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.
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!
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.
+1
Interesting to note, that the bill text says if passed, it would take effect 90 days after the conclusion of the legislative session (assuming no referendum petition ie sending it to the voters). The end of the legislative session is May 8th, meaning the earliest it would be in effect would be August 6th, so still a good chunk of summer left! If there was a referendum petition filed, it wouldn't be until the Nov 2024 election that the public would vote on it (and then would go into effect, if passed by the public, after the governor gave the official declaration of the vote).
SB23-103 altering the recreational use statue to provide additional protection to those allowing recreation on their private land failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee 3-2 today. The bill is postponed indefinitely.
No Votes:
Roberts
Rodriguez
Gonzales
Aye Votes:
Baisley
Gardner
Most of the No votes were saying that because there was only one known case of a property owner being sued in ~20 years (Nelson), that the CRUS currently as written is working as intended and no change is needed.
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:39 pm
Most of the No votes were saying that because there was only one known case of a property owner being sued in ~20 years (Nelson), that the CRUS currently as written is working as intended and no change is needed.
...which makes the property closures (Lindsey, etc.) seem all the more like an overreaction (one lawsuit in approximately 20 years).
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:39 pm
Most of the No votes were saying that because there was only one known case of a property owner being sued in ~20 years (Nelson), that the CRUS currently as written is working as intended and no change is needed.
...which makes the property closures (Lindsey, etc.) seem all the more like an overreaction (one lawsuit in approximately 20 years).
-Tom
Alternatively some of the property owners who testified in favor of the bill (two owners of portions of the Decalibron Loop, several ranch owners in other areas) were saying basically they can't take a risk of being the 2nd person in 40 years. Even just the cost of litigation could financially ruin them. That seemed to not be persuasive to the No's however.
It will be interesting to see if this comes back in a different form or dies permanently. Some of the No's indicated it was an interesting issue and they would be open to further discussion.
I suspect there would have to be a groundswell of public support to get this back up for consideration. Doubt there would be revenue stream for the state that might otherwise push passage. But if legislators thought they could get a few votes in an election if they supported this, maybe. But nothing soon, and IMO probably not likely.
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:26 pmCMC/CFI and Lindsey Landowners have worked together to find an acceptable framework to reopen the peak, if passed.
So does this mean that there is no path forward now (for reopening)? Or have CMC/CFI / Lindsey landowners worked on a plan in the event the bill did not pass the hearing?
“Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.” - Ecclesiastes 1:10-11
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:26 pmCMC/CFI and Lindsey Landowners have worked together to find an acceptable framework to reopen the peak, if passed.
So does this mean that there is no path forward now (for reopening)? Or have CMC/CFI / Lindsey landowners worked on a plan in the event the bill did not pass the hearing?
My understanding is the Lindsey landowners have always insisted on a legislative change to the CRUS (which is why they remained closed while the Democrat group reopened in after CMC added additional signage).
I agree with Tom that there just isn’t an appetite to change the CRUS at the moment. Barring a different approach by the Lindsey landowners, it seems certain to remain closed for this summer season (legislative session is half done already) and beyond.
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:39 pmMost of the No votes were saying that because there was only one known case of a property owner being sued in ~20 years (Nelson), that the CRUS currently as written is working as intended and no change is needed.
The currently law isn't working if landowners are fearful of lawsuits and making closures because of this. How hard would it have been to just make the changes?
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
Scott P wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:58 pm
The currently law isn't working if landowners are fearful of lawsuits and making closures because of this. How hard would it have been to just make the changes?
Well Scott, it seems you forgot the simple fact that the job of 'law'-'maker' is not in fact to 'make' 'laws'. Or simply getting people to do their job is hard. One of those. Or maybe both.
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:39 pm
Most of the No votes were saying that because there was only one known case of a property owner being sued in ~20 years (Nelson), that the CRUS currently as written is working as intended and no change is needed.
...which makes the property closures (Lindsey, etc.) seem all the more like an overreaction (one lawsuit in approximately 20 years).
