Self Supported 14er Record Attempt

[justiner]

Doing Lindsey unlawfully would not be a kosher thing to do, record attempt or not. Eric, you agree?

[nsaladin]

Doing Lindsey unlawfully would not be a kosher thing to do, record attempt or not. Eric, you agree?

And Bross?

[thebeave7]

There's been some behind the scenes discussion about Lindsey, people are working on it, but the exact plan is still TBD. Justin I do agree that an illegal publicly visible summit of Lindsey would be bad optics and could set off some issues with the landowner and reopening legal access. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

For Bross it's always been accepted that one skirts right around the closure within a couple hundred feet of the summit and call it good (thus no legal issues).

Eric

[CaptainSuburbia]

There's been some behind the scenes discussion about Lindsey, people are working on it, but the exact plan is still TBD. Justin I do agree that an illegal publicly visible summit of Lindsey would be bad optics and could set off some issues with the landowner and reopening legal access. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

For Bross it's always been accepted that one skirts right around the closure within a couple hundred feet of the summit and call it good (thus no legal issues).

Eric

I hope he does get permission, but that could tick off a lot of common folk trying to achieve their own modest goals.

[vertical_volume]

There's been some behind the scenes discussion about Lindsey, people are working on it, but the exact plan is still TBD. Justin I do agree that an illegal publicly visible summit of Lindsey would be bad optics and could set off some issues with the landowner and reopening legal access. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

For Bross it's always been accepted that one skirts right around the closure within a couple hundred feet of the summit and call it good (thus no legal issues).

Eric

I hope he does get permission, but that could tick off a lot of common folk trying to achieve their own modest goals.

Fingers crossed for him. This makes me think of "being on the list" to get into a night club.

Hypothetically, let's say he does not get permission for Lindsey, is there something he can do to make this FKT attempt to be considered "acceptable" if he does best Peter's time? Climb the next highest summit after the initial 58? Climb 3,000 feet to the property line and call it good?

[bdloftin77]

Hypothetically, let's say he does not get permission for Lindsey, is there something he can do to make this FKT attempt to be considered "acceptable" if he does best Peter's time? Climb the next highest summit after the initial 58? Climb 3,000 feet to the property line and call it good?

That’s a good question. And if he does abide by legal hiking, if a decision was made and if word got to him on time, that could save a potential wrinkle in his possible record (all assuming permission was not granted). I don’t think I saw anything in his posts about the Lindsey issue.

What are everyone’s thoughts on Lindsey alternatives?

[thebeave7]

Fingers crossed for him. This makes me think of "being on the list" to get into a night club.

Hypothetically, let's say he does not get permission for Lindsey, is there something he can do to make this FKT attempt to be considered "acceptable" if he does best Peter's time? Climb the next highest summit after the initial 58? Climb 3,000 feet to the property line and call it good?

The trouble with climbing a different peak is it's no longer a directly comparable attempt, and in this case climbing to the signed closure is quite a ways below the summit (800ft I believe) so the Bross thought process doesn't really apply as it's a significant difference. What may end up happening if he chooses not to climb Lindsey fully and breaks Peter's record is there is an asterisk next to his record stating he climbed all the 14ers and as far as legal on Lindsey under the previous record. This happened in CA when someone broke the 14ers record but couldn't climb Mt Williamson due to wildlife closures.
These are a lot of 'what ifs' right now. Let's all hope the Ranch responds and permits him access with a waiver or something of the sorts.

Eric

[TomPierce]

I know that in some other contexts climbing the next highest peak on an altitude-based list was considered acceptable. I recall something about a list with one of the peaks being off limits (I think it was on a USAF bombing range or something like that...) and the next highest was considered an acceptable substitute. Obscure, but there is a precedent of sorts. John Kirk might be a good resource to consult.

I wish him luck, for sure.

-Tom

[bdloftin77]

These are a lot of 'what ifs' right now. Let's all hope the Ranch responds and permits him access with a waiver or something of the sorts.

Eric

So it sounds like he did request access and is waiting for a response?

[Phill the Thrill]

I don't like it, but what about substituting Huerfano Peak for Mt Lindsey? Edit: Similar distance and elevation gain.

[justiner]

Hypothetically, let's say he does not get permission for Lindsey, is there something he can do to make this FKT attempt to be considered "acceptable" if he does best Peter's time? Climb the next highest summit after the initial 58? Climb 3,000 feet to the property line and call it good?

Skip the peak, have an asterisks on the time, asterisks gets explained as the, "No Lindsey" route. If Lindsey stays closed (I mean who knows?) that's the new record to go for, and to beat.

If they do get permission for Lindsey - super chapeau to them, obviously. That's doing something you want to do, while being a good steward in showing just how to do it right.

[Jorts]

Not advocating for or against this... but he could always turn off the tracker and do it discretely too. Puts your ass at some risk but then no asterisk.