Mount Lindsey Closure

[Above_Treeline]

I wanted to climb Popo when I was in Mexico to climb Orizaba/Izta, it was considered moderately active and smoking and thus closed to climbing, so I wasn't able to, end of that.
Another peak nearby I planned on doing was temporarily closed off due to military operations, so end of that plan too. So, I just did the few I was able to. Life happens and you don't always can get what you want, plans change.

As far as ignoring the closures, if you knowingly trespass on private property just be prepared for potential consequences. Once on Antero, hiking up an hour or two before sunrise, I was met with an angry miner with a shotgun because he "thought" I might have been on his private mining claim and was not happy about it...nothing ended up happening, but was a bit alarming to have someone suddenly screaming at you at 4:00am pointing a 12 gauge at you.

Maybe you can offer the owners of Lindsey and Bross, cash to climb, then we can start another thread about greedy Lindsey owners charging people to "take a walk" and Ptglhs can lecture everyone again about the benefits of communism and the evils of the ideas of private property and capitalism.

Crazy people pointing a gun at you isn't a consequence. It might be more of a felony on their part.

[Above_Treeline]

I do hope it gets resolved soon. But the trend locally and probably nationwide seems to be roping things off. Which I find disturbing as an outdoorsman.

I get the liability concerns but I'm not looking to sue. And honestly I'm not tearing up the land. In this area the landowners tear it up then put up a no trespassing sign. Odd.

Used to be free to go to the lake (federal lands.) Then they started charging at the most areas. One guy pretty nice though if you came late he'd tell you to just go in. Now it's gone up and a little man chases you if you don't pay. Frustrating I'm not a big fan of having to pay to go outside.

[two lunches]

As far as ignoring the closures, if you knowingly trespass on private property just be prepared for potential consequences. Once on Antero, hiking up an hour or two before sunrise, I was met with an angry miner with a shotgun because he "thought" I might have been on his private mining claim and was not happy about it...nothing ended up happening, but was a bit alarming to have someone suddenly screaming at you at 4:00am pointing a 12 gauge at you.

NY-- this is a teachable moment.

pointing a gun at someone is a felony and it would have been in your best interest to report it at the time. it's called Menacing and is punishable by up to three years imprisonment, regardless of whether or not you're trespassing. some people think the "Make My Day" law grants them the right to shoot someone for entering their home or stepping on their property, but it actually only works if you can prove to a jury of your peers that the trespasser was threatening your life. verbally threatening someone (sans weapon) even if they are trespassing is still a misdemeanor. threatening someone with any physical object (even an unloaded gun or a toy weapon) is still a felony.

knowingly trespassing on someone's land (for non-agricultural use) is a petty offense, punishable by up to ten days in jail and a fine up to $300. the fines and jail time get steeper if you're walking through a ranch or intending to commit a crime once you're on the property. defensible excuses come into play if there were no signs or fences around the private property, but ignorance will probably only get you so far in a court of law. it's your responsibility as a user of the land to know where you can/cannot go and it's common courtesy (despite the opinions of a few on this site) to respect other people and their belongings/property.

[Scott P]

Crazy people pointing a gun at you isn't a consequence. It might be more of a felony on their part.

If the property owner claims to feel threatened, they can point a gun at trespassers. The Make My Day Law only applies to home invasion, but the Stand Your Ground Law applies to property. It doesn't matter if the trespasser is armed or not either. The owner just has to claim that they felt threatened by the trespasser on their property.

[justiner]

Crazy people pointing a gun at you isn't a consequence. It might be more of a felony on their part.

If the property owner claims to feel threatened, they can point a gun at trespassers.

The Antero story doesn't put the hiker on pp though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't point a gun at someone you think was on a mining claim, or who you thought may want to go on your mining claim.

[two lunches]

Crazy people pointing a gun at you isn't a consequence. It might be more of a felony on their part.

If the property owner claims to feel threatened, they can point a gun at trespassers. The Make My Day Law only applies to home invasion, but the Stand Your Ground Law applies to property. It doesn't matter if the trespasser is armed or not either. The owner just has to claim that they felt threatened by the trespasser on their property.

again- you need to be protecting yourself from violent crime. you cannot just shoot someone or point your gun at them because you think they MIGHT try to mine your claim. well i mean you can, but you could also be prosecuted for doing so.

