Bross Solution: New Summit?

Colorado peak questions, condition requests and other info.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
    For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Locked

Good Idea (see first post, below)?

Yes
115
85%
No
21
15%
 
Total votes: 136
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6910
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58  46  19 
13ers: 172 44 37
Trip Reports (2)
 
Contact:

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

I'm waiting to hear back from Steve B. at the CMC regarding how much progress was actually made on the ownership search.
"When I go out, I become more alive. I just love skiing. The gravitational pull. When you ski steep terrain... you can almost get a feeling of flying." -Doug Coombs
User avatar
ChrisRoberts
Posts: 620
Joined: 7/17/2011
14ers: 12 
13ers: 10
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by ChrisRoberts »

KentonB wrote: I often use county assessor web sites to track down land owners for local climbs I do.
Would you mind posting the link to this site, something like that could be of great value to me(and others!)
Some rise, some fall, some climb to get to terrapin
NoCoChris: Now with less Colorado!
User avatar
Andymcp1
Posts: 364
Joined: 6/18/2010
14ers: 46  1 
13ers: 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by Andymcp1 »

I honestly think this is a great idea. Given the fact I bet a large majority of those who dont already know and are choosing to do Bross for they will not know that their public summit is not the true summit. I mean if there is a culebra ridge style giant in your face carin on the public summit most people would end up their regardless of height more for a photo opp. Just my 2 cents
User avatar
KentonB
Posts: 713
Joined: 5/13/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 56
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by KentonB »

ChrisRoberts wrote:
KentonB wrote: I often use county assessor web sites to track down land owners for local climbs I do.
Would you mind posting the link to this site, something like that could be of great value to me(and others!)
Chris, the "local county" for me is El Paso... Here's a link. I have several other Colorado County Assessor map sites too (let me know if you're looking for something specific).

Park County doesn't have a map on the assessor's site, but it does have a parcel search. Since Bross is in Township 8, Range 78, and Section 21, you can search for all landowners in that section. I come up with a list of 34 landowners (all mining claims... surprise surprise!). At least we now have it narrowed down to 34! LOL

Bill, it it helps, I can send you the link I used for the Park county search and the search criteria... Although I imagine the CMC already has this information.
User avatar
shaunster_co
Posts: 305
Joined: 10/15/2010
14ers: 40  3  3 
13ers: 51 9
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by shaunster_co »

ChrisRoberts wrote:Would you mind posting the link to this site, something like that could be of great value to me(and others!)
If you are looking for county assessor maps the search term is "GIS" and the Colorado county. Not all of the counties have them, but most do. It will generally show public & private parcels, and ownership. For the sake of illustration, the Boulder County GIS [http://maps.bouldercounty.org/boco/emapping/] shows all of the patented mining claims, which to give an idea; look as if some dropped a pile of pixie sticks on to a map. Park & Summit counties have many more mining claims, so I can only imagine the density in those places.
User avatar
ChrisRoberts
Posts: 620
Joined: 7/17/2011
14ers: 12 
13ers: 10
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by ChrisRoberts »

Awesome, found what I needed. Thanks guys!
Some rise, some fall, some climb to get to terrapin
NoCoChris: Now with less Colorado!
MechE
Posts: 19
Joined: 9/8/2010
14ers: 21 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by MechE »

Bill,
Thanks for pursuing this.
Tortoise1
Posts: 417
Joined: 8/23/2009
14ers: 15 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by Tortoise1 »

People could do 25 jumping jacks as penance for forgoing the elevation gain.
User avatar
jeremy27
Posts: 139
Joined: 11/3/2008
14ers: 36  3 
13ers: 67 3
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by jeremy27 »

The summit of Bross is in T8S, R78W, Section 21 – likely in the NE4SE4 or SE4SE4 – hard to tell without something better than Geocommunicator (a federal website). Running a search (T08 R78 S21 SE4) for the entire SE4 on the Park County Assessor’s website, http://www.parkco.org/search2.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, there appears to be twenty-three taxable parcels in the SE4. Now this is an overly inclusive list because the summit is likely in the NE4 of the SE4 and the website doesn’t let you narrow your search to quarter-quarter sections. From this list of twenty-three taxable parcels there are only eight individuals/entities paying taxes on the various parcels. Someone would just need to talk to these eight individuals/entities to gain permission to the summit as they either own these interests of record themselves or they are paying taxes on behalf of the true owner and can get you in touch with them. As this is publically available information, below is the list:


SOBBA CLARENCE AND SARGENT JAMES
731 S PINECREST
WICHITA, KS 67218

EARTH ENERGY RESOURCES LLC
6665 S JAY DR
LITTLETON, CO 80123

FLAKS LESLEY C
1610 HILL CIR
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80904

SCOTT JUDSON DUNCAN
1402 AUBURN WY N
#222
AUBURN, WA 98002

WELLS LARRY D
620 GLOVER PL
CHULA VISTA, CA 92010

LARSEN AMY JOAN
1007 ALMANOR LN
LAFAYETTE, CA 94549

REIBER MAURICE O
5051 W GEDDES CIR
LITTLETON, CO 80128

LEVY TONA M
300 ROSE GARDEN CIR
APT J. Z
SHRV, LA 71115
User avatar
coloradokevin
Posts: 1457
Joined: 6/13/2007
14ers: 15 
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by coloradokevin »

jeremy27 wrote: Someone would just need to talk to these eight individuals/entities to gain permission to the summit as they either own these interests of record themselves or they are paying taxes on behalf of the true owner and can get you in touch with them. As this is publically available information, below is the list:


Or, as I already pointed out, you wouldn't need to contact any of them because of the fact that Colorado law does not require you to have permission to cross open vacant land that hasn't been posted by its owner (assuming the owner hasn't told you that you can't be there).

Still, thank you for uncovering that information. It could be quite handy to have those names available in the event that an atv-riding local decides to tell me that I'm not allowed up there ("oh, I'm sorry... so, which landowner do you represent?")!


Here's part of the section of law I'm referring to:
Colorado Revised Statutes wrote:...Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.

Also, section 33-6-116(1) simply states that you don't have the right to hunt or fish on such land without permission (I doubt that is a concern to many of us on the summit of Bross):
CRS wrote:"It is unlawful for any person to enter upon privately owned land or lands under the control of the state board of land commissioners to hunt or take any wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing without first obtaining permission from the owner or person in possession of such land."
Last edited by coloradokevin on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Carl
Posts: 1800
Joined: 5/20/2007
14ers: 58  58 
13ers: 30
Trip Reports (32)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by Carl »

coloradokevin wrote:Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.


The only sign in that area (last time I checked) was posted by the USFS, merely stating that the summit of Mt. Bross is closed. That agency is not the land owner, they apparently aren't acting as an agent of the landowner(s) who haven't been found, and I doubt their signs meet that posting requirement even if they were the agent of the landowners (who, apparently, are still missing in action). Moreover, if the person on the ATV that confronted hikers up there does actually own that land, he would have to post the land or continue to sit up there and tell people to leave.
Interesting bit of information Kevin. Thanks!
User avatar
jeremy27
Posts: 139
Joined: 11/3/2008
14ers: 36  3 
13ers: 67 3
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Post by jeremy27 »

The CRS section you quoted may apply if you were charged with criminal trespass, it may not insulate you from civil liability.
Locked