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

More info...

Other ways to help...

Bross Solution: New Summit?

Colorado 14er peak questions and conditions should be posted here. 14er Trip Reports

Good Idea (see first post, below)?

Yes
115
85%
No
21
15%
 
Total votes : 136
User avatar
Posts: 3077
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Edwards, Colorado

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Chicago Transplant » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:51 pm

Barry Raven wrote:Maybe someone could hack the USGS database and swap the Bross and Grizzly Peak (Sawatch) elevations.


Or just pile up 12' of rocks in the saddle between Cameron and Bross so that Bross loses its status as a ranked 14er :D
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day

User avatar
Posts: 3077
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Edwards, Colorado

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Chicago Transplant » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:58 pm

The signs on the trail say:

"Entering Private Property Stay On Trail"

The one below the summit says:

"No Public Access To Mt Bross - Trail Closed"

Danceswithmoonrise has pics of them in this TR:

http://14ers.com/php14ers/tripreport.php?trip=7717&parmpeak=Mt.+Lincoln&start=50&cpgm=tripmain&ski=Include

Nothing seems to specifically say "no trespassing" nor does it really indicate Bross is private. Could be closed for erosion for all anyone knows if it wasn't for all us publicly debating it all the time. I tend to agree with Kevin, the route is not signed and by Title 18, you could walk up it if you wanted to and not be criminally trespassing. As to civil suits, well, if people can't find the owners, I guess they can't find you either?
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day

Site Administrator
User avatar
Posts: 6612
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Breckenridge, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby BillMiddlebrook » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:25 pm

The signs have definitely caused some confusion and will probably be changed this summer.
Only SNOW will end the madness

User avatar
Posts: 2472
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby MountainHiker » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:42 pm

BillMiddlebrook wrote:The signs have definitely caused some confusion and will probably be changed this summer.

So will the new signs say?

PRIVATE PROPERTY
(But don’t worry about it)
Owner’s whereabouts unknown
USFS, CFI & City of Alma's councils just wanted to cover their butts!
Red, Rugged, and Rotten: The Elk Range - Borneman & Lampert

User avatar
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Arvada, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby coloradokevin » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:53 pm

BillMiddlebrook wrote:The signs have definitely caused some confusion and will probably be changed this summer.


Do you know what changes to these signs will take place? Also, do you know who erected these signs in the first place (I'm guessing it wasn't the property owner, based on the info you provided earlier in this thread, and was thinking that it was the USFS --- I'm assuming you know for sure)?

I guess the thing that gets me about the signs is why anyone is putting them up in the first place (other than the rightful owner of the property). Realistically, I can't walk next door and post my neighbor's yard, and they can't post mine. So, why is the USFS/CFI/weird guy in Alma/etc going to the trouble of posting this particular plot?

Site Administrator
User avatar
Posts: 6612
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Breckenridge, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby BillMiddlebrook » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:22 pm

CFI put up the signs, I believe at the request of the land owner. They were simply meant to keep hikers on the trail and inform them that the Bross summit is closed and to stay on the loop trail. Not sure how they will be reworded.

User avatar
Posts: 2708
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Glenwood Springs, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby cheeseburglar » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:44 pm

BillMiddlebrook wrote:CFI put up the signs, I believe at the request of the land owner. They were simply meant to keep hikers on the trail and inform them that the Bross summit is closed and to stay on the loop trail. Not sure how they will be reworded.


How about:
"Stay on the trail and off the high part of the scree pile.
Don't fall in holes in the ground.
Please pick up your litter and dog poo.
We love Bross Peak. Sincerely, 14ers.com"
The marmot said “Nobody is perfect and you are not nobody.”

Random FoTH Quotes

User avatar
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Arvada, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby coloradokevin » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:04 pm

BillMiddlebrook wrote:CFI put up the signs, I believe at the request of the land owner. They were simply meant to keep hikers on the trail and inform them that the Bross summit is closed and to stay on the loop trail. Not sure how they will be reworded.


Well, I can appreciate the "stay on the trail" signs, as too many folks cut switchbacks and whatnot on various trails that are erosion prone. For the rest of my overly opinionated opinion, see any of my 18 other posts in this thread ;)

User avatar
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:02 pm
Location: Kansas City, Mo.

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Craig Cook » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:29 pm

BillMiddlebrook wrote:CFI put up the signs, I believe at the request of the land owner.


So nobody can find the landowner, but the landowner found CFI? How does that work?
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

User avatar
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:15 am
Location: Denver (Southeast)

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby jeremy27 » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:09 am

My wife and I attempted to follow Bill's proposed route to the public summit. Bill's plan would require some trail work at the point that you turn off of the standard trail but once you got up onto the Bross "plain" you could put up a public summit that would likely be acceptable to a fair number of hikers. There is even a decent wind-block mound to the SE of the true summit, still on the plain and public land, which isn't noticeably higher or lower than the rest of the plain. That might work for the public summit and it's already built. If the idea takes off I'd be happy to help. Otherwise I'll probably never be back to enjoy the majesty of Bross again. Yuck.

User avatar
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:03 pm
Location: New Castle

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby myfeetrock » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:23 am

Barry Raven wrote:Maybe someone could hack the USGS database and swap the Bross and Grizzly Peak (Sawatch) elevations.


This could be arranged. By the way is there a summit marker on Bross?
Michael Colson

Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:13 am

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby SteveBonowski » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:11 pm

Bill wrote on March 21 (I'm waiting for Steve B...........). I just found this thread; I'm not on 14ers dot com every day (and I'm sure I'll catch some "flak" for that).

This is a good thread and regretfully, I don't have time to answer each and every thought from the CMC & access research perspective. As an update: what CMC is doing now is a re-review of our records to see if we can get something moving. One of my long time climbing partners happens to be a mining lawyer. I've asked him to do a little pro-bono work and sent him some ownership information last week on the primary summit claims; the Dora and Mary claims. What I'm hoping to find out is how these claims can have ownership in excess of 100% of the claims, when all owners are factored in. We're having lunch late this week.

Jeremy27 did some good work on March 22 in tracking down what appears to be 8 property owners; or owners paying taxes. But that is just part of the story. The primary files are at CMC and I'm writing this off memory. Clarence Sobba is deceased and "James Sargent" is actually a trust held by a bank. This grouping is the one with somewhere between 40 and 80 owners, if I'm recalling correctly. I've been told that all owners must give consent for access to the property; but there may be a loophole somewhere. This grouping appears to own 50% of each of the two summit claims.

Earth Energy Resources and Maurice Reiber are the same family===and the same family that asked for signs to be erected to identify the trail corridor. They sought out CFI & CMC back in 2005; and in 2006 when the bill to amend the Recreational Area Use Statute was passed by the Legislature.

coloradokevin generated interesting information and thank you for providing the citations. Re the ATV riders being up there, chances are they also are trespassers. The road to the Bross/Cameron saddle goes through private property lower down that is often gated (I say "often" as jeepers have been known to take a blowtorch to the gate; per the property owner; so they can continue their joy-riding).

climbing_rob wrote on March 21: "But the CMC will almost assuredly not listen........." And you base that on what? So happens that I'm listening. Anytime you want to learn more about how to do access work; Access Fund style; let me know. As a private note, I'll write you off line about the Grand Canyon next month. My current conditioning is not good enough for me to do 30 miles & 5,000'.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests