Bross Solution: New Summit?

[BillMiddlebrook]

The Mt. Bross issue has been a thorn in our side for many years and I'd like to propose an interim solution...

Now that we have a legitimate, open trail via the Kite Lake "loop," there's a sliver of public land that intersects the trail right where many people exit to grab the "closed" Bross summit. Why not use this sliver to gain the summit area and we could put a somewhat large, obvious cairn up there where I've placed the orange star on the map below? If you've been in that area, it's almost as high as the actual elevation and would allow hikers to "summit" the peak and get the views of surrounding peaks and valleys. I'm serious! All we'd have to do is mark the trail to the cairn and pile up some rocks. Then we'd have a public "summit" that's only ~25 feet lower than the old one. I'll help mark it and build it.

And when/if the true summit ever gets re-opened, we can use part of that new spur to just angle off to the summit.

Good idea or not? ^^ Poll above



Would this really matter much?

[gdthomas]

It's a reasonable alternative Bill, but I see one issue. I doubt the "new" summit will dissuade those who don't respect private property rights from hiking the additional 25 ft. to the true summit. Another point, which I don't consider to be an issue, is that some have cried foul when anyone climbing to the closed sign (approx. 150 ft. below the summit) suggested that was good enough to count it as a successful 14er summit. I assume these same people would also get heartburn if the climber only reached point 14,147". Nevertheless, I would help as well.

[Monster5]

Sounds reasonable for some people. Personally, I do not believe "inconvenient" or "legally difficult" equates to non-existence or altering the facts. i.e. ABC 14er finishers or skipping the Sunlight step. It would personally bug me, though I wouldn't care if others considered it..

[crossfitter]

We should consider gaining the summit of Bross to be an objective hazard only to be attempted by true Badasses. I propose that we establish a semi-permanent Camp IV just below the closed sign. Parties will then make their summit bid under cover of darkness sometime after midnight. These brave adventurers will have mere hours to climb more than a hundred vertical feet and safely return to the public land zone before they risk years of detention in Federal PMITA Prison. However, I have heard rumors that some hardcore mountaineers attempt the summit hours after first light, without oxygen in true alpine style.

[coloradokevin]

I think it is a reasonable enough idea for those of us who don't feel like trespassing, though you're always going to hear arguments from the purists about how anyone who uses that "public" summit has cheated (but, hey, those same people will also beat you up on 3,000 foot rules, and plenty of other trivial issues that have never bothered me).

Honestly, I still don't care if people try to access the true summit, simple because it just doesn't strike me as an egregious violation of this guy's property rights, even if it is private land. But, I'd be satisfied with the substitute summit myself. As your picture demonstrates, does it really make any difference at all? I'd argue that it doesn't make a significant difference in claiming the "public" summit, nor does it make a significant difference if you cross the imaginary line on the map to gain the true summit from the public summit.


Here's another idea: since the uncooperative property owner apparently claims that he needs to keep that summit private for his future mining endeavors, maybe we should just ask him to rearrange that slag heap of a mountain for us? He could drive his bulldozer up there, strip a bit of land from his side of the peak, put the material on the public side, and now we've got our publicly accessible 14'er! Climbers will rejoice at their ability to stand on the true summit, and the landowner will be happy that his property is no longer of any value to those terribly invasive trespassing hikers (who may have been damaging his minerals for all of these years).

[COBuckeye]

detention in Federal PMITA Prison

name that movie...

[Mel McKinney]

I'd be willing to help too. It's been several years since I was on the Bross summit, and I don't remember if there are any "no tresspassing" signs. Would it be feasible to ask the landowners to fund a sign marking the old summit off-limits?

Truthfully, Bross is not an exciting summit. -25 ft wouldn't make much of a difference. The most exciting part of Bross is getting back down the scree.

[RJansen77]

detention in Federal PMITA Prison

name that movie...

Office Space?

"Peter Gibbons, you've lead a trite and meaningless life..."

[Mel McKinney]

detention in Federal PMITA Prison

name that movie...

That would be "Office Space." And no, there are no conjugal visits.

[coloradokevin]

detention in Federal PMITA Prison

name that movie...

Office Space! Damn it feels good to be a gangsta'

[SurfNTurf]

We should consider gaining the summit of Bross to be an objective hazard only to be attempted by true Badasses. I propose that we establish a semi-permanent Camp IV just below the closed sign. Parties will then make their summit bid under cover of darkness sometime after midnight. These brave adventurers will have mere hours to climb more than a hundred vertical feet and safely return to the public land zone before they risk years of detention in Federal PMITA Prison. However, I have heard rumors that some hardcore mountaineers attempt the summit hours after first light, without oxygen in true alpine style.

I'm submitting my (alleged) winter summit for a Piolet d'Or.

In all seriousness, I'm fine with the idea. I don't see a negative. Even if it deterred a percentage of folks from stepping onto private property, it'd be a display of good will and possibly aid negotiations. I think the keyword in the original post is interim solution.

In my mind there's a difference between the summit of Bross and the final move on Sunlight -- I'd be fine counting Bross from anywhere on that lumpy football field, but it'd nag at me until I repeated it if I'd declined the true Sunlight summit. It already bugs me enough I crouched instead of standing.

[crossfitter]

Here's another idea: since the uncooperative property owner apparently claims that he needs to keep that summit private for his future mining endeavors, maybe we should just ask him to rearrange that slag heap of a mountain for us? He could drive his bulldozer up there, strip a bit of land from his side of the peak, put the material on the public side, and now we've got our publicly accessible 14'er! Climbers will rejoice at their ability to stand on the true summit, and the landowner will be happy that his property is no longer of any value to those terribly invasive trespassing hikers (who may have been damaging his minerals for all of these years).

I think you're on to something here. Though instead of destroying the pristine wilderness that is the summit of Bross, we should have the Landowner haul up a large boulder to build up the summit on public land. If the right boulder is chosen, our brand new summit block would upgrade bross from class 1 to 5.12a, V5, A3.