14ers.com

PJ88 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:37 pm

justiner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:22 pmsign.jpg

Cameron is still a go!

Which is great, as that is the only one I have not summited.

jmanner wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:05 pm Seriously doubt it’s altruistic, my guess is they are waiting for the day they can make some real money. $6,000 is not much money to spend on property of that size.

This makes me wonder how they're spending so little money on the property. I'm pretty sure that Cielo Vista ranch far exceeds that number just in annual porta potty maintenance for the restricted numbers of hikers that come in.

ltlFish99 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:13 pm

PJ88 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:37 pm

justiner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:22 pmsign.jpg

Cameron is still a go!

Which is great, as that is the only one I have not summited.

There is no way to summit Cameron without passing through closed private lands. Per the Colorado Fourteener Initiative's statement elsewhere on this page, there is no legal way to summit any of the four peaks right now. The closure is temporary - ideally, you will be able to go climb it safely and legally this summer.

ltlFish99 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:13 pm

PJ88 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:37 pm

justiner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:22 pmsign.jpg

Cameron is still a go!

Which is great, as that is the only one I have not summited.

Side note, but how did this happen for you? Just curious, as Cameron is usually a footnote in the center of the Decalibron loop.

Seems we should start looking into alternative ways to climb.
https://14ers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59840

https://coloradosun.com/2021/04/30/colo ... rat-bross/

“I could really see the owners’ frustrations. If you want your land preserved and protected, but you don’t want to put up fences and keep everyone out, you are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Makes sense that they don’t want to be sued. But owning property for the purpose of future mining seems to contract the protection and preservation intentions, as others here have mentioned. It’s good the closure’s only planned til June 1.

pizza-sandwich wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:34 pm

Trotter wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:08 am

pizza-sandwich wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:28 pm
i have no intention of “respecting” their closure. mining companies can kiss my ass.

The non profit that built the trails you use for free to get to the summits, is also asking you to respect the closure. You want CFI to kiss your ass too?

it’s a values argument.

i reject capitalism in all its forms. private land ownership—especially in this example—is immoral.

the CFI is capitulating to unethical demands of unethical men and i will not do the same. anyone that holds land hostage can kiss my ass, anyone who respects their hostage taking isn’t someone i want to associate with.

The CFI is trying to protect access (for everyone) past this one month. But f**k em eh? Damn filthy capitalists!!!!1111

[/quote]
random question if you know the answer, why do they still want to own the property, and not sell it to the govt/CFI?
[/quote]

Because the miners' research shows there is still potential, enough to cover operation costs and still end up with some yield. Actually, a lot of patented claim owners do give their land back to the state, it happens quite often. Mostly people who inherited claims that have been in the family for generations and have no interest in working/maintaining the claim or dealing with the cost, headache, and liability. We're talking smalltime, not the commercial operations you see on tv.

As mentioned, patented claims haven't been granted since 1994. Also as mentioned, there are plenty of rules dictating what you can and can't do, and big costs in addition to the fees, like insurance, hazard mitigation, reclamation, etc. Things that quickly eat away at potential profit. It's an involved process, for sure, you have to know what you're doing and it's a LOT of work. Which is also why people are giving up patented claims, either selling them (look online, you'll see literally thousands for sale in CO... 8 claims/72 inaccessable acres just below the summit of Mt. Princeton... ) or turning them back to the state.

RhodoRose wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 3:41 am
Because the miners' research shows there is still potential, enough to cover operation costs and still end up with some yield. Actually, a lot of patented claim owners do give their land back to the state, it happens quite often. Mostly people who inherited claims that have been in the family for generations and have no interest in working/maintaining the claim or dealing with the cost, headache, and liability. We're talking smalltime, not the commercial operations you see on tv.

Potential is the word to use - it's no guarantee that the mine would be profitable. I do think it's more speculation that the price of gold will go up substantially, and if it's cheap to just hold onto a claim for a few cents/day, then the gamble could be worth it. And even then, these mines are booms and busts, so any financial gain would be short lived. Personally, anyone that buys a mining claim on top of a 14,000' mountain in order to mine it in 2021 is not thinking clearly.