-Tom
17 years ago this spring, I took a leader fall in Clear Creek Canyon and dislocated my ankle and fractured the talus bone (ankle) which required surgery and a couple of screws to fix. The rock we were on that day was open to the public at the time, but had previously been closed and was later closed again. I am not sure of the current status. I can't recall who my insurance carrier was at the time, but when filing the claim they wanted to know where the accident took place. Aside from saying it was on private property in Clear Creek Canyon that was open to the public with estiblished climbing routes, I refused to tell them and told them the accident was entirely my fault as I didn't want the insurance company to contact the landowner. I didn't know who the landowner was although I am sure they could have easily found out. I don't know if the the insurance company would have gone after the landowner to recover my medical costs or not. I guessing landowners could face actions from insurance companies even if the injured party didn't file a civil suit?
dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:39 pm
Most of the No votes were saying that because there was only one known case of a property owner being sued in ~20 years (Nelson), that the CRUS currently as written is working as intended and no change is needed.
...which makes the property closures (Lindsey, etc.) seem all the more like an overreaction (one lawsuit in approximately 20 years).
-Tom
17 years ago this spring, I took a leader fall in Clear Creek Canyon and dislocated my ankle and fractured the talus bone (ankle) which required surgery and a couple of screws to fix. The rock we were on that day was open to the public at the time, but had previously been closed and was later closed again. I am not sure of the current status. I can't recall who my insurance carrier was at the time, but when filing the claim they wanted to know where the accident took place. Aside from saying it was on private property in Clear Creek Canyon that was open to the public with estiblished climbing routes, I refused to tell them and told them the accident was entirely my fault as I didn't want the insurance company to contact the landowner. I didn't know who the landowner was although I am sure they could have easily found out. I don't know if the the insurance company would have gone after the landowner to recover my medical costs or not. I guessing landowners could face actions from insurance companies even if the injured party didn't file a civil suit?
Probably not in that case. Wouldn't have been worth their time, given that the injury took place during a "sporting event", if you will. Assumption of risk and all that, unless a defect on the property caused it (broken bolts, anchors, fixed gear, etc). But I handle premises liability claims for a large commercial insurer and you'd be shocked at some of the s**t for which people file claims against the property owner. And what's worse is that depending on the venue, we are often forced to settle some of these cases due to how plaintiff-friendly the courts are. The fact is that until the courts set a precedence to deny questionable claims, landowners are always going to have a major risk because people will file anything and everything.
...which makes the property closures (Lindsey, etc.) seem all the more like an overreaction (one lawsuit in approximately 20 years).
-Tom
17 years ago this spring, I took a leader fall in Clear Creek Canyon and dislocated my ankle and fractured the talus bone (ankle) which required surgery and a couple of screws to fix. The rock we were on that day was open to the public at the time, but had previously been closed and was later closed again. I am not sure of the current status. I can't recall who my insurance carrier was at the time, but when filing the claim they wanted to know where the accident took place. Aside from saying it was on private property in Clear Creek Canyon that was open to the public with estiblished climbing routes, I refused to tell them and told them the accident was entirely my fault as I didn't want the insurance company to contact the landowner. I didn't know who the landowner was although I am sure they could have easily found out. I don't know if the the insurance company would have gone after the landowner to recover my medical costs or not. I guessing landowners could face actions from insurance companies even if the injured party didn't file a civil suit?
Probably not in that case. Wouldn't have been worth their time, given that the injury took place during a "sporting event", if you will. Assumption of risk and all that, unless a defect on the property caused it (broken bolts, anchors, fixed gear, etc). But I handle premises liability claims for a large commercial insurer and you'd be shocked at some of the s**t for which people file claims against the property owner. And what's worse is that depending on the venue, we are often forced to settle some of these cases due to how plaintiff-friendly the courts are. The fact is that until the courts set a precedence to deny questionable claims, landowners are always going to have a major risk because people will file anything and everything.
Agreed. As a recovering lawyer, settling a claim is all about the cost/benefit analysis, i.e. cost of legal fees to defend, almost never about the merits of the claim.
John, Catslab? I recall helping a climber off that rock around that time who had injuries like what you describe. My buddy and I got him back down the trail to the roadside, I think we stuffed him in a car and he went off to the hospital/ER. 10b route I think, leading on twin ropes. Was that you?
