several pictures that are attributed to you. I enjoyed looking at these pictures but must inform you that the Duncan Mine is Private Property and you were Trespassing when you entered the property without written permission to take these photographs. Furthermore, by exhibiting these photographs on yours or other websites encourages others to trespass on the property. Therefore, I am asking you to remove the pictures and cease distributing information concerning the Duncan Mine. I must also inform you that if I catch you or anyone else on the property, I will have you/them arrested/cited for trespassing and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Needless to say I do not appreciate the publicity you and others put forth as freedom of information concerning this privately owned old mine site.
:
: By the way, the "Ice House" in your photo is really the Dynamite Shack and the "Larger Miners Home" is the Office and Hotel Building. The "Bridge" Picture is the Ore Dump for the Mill/Processing Building.
:
: Michael K. Ward
: Owner of the Duncan Mine

: Here is my response where I shed light on many-a-detail.
: Dear Mr. Michael K. Ward, P.E. (alleged owner of the Duncan Mine)
:
: To open this letter, I must admit to you, with complete sincerity that both myself and my family were unaware that the mine in question was classed as private property (if indeed it is), and apologize for any inconvenience I/We may have caused you.
: When visiting Atlantic City and South Pass City in the early September of 2002, we were aware that both these historical sites were listed on the National Register of Historic places, as in, they would make an ideal attraction to "take-in" whilst on our vacation. Reaching Atlantic City first from travelling south of Lander, we had asked for directions to South Pass City, as we'd been put off track by detouring on the Fort Stanbaugh loop trail. A local had pointed us in the direction of the Duncan Mine, which I had been led to believe at a previous time was named the Clarissa Mine.
: Once reaching a fork-in-the-road, of sorts, we proceeded up the steeper dirt road to where we knew we'd be led to the mine structures that we could observe from the road below.
: In the short time it had taken us to reach the old mine, we where not deterred, nor was our presence discouraged by any human being or signposted warning stating "private property" or anything else of this nature or fashion. This was not due to any ignorance or human error on our behalf, but by the lack of evidence supporting your claim that this mine is private property. Knowing that many locations in the area were listed as historical sites, we assumed that this mine, like Atlantic City was listed also.
:
: In your letter you make me, and possibly even ghosttowns.com sound as if we are common criminals. But as I have already explained, there was no warning against our presence at the Duncan Mine. I am not a criminal, I am a tourist. An innocent tourist with the best of intentions to preserve your nation's landmarks through photography. Through declaring this mine as private property, you are depriving a nation of both knowledge, a fantastic experience, and there treasured heritage. Some may even say that this is selfish, but I understand that you are only trying to preserve the old mine in your own way. Its a shame that not every man, women and child can own their own personal historic landmark, and that us criminals must resort to taking photos. A sure shame indeed.
:
: But, one question. What kind of a person would risk a criminal record, a citation, or even imprisonment over something that many, including myself (in that circumstance) would consider as trivial as a few photographs through there own will? A fool. A fool is the answer, sir. And myself and my family do not consider ourselves as fools.
:
: Needless to say, despite your obvious disproval, I refuse to remove my photographs from my web site, on the grounds that the internet is a place of free expression, and a place for the free exchange and sharing of thoughts and ideas. And the publicity that myself and "others put forth" is not to encourage vandalism and disrespect, but is to encourage others to respect, care, and remember those precious landmarks that could fall to the ground in the very next day. And also, that there were no warnings against our presence at the Duncan Mine. Though, I shall remain civil and willing to cooperate with you to a certain extent.
: On my web site, I will full heartedly and most seriously discourage others visiting the Duncan Mine. I will also display the possible consequences of trespassing on your property if required. I will also post a frequent message at ghosttowns.com deterring visitors, even more so from the mine. But I will not remove my photos from my site.
:
: On the other hand, as I have no control over ghosttowns.com, the site's web master may be more, or even less willing to remove my photos, as ghosttowns.com uses the photos out there own choice. Approach them in the same manner you did I, I'd be interested to see their response.
: As that site receives many, many more visitors, the removal of my photos from ghosttowns.com would be of greater consequence in your favour, as I my web site receives much fewer visitors, and thus would have a lesser impact on those fewer people. The chances would be good that people would not trespass on your mine.
:
: I hope that we can meet this arrangement. I believe it would satisfy us both.
:
: Regards;
:
: Ryan Hill (Site Author, hillsghosttowns)
: Kenneth Hill (Father, contributing photographer, proud of his son and whole-heartedly agreeing with his stance).