[Scott P]

again- you need to be protecting yourself from violent crime. you cannot just shoot someone or point your gun at them because you think they MIGHT try to mine your claim.

That's what I mean by being threatened. If the land owner feels or say they feel threatened by you and says that they felt that you could harm them physically, they can point a gun at you. If you shoot them, then yes there would be more of an investigation, but if you are trespassing and get a gun pointed out you, then I can promise you that most of the time local law enforcement will side with the land owner in rural Colorado.

[two lunches]

scott if you want to base your decision-making in the backcountry off potentially corrupt law enforcement, that is totally your business. it's maybe even noteworthy to understand the bias of locals. but the law as it is written and as it should be upheld is on the side of the hiker in this instance. i'm not suggesting it's going to save a life to know what someone can and cannot do with a gun in their hand, but it is factually less bad to trespass while hiking (assuming you are doing nothing more than walking) than it is to point a gun at someone- simply existing does not LEGALLY pose a threat to anyone or anything

[Scott P]

scott if you want to base your decision-making in the backcountry off potentially corrupt law enforcement, that is totally your business. it's maybe even noteworthy to understand the bias of locals.

What is noteworthy is that you live in Denver and most of the time I work in these remote ranching areas and have been doing so for 22 years. Most of the ranchers are nice people and I have personally only been threatened by a rancher once. Others have been threatened that I have worked with on projects, but it was pretty much their own fault.

but the law as it is written and as it should be upheld is on the side of the hiker in this instance. i'm not suggesting it's going to save a life to know what someone can and cannot do with a gun in their hand, but it is factually less bad to trespass while hiking (assuming you are doing nothing more than walking) than it is to point a gun at someone- simply existing does not LEGALLY pose a threat to anyone or anything

First of all, the law is upheld on what can be proven. Which is easier to prove? The hiker who says "he pointed a gun at me" or the rancher who says "he was illegally trespasser on my property"? Good luck proving the former in court unless you are wearing a camera. Also, it's not really corruption most of the time, but I can promise you that close to 100% of the ranchers in the rural areas know the sheriff.

Let's take a look at the law itself and the exact wording:

CO Rev Stat § 18-1-706 (2016)
A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-r ... f-property

Notice that using deadly physical force is only justified in self defense. Notice though that using "appropriate physical force upon another person" can be used if the person "reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property". Pointing a gun at someone without the intent of shooting is legally considered to be non-deadly force.

In order to get a rancher convicted of pointing a gun at you, first you would have to prove that the rancher pointed the gun at you in the first place. Second you would have to prove that the rancher had no right to reasonably suspect that you intended to commit any criminal mischief. Third you would have to prove that the rancher had intent of using deadly force. If a rancher (or anyone else) pointed a gun at you when you weren't trespassing that would be completely different.

I can tell you for sure that either way proving someone was illegally trespassing is a lot easier than proving that someone pointed a gun at you (unless there are a camera or witnesses), so good luck with that mentality, especially if it ever ends up in court.

(PS, I dislike private land blocking access to the mountains, but I'm just pointing out how things are).

[two lunches]

scott i appreciate you so much but just wanted to let you know the exact wording you posted does not prove your point. my lack of response from this point forward is not because i am conceding that you are correct, because you are not.

don't point guns at people.
and don't trespass either.
have a nice day

[d_baker]

The forum doesn't need TG back on the forum when there are others that perform just as well.

[Chicago Transplant]

Isn't a mining claim just the rights to the minerals beneath the surface? Mining claimants do not own the surface. It is not the same as private property and does not have the same rights. So I don't think it actually qualifies as trespassing to walk on the surface, especially if that surface is on public lands. Regardless of what courts interpret "stand your ground" to mean, I don't think NYker was trespassing on Antero in the first place.

You can't mess with someone's claim or take the minerals, but can walk on it, hunt on it, even camp on it, just like any other public land unless they also own surface rights. I don't believe that to be the case on Antero, as far as I know Antero is public land with mining claims under it and you can walk on it just fine.