Katrina speaks of Mike Castro as being a confidential informant for law enforcement and this is why she believes that he has remained untouched in his spree of illegal activity during his occupation of the Bowen Ranch and also unaffected by normal business practices in regards to the income he earns at the Bowen Ranch. I really don't know if she has any proof that Mike Castro is a confidential informant but since events suggest that law enforcement seem never inclined to serriously look in to the criminal activity that in many cases points to Mike Castro one has to wonder if what Katrina suggest may be true. In regards to the confidential informant program that I think we all know exist, I believe it is WRONG to work deals with those who have been involved in criminal activity just because it produces some other benifit toward fighting crime. Criminals, all criminals should be held accountable, at all times, no deals. If it means we are not enabled, by this special arrangement, to catch other criminals because we don't make deals, then that is still a more worthy course that to give imunity to some criminals, making them in actuality, above the law. If Katrina makes a report to the County Code Enforcement to inform them that she feels that some illegal activity is occuring in regards to the income taken in at the Bowen Ranch by its current owner, Mike Castro, that is the act of a concerned citizen acting in accordance with the law. Doing this does not make Katrina a Government Informant. If reporting an illegal act to law enforcement or government agencies makes you a Government Informant then I would say we have all taken actions at some time in our lives that would qualify us all to be given the same title. The citizens of this land we live in should, whenever they find the will within themselves, speak out against unjust deeds. Lastly Laughing Bear you suggest in your last post that the Bowen Ranch may not be an access route to the springs at some point in the not to distant future. Is this what you are saying, and if so what information leads you to this conclusion. I personally would rather deal with the USFS and the BLM and take my chances with the errant, occasional criminal who may come to the area than to have to worry about a person who resides there with income interest and who also has illustrated by his past deeds that the law is not part of his consideration in his attempts to to control the public flow through his property in order to make more money. I'm fine with peaceful, lawabiding landowers. The public visiting DCHS does not deserve to be continually affected by the persistant criminal activity which has come from the various Bowen Ranch owners, over many years.
