Mt. Bross Closure

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
SLKRR
Posts: 30
Joined: 6/8/2009
14ers: 7 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by SLKRR »

I guess this thread http://14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32103 about when to tell others to turn back has now been answered:

When they are attempting to summit Bross!! :twisted: :lol:
Satama
Posts: 8
Joined: 9/24/2010
14ers: 14  1 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by Satama »

All, I am a licensed attorney in Colorado and have tried cases on adverse possesion and prescriptive easement. I followed this thread really early on because I found it interesting and the lack of informed opinion here kind of annoying. For either action, adverse possesion or prescriptive easement, it must be the same individual using the land/easement consistently for the period of 18 years with the knowledge of the owner while doing so. C.R.S. Title 38 and subsections. You can find the statutes online.

Thousands of people climbing Bross every year since climbing 14ers became popular does not qualify under the staute. Has anyone here climbed Bross multiple times every year for the last 18 years, with the owner(s) knowledge? I highly doubt it and therefore this is a losing argument. Perhaps someone can correct me on this point but if you have climbed Bross for the past 18 years under these circumstances... you might have a case. If so and want to spend the money so that you can climb Bross with impunity until you tire of doing so then send me a PM, I will be happy to take your money and get your easement. :-) From the little research that I have done it is apparent that the actual owners of Bross are numerous and many are unknown which is why there is an issue at all.

As for the trespass angle. This isn't my area so you do this at your own risk. However, I do have a theory on this so if you are curious PM me.
User avatar
LetsGoHigher
Posts: 52
Joined: 7/25/2011
14ers: 4 
Trip Reports (4)
 
Contact:

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by LetsGoHigher »

Satama wrote:All, I am a licensed attorney in Colorado and have tried cases on adverse possesion and prescriptive easement. I followed this thread really early on because I found it interesting and the lack of informed opinion here kind of annoying. For either action, adverse possesion or prescriptive easement, it must be the same individual using the land/easement consistently for the period of 18 years with the knowledge of the owner while doing so. C.R.S. Title 38 and subsections. You can find the statutes online.

Thousands of people climbing Bross every year since climbing 14ers became popular does not qualify under the staute. Has anyone here climbed Bross multiple times every year for the last 18 years, with the owner(s) knowledge? I highly doubt it and therefore this is a losing argument. Perhaps someone can correct me on this point but if you have climbed Bross for the past 18 years under these circumstances... you might have a case. If so and want to spend the money so that you can climb Bross with impunity until you tire of doing so then send me a PM, I will be happy to take your money and get your easement. :-) From the little research that I have done it is apparent that the actual owners of Bross are numerous and many are unknown which is why there is an issue at all.

As for the trespass angle. This isn't my area so you do this at your own risk. However, I do have a theory on this so if you are curious PM me.
THANK YOU!!!
Is that the summit?
User avatar
mountain_man
Posts: 232
Joined: 5/23/2011
14ers: 38  1 
13ers: 10
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by mountain_man »

Satama wrote:Has anyone here climbed Bross multiple times every year for the last 18 years, with the owner(s) knowledge? I highly doubt it and therefore this is a losing argument. Perhaps someone can correct me on this point but if you have climbed Bross for the past 18 years under these circumstances... you might have a case.
If anyone is climbing Bross that much, I might say they have a case of the crazies. Joke?
"To live and not to breathe is to die in tragedy." - Billie Joe Armstrong
"What I know I could put into a pack as if it were bread and cheese, and carry it on one shoulder, important and honorable, but so small! While everything else continues, unexplained, and unexplainable." - Mary Oliver
User avatar
larkinrx2
Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/10/2008
14ers: 35 
13ers: 7
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by larkinrx2 »

there still has not been an answer to my question about access to South Bross. Is this summit considered closed also?
What do you think I'm some kind of a jerk or something! - That's all I need the ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, and this magazine, and the chair and I don't need one other thing, except my dog.
[Shithead growls at him]
I don't need my dog.
User avatar
Craig Cook
Posts: 265
Joined: 5/3/2011
14ers: 16 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by Craig Cook »

gdthomas wrote:
Craig Cook wrote:gdthomas,

I'm curious if you've ever driven 75 in a 70 mph zone. Heck, driven 71. Because, you know, if you have THAT'S ILLEGAL. And you should be ashamed of having ever done it. You're ruining it for the rest of us that want to drive the legal speed limit. Should we call you a driving poacher?