: What do YOU think of this claim? Can you support me?

Ghosttowns.com
07-22-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Andrew P

: : On the 22nd of July, 2003, I recieved this e-mail from a previously unknown party. Please read carefuly, until the end of the e-mail, I'll explain further....

: : To: Mr. Ryan Hill
: :
: : From: Michael K. Ward
: :
: : Subject: Duncan Mine Property,
: : Atlantic City/South Pass Wyoming
: :
: : While surfing the internet, I encountered a website called ghosttowns.com that had several pictures that are attributed to you. I enjoyed looking at these pictures but must inform you that the Duncan Mine is Private Property and you were Trespassing when you entered the property without written permission to take these photographs. Furthermore, by exhibiting these photographs on yours or other websites encourages others to trespass on the property. Therefore, I am asking you to remove the pictures and cease distributing information concerning the Duncan Mine. I must also inform you that if I catch you or anyone else on the property, I will have you/them arrested/cited for trespassing and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Needless to say I do not appreciate the publicity you and others put forth as freedom of information concerning this privately owned old mine site.
: :
: : By the way, the "Ice House" in your photo is really the Dynamite Shack and the "Larger Miners Home" is the Office and Hotel Building. The "Bridge" Picture is the Ore Dump for the Mill/Processing Building.
: :
: : Michael K. Ward
: : Owner of the Duncan Mine

: : Here is my response where I shed light on many-a-detail.
: : Dear Mr. Michael K. Ward, P.E. (alleged owner of the Duncan Mine)
: :
: : To open this letter, I must admit to you, with complete sincerity that both myself and my family were unaware that the mine in question was classed as private property (if indeed it is), and apologize for any inconvenience I/We may have caused you.
: : When visiting Atlantic City and South Pass City in the early September of 2002, we were aware that both these historical sites were listed on the National Register of Historic places, as in, they would make an ideal attraction to "take-in" whilst on our vacation. Reaching Atlantic City first from travelling south of Lander, we had asked for directions to South Pass City, as we'd been put off track by detouring on the Fort Stanbaugh loop trail. A local had pointed us in the direction of the Duncan Mine, which I had been led to believe at a previous time was named the Clarissa Mine.
: : Once reaching a fork-in-the-road, of sorts, we proceeded up the steeper dirt road to where we knew we'd be led to the mine structures that we could observe from the road below.
: : In the short time it had taken us to reach the old mine, we where not deterred, nor was our presence discouraged by any human being or signposted warning stating "private property" or anything else of this nature or fashion. This was not due to any ignorance or human error on our behalf, but by the lack of evidence supporting your claim that this mine is private property. Knowing that many locations in the area were listed as historical sites, we assumed that this mine, like Atlantic City was listed also.
: :
: : In your letter you make me, and possibly even ghosttowns.com sound as if we are common criminals. But as I have already explained, there was no warning against our presence at the Duncan Mine. I am not a criminal, I am a tourist. An innocent tourist with the best of intentions to preserve your nation's landmarks through photography. Through declaring this mine as private property, you are depriving a nation of both knowledge, a fantastic experience, and there treasured heritage. Some may even say that this is selfish, but I understand that you are only trying to preserve the old mine in your own way. Its a shame that not every man, women and child can own their own personal historic landmark, and that us criminals must resort to taking photos. A sure shame indeed.
: :
: : But, one question. What kind of a person would risk a criminal record, a citation, or even imprisonment over something that many, including myself (in that circumstance) would consider as trivial as a few photographs through there own will? A fool. A fool is the answer, sir. And myself and my family do not consider ourselves as fools.
: :
: : Needless to say, despite your obvious disproval, I refuse to remove my photographs from my web site, on the grounds that the internet is a place of free expression, and a place for the free exchange and sharing of thoughts and ideas. And the publicity that myself and "others put forth" is not to encourage vandalism and disrespect, but is to encourage others to respect, care, and remember those precious landmarks that could fall to the ground in the very next day. And also, that there were no warnings against our presence at the Duncan Mine. Though, I shall remain civil and willing to cooperate with you to a certain extent.
: : On my web site, I will full heartedly and most seriously discourage others visiting the Duncan Mine. I will also display the possible consequences of trespassing on your property if required. I will also post a frequent message at ghosttowns.com deterring visitors, even more so from the mine. But I will not remove my photos from my site.
: :
: : On the other hand, as I have no control over ghosttowns.com, the site's web master may be more, or even less willing to remove my photos, as ghosttowns.com uses the photos out there own choice. Approach them in the same manner you did I, I'd be interested to see their response.
: : As that site receives many, many more visitors, the removal of my photos from ghosttowns.com would be of greater consequence in your favour, as I my web site receives much fewer visitors, and thus would have a lesser impact on those fewer people. The chances would be good that people would not trespass on your mine.
: :
: : I hope that we can meet this arrangement. I believe it would satisfy us both.
: :
: : Regards;
: :
: : Ryan Hill (Site Author, hillsghosttowns)
: : Kenneth Hill (Father, contributing photographer, proud of his son and whole-heartedly agreeing with his stance).

