Mount Lindsey Closure

Information on current and past 14er closures, usually due to private property issues.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by dan0rama »

I think it's funny how wealthy people who hire financial advisors to engineer ways to reduce their tax burden are often referred to as "conservationist" or "environmentalist". Nothing against some clever financial engineering within the boundaries of the law, I just don't appreciate the gaslighting.
User avatar
two lunches
Posts: 1448
Joined: 5/30/2014
14ers: 47  2 
13ers: 63 1 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by two lunches »

the land is in a conservation easement. how does that not make the landowner a conservationist?
“To walk in nature is to witness a thousand miracles.” – Mary Davis
OnlineOnline
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by dan0rama »

two lunches wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:26 am the land is in a conservation easement. how does that not make the landowner a conservationist?
I guess that depends on whether you believe a hedge-fund manager and real estate investor who made his wealth turning money into more money would still have bought the land and agreed to not further develop it if the government had not promised him any tax benefits. If you believe that, then you should call me a philanthropist because I donate 40+hrs of my time every week to a healthcare company that helps people. I am handsomely compensated for it, but I don't do it for the money.
User avatar
two lunches
Posts: 1448
Joined: 5/30/2014
14ers: 47  2 
13ers: 63 1 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by two lunches »

is it too Machiavellian to not care what the landowner's motives are and simply appreciate that the land won't be developed?
“To walk in nature is to witness a thousand miracles.” – Mary Davis
OnlineOnline
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by dan0rama »

two lunches wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:27 pm is it too Machiavellian to not care what the landowner's motives are and simply appreciate that the land won't be developed?
Sure, but referring to said landowner as a "conservationist" implies you are judging his motives because you care about them. Let's first understand that he is no such thing, understand the huge cost of these easements to all of us, and then appreciate that the land won't be developed.
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 864
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 781 76
Trip Reports (50)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Boggy B »

Does snow belong to the landowner or the state? State, right? Because it's water?

So technically you're not trespassing if you stay on snow. Winter loophole.

But seriously, I was wondering about this as we hiked up a frozen creek through private property (tolerated in this case) a few weeks ago.
Is it correct that you can pass through private land on a watercourse as long as you don't touch the banks or the bottom?
Anyone know how that applies to ice and snow?
User avatar
cedica
Posts: 783
Joined: 6/25/2014
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by cedica »

As long as the water isn't underground, you are good.

Which brings me to the quote by Connor Roy, my favorite villain in the whole world. There is something so pure, so unadulterated in Connor:
I have five farms, and underneath all my farms runs a big, giant aquifer that's like an underground lake. I have pumping rights. That means I get to take the water. And it's very important because someday water's gonna be more precious than gold and people are gonna kill each other to try to get that water.
User avatar
dwoodward13
Posts: 851
Joined: 3/26/2011
14ers: 58  12 
13ers: 170 6
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by dwoodward13 »

Boggy B wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:39 pm Is it correct that you can pass through private land on a watercourse as long as you don't touch the banks or the bottom?
This is really only an interpretation by a former AG, rather than a law, although no one really seems upset by it.
A 1979 Colorado Supreme Court decision — People v. Emmert — ruled that even if the state’s water is public property, the public does not have the right to float those waters through private property. An attorney general opinion in the 1980s tweaked that ruling to allow rafters and kayakers to legally pass through private property so long as they do not touch any of the privately owned rocks on the riverbed.
There is an interesting case taken up by the CO Supreme Court that could rule on weather a "navigable" river at the time of statehood could be legal for people to wade in.

https://coloradosun.com/2022/12/16/colo ... s-lawsuit/
ltlFish99
Posts: 628
Joined: 5/21/2019
14ers: 49  3  2 
13ers: 51
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by ltlFish99 »

Does Anybody have any updates on the status of the closure, and any progress on potential resolutions?
User avatar
dwoodward13
Posts: 851
Joined: 3/26/2011
14ers: 58  12 
13ers: 170 6
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by dwoodward13 »

ltlFish99 wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:23 pm Does Anybody have any updates on the status of the closure, and any progress on potential resolutions?
A legislative change to the recreational use statue has been introduced into the state senate. CMC/CFI and Lindsey Landowners have worked together to find an acceptable framework to reopen the peak, if passed.

If you are a Colorado Resident, contact your state representatives to voice your support!

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-103
User avatar
two lunches
Posts: 1448
Joined: 5/30/2014
14ers: 47  2 
13ers: 63 1 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by two lunches »

dwoodward13 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:26 pm
ltlFish99 wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:23 pm Does Anybody have any updates on the status of the closure, and any progress on potential resolutions?
A legislative change to the recreational use statue has been introduced into the state senate. CMC/CFI and Lindsey Landowners have worked together to find an acceptable framework to reopen the peak, if passed.

If you are a Colorado Resident, contact your state representatives to voice your support!

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-103
there is a hearing scheduled next week, March 1 at 130pm for SB23-103. it will take just a moment of your time to ID your representatives (https://leg.colorado.gov/FindMyLegislator) and e-mail them a quick sentence or two of your support.
“To walk in nature is to witness a thousand miracles.” – Mary Davis
OnlineOnline
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by dan0rama »

The bill is sponsored by Republicans legislators only, it's dead on arrival. Curious they didn't try to make this a ballot initiative. I think it's the only way with current control of legislature.