I'm a little surprised not more of this is being done in a public way - a public comment period when a new mine is being built isn't out of the ordinary. I can certainly understand people feeling uncomfortable that entities like the CFI working with landowners in private, and that they promise to have everyone's best interests in mind and oh: if you could just stay out of it that would great. Is that not going to leave a bad taste in some people's mouths? I get that 9 months out of the year when they're not directing volunteer trail crews, they're lawyering and wealth managing, but perhaps they could be a little more sensitive on how they present themselves - they sure can assert they're power when they want to, it seems. My $0.02 for all that's worth.

stoopdude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:20 pm

ltlFish99 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:13 pm

PJ88 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:37 pm

Cameron is still a go!

Which is great, as that is the only one I have not summited.

Side note, but how did this happen for you? Just curious, as Cameron is usually a footnote in the center of the Decalibron loop.

We skipped cameron when we were coming from Democrat to Lincoln, then to bross. I believe the intention was to return to Cameron, but then we just descended Bross. It was over 30 years ago, and I forget the reasons why.

It's ok with me, as I am a gain 3,000 feet on Every 14er summit type of individual and wanted to go hike Cameron from low enough to achieve this.

justiner wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:24 pm

RhodoRose wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 3:41 am
Because the miners' research shows there is still potential, enough to cover operation costs and still end up with some yield. Actually, a lot of patented claim owners do give their land back to the state, it happens quite often. Mostly people who inherited claims that have been in the family for generations and have no interest in working/maintaining the claim or dealing with the cost, headache, and liability. We're talking smalltime, not the commercial operations you see on tv.

Potential is the word to use - it's no guarantee that the mine would be profitable. I do think it's more speculation that the price of gold will go up substantially, and if it's cheap to just hold onto a claim for a few cents/day, then the gamble could be worth it. And even then, these mines are booms and busts, so any financial gain would be short lived. Personally, anyone that buys a mining claim on top of a 14,000' mountain in order to mine it in 2021 is not thinking clearly.

I'm a little surprised not more of this is being done in a public way - a public comment period when a new mine is being built isn't out of the ordinary. I can certainly understand people feeling uncomfortable that entities like the CFI working with landowners in private, and that they promise to have everyone's best interests in mind and oh: if you could just stay out of it that would great. Is that not going to leave a bad taste in some people's mouths? I get that 9 months out of the year when they're not directing volunteer trail crews, they're lawyering and wealth managing, but perhaps they could be a little more sensitive on how they present themselves - they sure can assert they're power when they want to, it seems. My $0.02 for all that's worth.

I'm working with the group - it's honestly pretty transparent - more than 20 organizations are involved in conversations in some way. Multiple rank-and-file CMC members and volunteers are participating, myself included. If you want to get involved, reach out to CFI or the CMC. They aren't necessarily publishing their strategy online or as press releases, as it's still being drafted, and it may require a push for legislation that will face steep opposition. Announcing those plans early on would likely doom any campaign later on by giving the opposing side time to lobby and stamp out potential changes - this has happened several times in the past on this specific issue. If and when a campaign for change starts, they'll be quite open about it - we'll need lots of grassroots support from outdoor enthusiasts to get the job done.

Keep the faith - every single group involved wants to open these peaks, even the landowners. If you want to learn more or get involved, just reach out to the CMC. They'd be happy to chat and share more.

amderr22 wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 4:45 pm
Keep the faith - every single group involved wants to open these peaks, even the landowners. If you want to learn more or get involved, just reach out to the CMC. They'd be happy to chat and share more.

I have a real hard time believe that these folks are acting in good faith. The minute they think they can turn a profit strip mining these peaks they will. I appreciate the hard work of CFI and everyone else, but it isn’t believable the “land owners” are acting as good stewards of the land here.

I tell you what, it’s difficult to be diplomatic about these landowners.