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
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:13 am

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby SteveBonowski » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:39 am

I never replied to Bill's original suggestion about doing an alternate trail. Jeremy27's last post identifies a potential problem. We all know that the west side of Bross is a scree & rubble pile. First question becomes is the slope stable enough to put in a sustainable trail. USFS would have to evaluate; meaning, Bill, a site visit by Loretta (for others: she's the USFS Region 2 peaks manager). Next step is NEPA analysis, since there is new construction involved. The NEPA would include laying out a corridor; and doing biological & archeological assessments.

The latter assessments are important as there are rare plants in the bowl above Kite Lake from where the trails originate. And the Act requires the analysis irregardless. The timing of the NEPA would depend on the FS budget. Back in 2007, CMC and the Telluride Mountain Club raised money to pay for the BLM's cadastral survey of two of the mining claims in Silver Pick Basin (Wilson Peak). Something similar could happen for a new trail on Bross; again assuming the slope can handle a switch-backed trail. It's a good idea and Bill, I hope you mention it at the next CFI meeting you attend. But the earliest any trail could get done would be 2013, and maybe not until '14. All depends on priorities; I know that both CFI and CMC already have their summer, 2012 seasons mostly created.

Jeremy: I got your PM. Thanks for the offer. The Bross ownership situation is gnarly enough that we may need a lot of pro-bono work.

Bill: are you going to the MRHI meeting on Friday in Alma; the presentation by the Continental Divide Land Trust? The speaker, among other things, is talking about trail easements and quieting title.

Site Administrator
User avatar
Posts: 6518
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:34 pm
Location: Breckenridge, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby BillMiddlebrook » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:02 pm

Thanks for the replies, Steve! I will not be able to attend the MRHI meeting this week but I do plan on brining the issue up with CFI and getting Loretta in the loop. That public "sliver" of land is actually on pretty low-angled terrain so a sustainable trail might be pretty easy to develop but, of course, nothing is ever that easy.

I'll keep you in the loop on discussions with CFI.
Only SNOW will end the madness

User avatar
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby climbing_rob » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:35 pm

SteveBonowski wrote: 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...
Glad you are listening Steve, and hope springs eternal, and I truly hope that my statement would prove to be false. I base my statement on 12 years being very active in the club and three years on council and dealing with a lot of old-timers that simply do NOT listen to many of us "regular" members. For example, if I suggested to the leader(s) of the September 8th Lincoln or Democrat trip that the club add in Bross to the "public summit", I'm nearly 100% sure all I'd hear back is that "Bross is Closed", (just like we hear on here all the time) when in fact no one actually seems to know WHO says Bross is closed, at least who with any authority says Bross is "closed". The CFI putting up a sign saying the "summit is closed" does not, indeed, mean that the summit is "closed".

Would there be any chance that Sherry R would, indeed, add Bross to the Sept 8th Gala? If so, there is still hope that the September 8th thing will be successful. If not, there will always be a big asterisk on the event. I personally hate little asterisks. I'd lead the trip myself if I wasn't committed to Windom/Sunlight.

Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:13 am

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby SteveBonowski » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:12 pm

Bob: one of a couple of reasons CMC Conservation is getting back onto Bross work is that Sherry R. asked me to find out if we can gain access to the actual summit, if only for the day, for our Sept. 8 Centennial celebration climbs. I'd consider leading it, but like you, am now committed elsewhere (Kit Carson & Challenger).

CMC has long taken a position that we don't want official Club trips going onto private land without permission. In a desire to maintain good relations with other property owners, the Lincoln/Democrat owners were the ones, I believe, who asked CFI & CMC to post the Bross summit as closed. CMC staff (Anya Byers, who worked for CFI before coming to CMC) actually talked with a member of the Sobba family about three years ago. He was real interested, then, in hearing about the lease agreement with the town of Alma. But Anya left in 2010 and Bryan Martin left a year ago. So, stuff got shifted around some. CFI historically doesn't take lead on access issues as it isn't really part of their mission; so it's been up to CMC & MRHI to take lead, with CFI in the info loop.

User avatar
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby djkest » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:39 am

Could the state Seize the land- isn't that called an Easement, or ... what's the other thing, when you need passage through land for something like a railroad? This seems like a rather silly problem. You really think someone who lives in an apartment in California is doing a lot of mining on the summit of Bross?
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog

User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: west of Golden, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Marcos » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:50 pm

I like how Europe handles these issues -- private property can legally be crossed in many countries. That's part of what makes long-distance hiking in Switzerland and France possible. Somehow here in the U.S. we've taken property rights to the extreme. Probably has to do with our ridiculous liability laws. I say, if the owner is going to be up there every day to "protect" his property (unlikely), I'll skip the summit. Otherwise, head on over! I understand, of course, that the CMC is a bit more on record, and may need to toe the line.

Just my $.02. Seems like we've lost yet another cause to the lawyers...

User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: west of Golden, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Marcos » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:59 am

Fletch wrote:I would argue that given the current inventory of land in the world, the laws in the US are among the best in the world.

Maybe for some property owners. Not so much for those trying to put together new long-distance routes.

