Bross Solution: New Summit?

[SteveBonowski Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

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'.

[SteveBonowski Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

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.

[BillMiddlebrook]

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.

[climbing_rob Profile 14er Peak List (58) 13er Peak List (108)]

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.

[SteveBonowski Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

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.

[djkest Profile Website 14er Peak List (49) 13er Peak List (10)Trip Reports]

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?

[Fletch Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

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?

Easements are defined as "right of way" or a recordation of who and how someone may access real property (in the United States). There are utility easements (granting utility companies access to towers, pipelines, sewers, etc) and cross easements (crossing one's property to access the beach, another property, etc), parking easements, access easements, etc... unless the owner grants an easement (and it would have to be very broad and very general to encompass hikers), there is no shot that a 3rd party can force that issue. If the land owner had debt on the property, the lender would never allow it to be senior to the debt (on title) either...

When the "state" siezes land, it's using the right of eminent domain. It needs to take title to the land and provide some "public" benefit - it also needs to compensate the previous owner - and that would be very difficult (and costly) since I imagine 14ers don't come up for sale too often. Since most of the public doesn't care about Bross, it's unlikely that a governmental agency would take it over simply to preserve access for hikers.

Reclamation is another issue, whereby the government can force an area to be changed for public benefit (usually not taking title). This is where the EPA or some other agency steps in and says (for instance) "you've been polluting the land, and we are requiring you to clean it (or post funds into escrow) before we will allow you to sell it, farm it, or develop it..." - something like that... unless the current land owner is abusing the land in some way (that is not legal - mining is by the way), then reclamation is a long shot too.

Private land issues should be preserved. It's the fabric of society. Once that changes, it quickly turns to anarchy (see Zimbabwe for example). I bagged Bross and I'd do it again. But if I got a tresspassing ticket, I'd gladly pay it too.

[Marcos Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered Trip Reports]

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...

[Fletch Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

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.

Real estate law in the United States is based on a combination of Spanish Land Grant law and British land laws, both very 'European' in nature.

Much of the laws protecting mining, forestry, ranching, farming, fishing, and other industries in the 'west' are designed to keep people from staking a claim to vast areas of land and then retreating back to Boston, Chicago, New York, etc. They have specific provisions that encourage people to 'work the land' that they own, and they penalize people that dont. In Montana, for instance, someone can claim your land by living on it for one full year (as a squatter) - as long as you don't kick them off - and by filing a petition that says you are an absentee owner and the squatter is a better qualified citizen to 'own and work' the land. What the writers of those laws were trying to encourage was a western movement of people and skills and resources so that the land did not fall into other peoples (nations) hands. Europe has been fighting over the same swaps of land for thousands of years. Doesn't Ted Turner own more land than the size of Delaware? - thats the sort of thing they were discouraging back in the 1800's (and still do in many parts of the country to this day).

*I'm paraphrasing a bit with the above example - it's been a while since I looked at this stuff...

But with the RE laws in the US, they are very directed at what towns, counties, and states, want in terms of development, tax revenues, and growth. 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. With the Bross example, don't get mad at the law or the land owner or the country you live in. If you want the summit to be open to the OCD peakbagging population so bad, then go make him an offer.

[Marcos Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered Trip Reports]

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.

[Fletch Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered]

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.

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...)

[Marcos Profile 14er Peak List Not Entered Trip Reports]

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.