Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

Culebra Peak - scam or Legit?

Items that do not fit the categories above.

Pay or Steal

Pay
68
70%
Steal
29
30%
 
Total votes : 97
User avatar
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:33 pm
Location: Arvada, CO

Postby coloradokevin » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:19 am

g wrote:Back when the Enron sleazebag owned the property I think it would have been conscionable to raid his house beforehand, duct tape him up, throw him a blanket party, raid his kitchen, sleep in his beds, go climb the mountain, then make off in one of his cars. :P

As for the current owners, perhaps they could consider an easement--I'm sure CFI volunteers would be willing to handle maintenance.


And who doesn't like a good blanket party anyway... ? :)

Still, I find myself on the fence on this one. Property owner rights notwithstanding, I think the fee is perhaps a bit high. They could work out other arrangements, and like others have mentioned, an easement could allow access while trail groups maintained the route (plus, they could make a buck or so off of selling the easment onto their property). On the other hand, it's their land, so their choice.

I like the idea of working for the peak at the ranch. I'd be happy to go down for a weekend, put in a day working on the ranch for giggles, then get a free shot at the peak!

I'm still a long way from completing the 14'ers, so I'm not too worried about this one. It will be my last.

User avatar
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:00 pm
Location: Castle Rock, CO

Postby ccunnin » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:51 am

But....are there any other routes up that dumb mountain?
He who controls the spice, controls the universe.

User avatar
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Black Forest

Re: Culebra Peak - scam or Legit?

Postby 2_Salukis » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:20 am

VWLover wrote:That's hardly a fair comparison, considering the size of people's yards and the size of that ranch, but I'll digress.


IMO it's a very fair comparison.

Any "logic" that would endorse skirting around the $100 to bag Culebra, could also be used to sneak a day or two of skiing on Vail, Breck. or anywhere else the mountains (streams, lakes, etc.) are not publicly owned.

One's "lust" to do something may be intense, but it's not an excuse to start breaking laws and ignoring other people's rights.

Now if they were to start negotiating with Wal-Mart, I'd be signing petitions and trying to stop it. But that would be legal and completely ethical.

Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 9:24 am
Location: Pueblo, CO

Postby Todd Caudle » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:01 am

hehe, marmotman is legit. I know because he is my climbing partner and lives in the room next to me.


Room? Or cell?

Forget about justifying the ranch charging a fee by reminding people that they incur costs to maintain access. How 'bout justifying it because they don't have to let anyone onto their private land, and if they do, they can charge whatever market price they deem appropriate.
Dog is my co-pilot

User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Postby Belay Slave » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:07 am

I say pay for it. Most people can't walk through Target without spending $100. As for Lincoln/Dem/Bross, I've been waiting three years to climb them. Since I only get to CO once a year, it looks as if it will be another year before I get my chance. Just because someone else's property has an attractive feature does not justify trespassing.

User avatar
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Fremont County

Postby elkheart22 » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:14 am

Actually, we are very fortunate that there is only one
peak on private land.

If it were not for the foresight of some
very forward thinking forefathers in the
position of power in this country, the majority
of the peaks could very well be on private land.

Pay the money.
Lakes below the mountains
Flow into the sea
Like oils applied to canvas,
They permeate through me. --- Jimmy Buffett

Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Steamboat Springs

Postby ThinAir » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:38 am

This is a tough one. Is the fee really $100? Would that be per person? That does seem pretty steep. Steep enough to encourage people to poach. As a boater, ive dealt w access issues on a few of the states more remote creeks, and i'll tell ya, Colorado law is a bitch. Even Montana, home of the Freemen, Kazinski, and other govt hating malcontents, got it right by declaring that peoples claims to property ends at the high water mark, allowing river/creek users access. They know where their bread is buttered. But, i digress. If Culebra really is $100 per person, than id expect people to poach, thats just too much. If its a more reasonable number, than just pay up. As for me, ill leave it unclimbed if its that much of a pain in the ass. Ill do all the 14ers in cali first, then the highpoints in MT, ID, UT, WA, NM etc. Plenty on the to do list w/o getting to Culebra.

User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:21 am

Postby Mooney Pilot » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:48 am

18-4-503. Second degree criminal trespass.
Statute text
(1) A person commits the crime of second degree criminal trespass if such person:

(a) Unlawfully enters or remains in or upon the premises of another which are enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or are fenced; or

(b) Knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in or upon the common areas of a hotel, motel, condominium, or apartment building; or

(c) Knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a motor vehicle of another.

(2) Second degree criminal trespass is a class 3 misdemeanor, but:

(a) It is a class 2 misdemeanor if the premises have been classified by the county assessor for the county in which the land is situated as agricultural land pursuant to section 39-1-102 (1.6), C.R.S.; and

(b) It is a class 4 felony if the person trespasses on premises so classified as agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony thereon.

(3) Whenever a person is convicted of, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, receives a deferred judgment or sentence for, or is adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for, a violation of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, the offender's driver's license shall be revoked as provided in section 42-2-125, C.R.S.

User avatar
Posts: 2048
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Edwards (Singletree), CO

Postby gdthomas » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:53 am

For those of you who intend to poach Culebra, that's your choice. But now that I've paid the $100.00 to climb it, I hope you get caught. Good Riddance.

User avatar
Posts: 5042
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Craig

Postby Scott P » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:44 am

Actually, we are very fortunate that there is only one
peak on private land.


????

There are dozens if not hundreds of peaks in Colorado on or blocked by private land.

Even the summits of many 14ers are on private land. Sherman, Lindsey (not sure about Little Bear, Blanca, and Ellingwood), Kit Carson, Challenger Point, Lincoln, Bross, etc., ect.

Anyway, I hate all the lack of public land in Colorado, but there are still thousands of mountains to climb legally without having to poach any, and tresspassing is not cool. It just ruins it for eveyone else, so don't do it.

The $100 fee for Culebra is legit. For those that don't want to pay the fee, there are thousands of other mountains available.

This is a tough one. Is the fee really $100? Would that be per person? That does seem pretty steep.


That's the summer fee. The rest of the year it is $200.

Paying $100-$200 in addition to gas money for a climbing a rounded and unimpressive bump like Culebra just seems silly to me. But......if you want to do it, you should pay. I just don't see any reason to climb Culebra in the first place when there are so many other more impressive mountains in Colorado anyway. Climb Zirkel, Eagles Nest, Jagged, Devils Thumb, or Lone Eagle instead. :wink: There is a $5 day fee for a few, but not $100-200 and they are for more scenic, impressive, and interesting. :wink:

Postby shanahan96 » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:52 am

come on scott, how could you not list everyone's favorite private property issue :wink: wilson peak?

yeah, little bear's summit is on private property.

jamie

User avatar
Posts: 2675
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Glenwood Springs, CO

Postby cheeseburglar » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:54 am

Any "logic" that would endorse skirting around the $100 to bag Culebra, could also be used to sneak a day or two of skiing on Vail, Breck. or anywhere else the mountains (streams, lakes, etc.) are not publicly owned.

Where did you hear this? I haven't hung out at ski areas recently but most are completely on public lands leased from the government. All the private land has been turned into hotels, condos, and mansions. I have skinned up ski area runs many times. My understanding is that the lift ticket is only required to get the ride to the top.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnson and 14 guests