In my opinion the U.S. concept of ownership is far too unimaginative in many situations (like the Bross example). It probably does stem partly from the westward migration which, ironically, displaced a native population who had a much different concept of "ownership". But that was a long time ago.

I simply prefer the European model of "close the gate behind you" instead our "protected by Smith & Wesson" approach. I think we could do something similar if it weren't for our obsession with liability.

User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: west of Golden, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Marcos » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:36 am

Fletch wrote:I completely agree with your statement above, but just because it's European, doesn't make it better. In fact, it doesn't need to be classified as European at all. And to some extent, we are romatisizing what we percieve as the "close the gate behind you" model. Somehow, I don't think it works quite as smoothly as that (everyone from Caesar to Charlemagne to Hitler and Stalin tell us otherwise...)

I only labeled it European because that's been my experience. But looking around just now I found a cool article on Wikipedia ("Freedom to Roam") that covers precisely what I'm talking about. You'll notice most of the countries are in Europe. I agree, though, that it's not better because it's European -- it's better because it's so good for walkers and hikers! I think it's a concept worthy of consideration here in this country. Implementation may be tricky, I admit.

I do know from completely non-romantic experience that "close the gate behind you" does work quote nicely -- I've been a long-time user! I am confident that it can be implemented without mass loss of life. :) The places where it is most common are in peaceable nordic countries.

User avatar
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:41 pm
Location: waiting to see if my doom is impending

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby DeucesWild » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:13 pm

Marcos wrote:The places where it is most common are in peaceable nordic countries.


Yeah, but in this country the gun lobby creates legislation that makes it possible to shoot and kill people for sneaking a swim in their backyard pool. And then Republican legislators pass it into law.

Not gonna work on this side of the pond. Sad, but true.
Snowflakes, Uber Alles!

www.deuceIRA.com. Put the Douche in your FiDeuceiary needs today!!

User avatar
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Colorado Springs

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby djkest » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:19 pm

DeucesWild wrote:
Marcos wrote:The places where it is most common are in peaceable nordic countries.


Yeah, but in this country the gun lobby creates legislation that makes it possible to shoot and kill people for sneaking a swim in their backyard pool. And then Republican legislators pass it into law.

Not gonna work on this side of the pond. Sad, but true.


That's a gross exageration of castle doctrine or "make my day" laws. But of course you know that already. I think it's fantastic that the United States still recognizes the basic right to self defense, something which escapes most other "civilized" countries.

If you then owned an expensive and well maintained pool in your back yard, you would be okay with anybody and everybody that you don't know coming to your house to use your pool at any time? What if they made a mess?
Life is a mountain, not a beach.
Exploring and Wine, my personal blog

User avatar
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:41 pm
Location: waiting to see if my doom is impending

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby DeucesWild » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:05 pm

djkest wrote:That's a gross exageration of castle doctrine or "make my day" laws.


No, it's not.

If a teenager, sneaking into a neighbor's backyard to skinnydip in the pool, acting furtive because he's sneaking to skinnydip, surprises the property owner who cannot identify him (because it's dark), he can then legally be shot under those laws if the landowner contends he was fearful for this life. Not only does he have the right to do so but in some states he cannot even be prosecuted for doing it because the law makes the landowner immune from criminal prosecution. Instead of backing off and calling the police he can shoot first and ask questions later. Bottom line, scare someone on their property, and they can shoot your ass and be immune from any criminal liability.

It's a great law. Deuce has been watchin the news...

As to your question about "what if it were my pool", and they made a mess? You're right. They might have pissed in the pool. Shoot them.
Snowflakes, Uber Alles!

www.deuceIRA.com. Put the Douche in your FiDeuceiary needs today!!

User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: west of Golden, CO

Re: Bross Solution: New Summit?

Postby Marcos » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:34 pm

Fletch wrote:And just one final thought and then I'll leave this discussion...

People who own land tend to take the hard line, "get off my property" - but there are those who inherited land, those who took it, and those who worked for the money and bought it. All three origins, produce slightly different lines on the subject (some of which are valid and some are not, in my opinion).

Then there folks who are not land owners, will never be, and have no intention of being so and they tend to take the stance - "can't we all just share?"

Very rarely are these lines 'crossed.'

Both sides bring good points to the table, but both sides are incredibly hypocritical as well... sounds like modern politics actually... :lol:

I don't think this has to be viewed through a dualistic lense. Why can't we have a combination of private property rights and public rights of way? That's what seems to be working for the "Freedom to Roam" countries, some of which prior to adoption were fiercely protective of property rights, i.e., the U.K. But even there a hikers association was instrumental in increasing access. Very cool! What a worthy goal for the 14ers.com community.

Our culture pushes an "either/or" approach to everything. You're either a bleeding-heart liberal or a gun-toting conservative; a high-tech first-adopter or neo-luddite; an advocate for higher taxes or for tax cuts; the list goes on and on. According to the media, we are the most polarized society on earth.

Or not. Personally, I don't believe that the most people can be fairly reduced to these stereotypes. Lines can and should be crossed. Compromise can exist (well, maybe not in our legislature :( ).

By the way, this is a type 3 landowner talking... :)

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 14erFred, mojah and 8 guests