Bross Solution: New Summit?

[Jim Davies]

I can see one downside: If the access trail from the "blue line" on your map stays within the strip of public land, it'll have to go almost straight up the fall line, which will lead to erosion. And we all know how erosion-prone Bross is.

[milan]

Totally agree with a super large humangous cairn to be build. I always wanted to upgrade some of the highest 13ers into a 14er that way but in this case, it would actually make sense. On the other hand, removing rocks from the private land of the true summit IMO exactly violates what the mining claim should protect, much worse than only trespassing. Another possibility - why not to encourage the owner to open a quarry on his property and mine off the redundant 25 feet of the summit, so naturally, the public summit would become the true summit then and the owner can get his silver that way too, what do you think guys? The only flaw of this idea is lack of topographic prominence on Bross, already now, the clean (pesimistic) prominence is less than 300 feet - so still better to build it up...

Anyways, if there is a group going to build that cairn and if its reasonable time for me, I'd be happy to help with it.

[BillMiddlebrook]

I can see one downside: If the access trail from the "blue line" on your map stays within the strip of public land, it'll have to go almost straight up the fall line, which will lead to erosion. And we all know how erosion-prone Bross is.

I haven't had a chance to read through all of the posts in this thread yet, but the strip should be wide enough to zig-zag up to the "top." It could certainly be better than the current "spur" that's been used to get to the true summit, which ascends slightly steeper terrain and is in bad shape.

[BillMiddlebrook]

I think an interim "public summit" might be acceptable to many people, including those who take heat over this issue (Forest Service, Alma, etc., private landowners). Sure, there will be those who poach the old summit once they can see it but that's going to happen anyway and we might have an opportunity to build a more sustainable trail up through public land to reach the flat stuff.

I'm considering at least bringing it up with the CFI at the next Board Meeting and sending an email to the USFS 14er liaison. A while back we went over some more-detailed parcel ownership maps at a Mosquito Range Heritage Initiative (MRHI) meeting and I'd like to take another look at those maps as part of any future discussion. If we were to do this, the exact placement of the "public summit" may be determined by the orientation of the existing private parcels. I don't think this is the case, if the parcels run north-to-south, there may be fewer landowners to deal with in the future if we want to connect from the "public summit" to the true summit. Just thinking out loud here.

If we had all of the right parties onboard we could even have trail signs approved, if appropriate.

[spong0949]

This makes me think...Isn't the four corners monument area not technically exactly where it should be on the four corners? People go stand on that spot and take pictures and they don't seem to know or care that it's not the actual spot. So if there's a big cairn on Bross wouldn't you think many people would naturally go to it and count it as their summit though it's not the "true" summit.

[BillMiddlebrook]

Can we just take rocks from South Bross and move it over to the public summit until it's higher than the current summit and we do away with South Bross? That kills 2 birds with one stone: 1) you get the public summit as the actual without involving anything on private land and 2) I don't have to go back up that pile of rubble for my unranked 14er point list.

Speaking of which... Bill if we ever meet in person, we need to have a sitdown as you're the only person that I've seen make note of that thing.

DISCLAIMER... I have no idea if South Bross is on private land and don't care to check. That could throw a big wrench in my plan.

"South Bross" is on public land. I just changed the map at the start of this thread to show it's location.

[milan]

This makes me think...Isn't the four corners monument area not technically exactly where it should be on the four corners? People go stand on that spot and take pictures and they don't seem to know or care that it's not the actual spot. So if there's a big cairn on Bross wouldn't you think many people would naturally go to it and count it as their summit though it's not the "true" summit.

They moved the 4 corners monument about a year ago because of that ..

[MountainHiker]

This reminds me of the movie The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[painless4u2]

Is it me, or does it appear that the blue trail still enters the private property boundary well before the spur to the "publc summit"? And isn't that about where they have the humongous No Trespassing sign? If so, isn't it a moot point if you go a small amount further on that same private property?

[shaunster_co]

Just to chime my two cents, I have an interest in Mineral Claims (not on Bross), and have looked into the patented claims on Bross. The map that Bill posted does in fact align with the old printouts from LR2000, and any mining claims on South Bross would be unpatented (As of last 2009 I didn't see any near claims on the USFS portion of South Bross, one would need to double check the CCR's in Fairplay). It really doesn't matter though, an unpatented claim is not ownership, nor does it prevent anyone from being on it (similar to Mt Antero and that mess up there). It simply entitles the owner to the mineral interests. The shaded area to the true summit are patented claims and the owner(s) hold title to it.

One of the the things I noticed on the LR2000 in 2009 (which has now been disabled by BLM unless you know the claim name or owner) was a clear overlap in owners on the West to East azimuth right along the USFS boundary. It didn't make any sense to me, because technically that is not possible. It would be analogous to two people owning property that overlapped. So either the data was entered in to the LR200 incorrect, the original patented claim owners filed incorrect Meets and Bounds, or there is in fact a discrepancy. It would be worth mentioning to whomever you talk to about it. If you need absolute coordinates let me know, I can go to the Lakewood BLM where all mineral entries are housed and forward you the findings. Like many areas of concentrated mining claims in CO, it is a mess.

[BillMiddlebrook]

Is it me, or does it appear that the blue trail still enters the private property boundary well before the spur to the "publc summit"? And isn't that about where they have the humongous No Trespassing sign? If so, isn't it a moot point if you go a small amount further on that same private property?

The main blue line runs along a trail that, yes, goes through private property but permission was granted by the appropriate landowner(s) for public use or an easement was established, I can't remember the exact setup. The issue from there to the true summit is that there's a large number of landowners and no entity has yet been successful in tracking them down and obtaining total permission. Maybe Steve B. can chime in about the status as, I think, the investigation is now in the hands of the CMC.

[ChrisRoberts]

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.

Yeah, but then I'd have to wheelbarrow a bunch of rocks over to the block and make myself a little class 2 ramp on one side.

Anyhow, I think this public summit idea is a good one. I usually break at the summit with the cairn/register anyways, as do most people. But of course, the location of the true summit will always be slumming around in the back of my mind...