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

More info...

Other ways to help...

Culebra Peak - scam or Legit?

Items that do not fit the categories above.

Pay or Steal

Pay
68
69%
Steal
30
31%
 
Total votes : 98
User avatar
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:29 pm

Postby alanb » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:17 pm

jwproulx wrote:
This argument is not compelling. Why should they have this right? Who gave it to them?


Why should they have this right? Because the law- as set forth by the state of Colorado and the United States of America gives them that right. Which I think is compelling enough for anyone.

jwproulx wrote:
Suppose I owned a restaurant in Alabama in 1950. I'd have the legal right to deny access to black people. Doesn't mean I'd have the moral right to do so.


This is an apples to oranges argument, the owners of Culebra are not discriminating against someone based on their race, they are simply charging a fee to access their private property, much the same way the owners of Cave of the Winds or Sevens Falls do.

jwproulx wrote:
While denying access to hikers is much less severe a restriction, the fact that there is a legal right to do so doesn't imply that it's legit.


They are not discriminating against hikers, they charge hunters, hikers, or anyone who wants access to the ranch a fee, which is their RIGHT to do so because they own the property. While you may not like the fact that you have to pay to climb their mountain, it’s perfectly legit.
"The mountains are calling, therefore I must go."
tweaked by me but originally John Muir

User avatar
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:46 pm
Location: Boulder

Postby jwproulx » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:30 pm

alanb wrote:jwproulx wrote:
This argument is not compelling. Why should they have this right? Who gave it to them?


Why should they have this right? Because the law- as set forth by the state of Colorado and the United States of America gives them that right. Which I think is compelling enough for anyone.

jwproulx wrote:
Suppose I owned a restaurant in Alabama in 1950. I'd have the legal right to deny access to black people. Doesn't mean I'd have the moral right to do so.


This is an apples to oranges argument, the owners of Culebra are not discriminating against someone based on their race, they are simply charging a fee to access their private property, much the same way the owners of Cave of the Winds or Sevens Falls do.

jwproulx wrote:
While denying access to hikers is much less severe a restriction, the fact that there is a legal right to do so doesn't imply that it's legit.


They are not discriminating against hikers, they charge hunters, hikers, or anyone who wants access to the ranch a fee, which is their RIGHT to do so because they own the property. While you may not like the fact that you have to pay to climb their mountain, it’s perfectly legit.


Yeah, I figured someone would miss the point. Apples and oranges are both fruits, you know.

Your argument is that activity X is morally legit because the U.S. says it's legal. This is obviously an invalid argument; I simply supplied a counterexample. You don't like the value I supplied for "X" (segregation) -- but your argument doesn't specify a value. If your argument is valid, it ought to work for any activity. It doesn't, so it's not valid.

You say "Why should they have this right? Because the law ... gives them that right." In other words, they should have the right because they do have the right. That is terrible logic -- the same logic was that was used to support segregation.

If you read my whole post, you'd see that I support your conclusion; I just very strongly disagree with the way you got there.

User avatar
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:15 am
Location: Edwards, CO

Postby Mel McKinney » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:31 pm

Yep, I've hiked 14ers in the San Juans. They can still have quite a few climbers on them on weekends/holidays as well. For a class 2 peak Culebra is in good shape with less wear and tear due to trail cutting and erosion. I haven't done the Wilsons so I can't comment on them, but then again the land owner is trying to charge for those peaks as well and they are class 3 or 4.

User avatar
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:29 pm

Postby alanb » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:10 am

jwproulx wrote:
but your argument doesn't specify a value. If your argument is valid, it ought to work for any activity. It doesn't, so it's not valid.


This is a strawman response and this argument has nothing to do with a formula or that formulas need to work across the board.. Perhaps you can take murder and plug it into your formula and make it immoral across the board. (If you do, I predict shortly this thread will need to be moved to the gloves are off section")

no disrespect, but I think it is you who are missing the point..