Seriously, I'm not even saying you're wrong - as far as I know the Bross summit is indeed closed and people shouldn't hike it. But this holier-than-thou, "You people aren't doing what I'm doing, so you're all horrible" type of attitude is incredibly annoying.
This thread has deteriorated beyond meaningful debate.
Wait, so it's meaningful debate when you rail against anyone and everyone who has either summited Bross or thinks it's okay to do so, but when I call out your hypocrisy (unless you have somehow managed to never break the law by speeding) it suddenly deteriorates into meaningless blather? :roll:

I used the speeding (at roughly five miles above the limit) example because it's something lots of people do on a regular basis, just like hikers summiting Bross. Like summiting Bross, speeding in that five-mile above radius is technically illegal. And in both cases, nobody seems to care enough to actually attempt to stop it. 99.9% of the time the police won't pull you over, and 99.9% of the hikers will summit without the owner(s) ever attempting to stop them.
User avatar
LetsGoHigher
Posts: 52
Joined: 7/25/2011
14ers: 4 
Trip Reports (4)
 
Contact:

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by LetsGoHigher »

If 99.9% of hikers would actually summit Bross, this string wouldn't be 5 pages long
Is that the summit?
User avatar
Craig Cook
Posts: 265
Joined: 5/3/2011
14ers: 16 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (13)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by Craig Cook »

LetsGoHigher wrote:If 99.9% of hikers would actually summit Bross, this string wouldn't be 5 pages long
I meant to say "99.9% of the hikers that actually summit Bross won't be stopped". I didn't mean to imply that 99.9% of all hikers actually do. Sorry that wasn't worded quite right.
User avatar
wildlobo71
Posts: 2080
Joined: 4/1/2008
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 88
Trip Reports (3)
 
Contact:

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by wildlobo71 »

I still haven't gotten the answer from GDThomas as to why he's so opposed to those of us who have summited Bross, but yet counts Bross in his 14er checklist as being completed.

Just another case of the man telling the person driving 75mph in the 70mph zone to slow down, but will speed up to 80mph to catch him to do so.
Bill W.

Time for the next great losing streak to begin.
#forcedrefocus
User avatar
cwm191
Posts: 113
Joined: 6/14/2009
14ers: 3 
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by cwm191 »

wildlobo71 wrote:I still haven't gotten the answer from GDThomas as to why he's so opposed to those of us who have summited Bross, but yet counts Bross in his 14er checklist as being completed.

Just another case of the man telling the person driving 75mph in the 70mph zone to slow down, but will speed up to 80mph to catch him to do so.
How long has the sign been in place informing climbers of the closure? A few years? He could have climbed it before knowing of the controversy.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. - Friedrich Schiller

The problem with quotes on the internet is there is no way to verify their accuracy. - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
bhaydin
Posts: 68
Joined: 9/10/2007
14ers: 43  1 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by bhaydin »

wildlobo71 wrote:I still haven't gotten the answer from GDThomas as to why he's so opposed to those of us who have summited Bross, but yet counts Bross in his 14er checklist as being completed.

Just another case of the man telling the person driving 75mph in the 70mph zone to slow down, but will speed up to 80mph to catch him to do so.
It's possible he summmited with permission. When I was Peak Stewarding with CFI a few years ago, we were given permission to be on Bross to educate the public about private property rights.
User avatar
wildlobo71
Posts: 2080
Joined: 4/1/2008
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 88
Trip Reports (3)
 
Contact:

Re: Mt. Bross Closure

Post by wildlobo71 »

Thanks to both of you - I'm just still waiting for his answer from him.
Bill W.

Time for the next great losing streak to begin.
#forcedrefocus
Post Reply