: : What do YOU think of this claim? Can you support me



:
: Dear Ryan,
: Since the land was not posted as private property, you had no way of knowing that the land is possibly privatly owned. Hence, Mr. Ward could not have had you arrested the day you took the photographs. The only thing the land-owner could have done that day was ask you to leave. Nonetheless, if the land is indeed in his ownership, he has warned you to stay off of the property and if you should return, he can have you arrested. Mr. Ward should have his land CLEARLY posted as private in a place where it is visable to the public and especially at entrances and along roads of the property. It is his responsibility as a landowner to post his land if he wishes to discourage unwanted visitors. It is a major liability to the landowner of any property to have persons on thier land due to possible accidents, mine collaspes, etc. Since the land was not posted at the time of your photographs, it is within the "legal realm" to keep your pictures on your website. Since you willingly gave ghosttowns.com the pictures on your own free will, Mr. Ward has no case in legally forcing ghosttowns.com to remove the pictures. If I were you I would not return to Mr. Wards property and fully cooperate with him to aviod legal proceedings. Again, he cannot legally force ghosttowns.com to remove the pictures that you willingly gave to the website. I applaud the efforts of yourself and other ghost town enthusiests to keep the memory of a bygone era alive for future generations to enjoy.
: Andrew P. Attorney-at-law

Ghosttowns.com
08-17-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Michael K. Ward, P.E.

: I must disagree with Mr. Hill that there was no evidence of this being private property. There have been and still are "No Trespassing" signs at the Duncan Mine site. Although weathered/faded, but still legable, one sign is visible in Mr. Hill's picture of the the entrance to the mill building. Another red and white sign appears to be visable on the log cabin structure adjacent to the road where a vehicle is parked near by. With that said. The Duncanlode Mine Site and the 20 acres that it sits on are indeed PRIVATE PROPERTY. All buildings on this property are CLEARLY posted with signs. Therefore, all persons who enter this property do so at their own risk. Be advised that any person or persons caught trespassing on this property will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

: M. K. Ward


:
: :
:

Ghosttowns.com
10-14-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by John Allen

: Ok, folks. I was there in July this year 2003 and there were indeed no trespassing signs on the property. I am a posessive person as well Ward, I don't like folks trespassing on my land either. Hill, accept the fact that you did it and get on with your life. Stay off my property as well.

:
: : I must disagree with Mr. Hill that there was no evidence of this being private property. There have been and still are "No Trespassing" signs at the Duncan Mine site. Although weathered/faded, but still legable, one sign is visible in Mr. Hill's picture of the the entrance to the mill building. Another red and white sign appears to be visable on the log cabin structure adjacent to the road where a vehicle is parked near by. With that said. The Duncanlode Mine Site and the 20 acres that it sits on are indeed PRIVATE PROPERTY. All buildings on this property are CLEARLY posted with signs. Therefore, all persons who enter this property do so at their own risk. Be advised that any person or persons caught trespassing on this property will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

: : M. K. Ward

:
: :
: : :
: :

Ghosttowns.com
10-30-2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Ryan

: The only possible peace of evidence to support Mr. Ward's claim is that there was one sign, very small, very old and extreemly faded and weatherd nailed to the back-side of a building. I couldn't make out the sign, and I don not care what you think John. Don't god **** tell me to get on with my life.

Ghosttowns.com
10-30-2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Ryan

: I was there in 2002 you ignorant fool. Not 2003, 2002, when there was no sign posting. Allot can happen in a year, and Mr. Ward had already informed me that he sign posted the site after contacting me.

Ghosttowns.com
10-30-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Danny Sayres

: I think you both are acting silly.

: 2-E