My argument works just fine, you simply don't like the fact that our country allows people to own private property and restrict the activities that are done on that property.

Furthermore, my argument does work for any activity and I even gave you an example so you could better understand it. The owners of Culebra restrict and charge a fee for ALL activities on their property; therefore they are not discriminating against anyone or any specific activity. Even if they were, they still have the right to do so.

Perhaps you would better understand this "right" if you had forked over your own hard earned money to buy a piece of property and someone demands to have access to it simply because it has something to do with their hobby..
"The mountains are calling, therefore I must go."
tweaked by me but originally John Muir

User avatar
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:46 pm
Location: Boulder

Postby jwproulx » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:18 am

alanb wrote:jwproulx wrote:
but your argument doesn't specify a value. If your argument is valid, it ought to work for any activity. It doesn't, so it's not valid.


This is a strawman response and this argument has nothing to do with a formula or that formulas need to work across the board.. Perhaps you can take murder and plug it into your formula and make it immoral across the board. (If you do, I predict shortly this thread will need to be moved to the gloves are off section")

no disrespect, but I think it is you who are missing the point..

My argument works just fine, you simply don't like the fact that our country allows people to own private property and restrict the activities that are done on that property.

Furthermore, my argument does work for any activity and I even gave you an example so you could better understand it. The owners of Culebra restrict and charge a fee for ALL activities on their property; therefore they are not discriminating against anyone or any specific activity. Even if they were, they still have the right to do so.

Perhaps you would better understand this "right" if you had forked over your own hard earned money to buy a piece of property and someone demands to have access to it simply because it has something to do with their hobby..

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

First, did you not get the point that I actually support property rights as asserted in this case?

Yeah, I kind of wish we had rambling rights in this country, but not having them doesn't bother me all that much. What bothers me is your logic that seems to me to say that a right is good and proper simply because the U.S. government supports that right. That's obviously wrong.

The fact that murder is wrong does not derive from the fact that the U.S. government says it is. My argument was not a strawman because I wasn't trying to disprove your conclusion, but only to criticize the way you arrived at it. Using your logic, you can arrive at not only reasonable conclusions (the ranch should be able to regulate and charge visitors), but also unreasonable ones (segregation was okay).

I didn't supply the formula -- you did. You said:

Why should they have this right? Because the law- as set forth by the state of Colorado and the United States of America gives them that right. Which I think is compelling enough for anyone.


That's a formula. I disagree with it. It's also circular logic: they should have the right because they do have the right.

Sorry. I really get chafed by what I see as faulty arguments, even (especially) when I agree with the point being argued.

Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:37 pm

Postby Viking4Life » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:25 am

In most Scandanavian countries, one can ski, walk, run, climb on ANY property...but the law specifically says when on private property, you cannot disturb property owners nor destroy their property in any way. You can pick wild berries and flowers, but, that's about it. Even collecting wood for a fire is illegal unless the tree is clearly dead. In several countries, you cannot even make camp on private property.

If Culebra Peak was in a Scandinavian country, all the guy would have to do is plant a wheat field in front of it, and you would not be able to get to the mountain without braking the law or paying a fee to gain access.

So, simply, DON'T GET CARRIED AWAY WITH THIS...it's not as simple as many are arguing it is.

But it really does not matter, the mountain in question is in Colorado, USA, so that's all null and void anyways. The law is what it is, tough luck, go talk your senator and try to get it changed. Don't go break the law and ruin it for everyone else...

User avatar
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:29 pm

Postby alanb » Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:06 pm

jwproulx- I digress.. we clearly are just going to go back and forth on this.

viking4life wrote:
But it really does not matter, the mountain in question is in Colorado, USA, so that's all null and void anyways. The law is what it is, tough luck, go talk your senator and try to get it changed. Don't go break the law and ruin it for everyone else...


well said..
"The mountains are calling, therefore I must go."
tweaked by me but originally John Muir

User avatar
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:00 am
Location: Boulder, CO.

Postby marmotman » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:09 pm

Wow, it’s been a wild ride! Thanks for all your posts. I’m new to this posting thing; it’s been like a trip back to grade school. Anyways…I still do not respect the land owners’ actions on this issue and don’t, morally, think he should charge $100 per person. I’m pretty sure it does not take a few thousand a year to maintain a trail. I’d take that job. They are turning a significant profit from our joint obsession. But so is Starbucks, any and all Universities, and I know the owner of Arc’Teryxs is not cruising the strip in a Ford Pinto. It’s the nature of the beast; we don’t live in a utopia. A few bucks, like the average State Park would be nice though.
All things considered, I do respect the law and like many of you said…it’s only $100 for a nice hike. So I will succumb to reason and majority rule on this issue and push my authority questioning, rebellious, adrenaline junky instincts down once again….my mother would be so proud! And I don’t want to spur the owner to close it down for everyone after spotting on the summit, what looks like a marmot in a “ninja suit”, with some high-powered anal binoculars.

p.s. I’m glad that we could at least agree that I’m a real person. Now I can sleep at night.
- Looking forward to doing some group climbs soon!

Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:48 pm

Culebra

Postby D Stone » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:03 pm

What's the scoop for climbing Culebra? Is it $100 per group or per person?

User avatar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:33 pm
Location: Canon City, Colorado

Postby mtgirl » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:46 pm

$100 per person. $150 if you also want to hit Red Mountain, a centennial.
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away."

User avatar
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:09 pm

Postby electrobuzz » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:59 pm

Scott Patterson wrote:
Actually, we are very fortunate that there is only one
peak on private land.



Anyway, I hate all the lack of public land in Colorado


WHAT? Lack of public land in Colorado? Check this:

Public land in Colorado: 39.86% of total area
e.g., Public land in Texas: 1.92% of total area

http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

Public land here is over eighteeen times that of Texas. And it's certainly a helluva a lot more than eighteen times more scenic. :lol:

The average is 34% for a state -- but that's a bit skewed by the near 90% public land in Alaska, and the higher proportion of public land in other Western states.

User avatar
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby JeffR » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:06 pm

jwproulx wrote:
alanb wrote:jwproulx wrote:
but your argument doesn't specify a value. If your argument is valid, it ought to work for any activity. It doesn't, so it's not valid.


This is a strawman response and this argument has nothing to do with a formula or that formulas need to work across the board.. Perhaps you can take murder and plug it into your formula and make it immoral across the board. (If you do, I predict shortly this thread will need to be moved to the gloves are off section")

no disrespect, but I think it is you who are missing the point..

My argument works just fine, you simply don't like the fact that our country allows people to own private property and restrict the activities that are done on that property.

Furthermore, my argument does work for any activity and I even gave you an example so you could better understand it. The owners of Culebra restrict and charge a fee for ALL activities on their property; therefore they are not discriminating against anyone or any specific activity. Even if they were, they still have the right to do so.

Perhaps you would better understand this "right" if you had forked over your own hard earned money to buy a piece of property and someone demands to have access to it simply because it has something to do with their hobby..

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

First, did you not get the point that I actually support property rights as asserted in this case?

Yeah, I kind of wish we had rambling rights in this country, but not having them doesn't bother me all that much. What bothers me is your logic that seems to me to say that a right is good and proper simply because the U.S. government supports that right. That's obviously wrong.

I don't see where he's saying anything about a right's "goodness" or "properness". For you and others in this thread, here's the deal:
- Is it good? Maybe, maybe not
- Is it proper? Maybe, maybe not
- Is it selfish? Maybe, maybe not
- Is it disrespectful? Maybe, maybe not
- Is it moral? Maybe, maybe not
- Is it legit/legal? YES.

And this last point is really the only answer to the original question. Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm Mr. Logical when it comes to black-and-white questions like this. :D

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests