Park County Road 696

Trailhead condition requests, questions, alerts, etc.
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
SkaredShtles
Posts: 2526
Joined: 5/20/2013
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by SkaredShtles »

k_fergie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 10:20 am
SkaredShtles wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 10:07 am Is it possible that it is simply a seasonal closure? Here it appears folks were driving to the pass from that side last summer:

https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/colo ... quito-pass
That is a different road that is still under seasonal closure. CR696 branches off the main Mosquito Pass road and heads up south mosquito creek before hitting the seasonal closure point on Mosquito Pass
Ah - interesting. Thanks for clarifying.
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 363
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 234 52 7
Trip Reports (6)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by k_fergie »

Chicago Transplant wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 11:24 am Yeah the bigger picture is what worries me too, while right now this is a localized issue at South Mosquito Creek and there are alternate ways to access the peaks, the map in the Bunker Hill links shows private parcels all over the main Mosquito Pass road
/cut
Yeah exactly. By the same logic they are currently using closing CR696, they could do the same using this lower parcel (circled, blue) down on CR12, cutting off access to the whole basin, which is over 50% USFS and BLM public land, as well as a historical site.

I'll give Park County a call this week and see what they have to say about the situation. I am sure that they are aware, as this road is plowed in the winter.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I thought, I taught, I wrought
PJ88
Posts: 200
Joined: 5/10/2020
14ers: 43 
13ers: 15
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by PJ88 »

Is security around these mines really this big of a deal? I have heard a number of stories about mine employees doing things like this or confronting people even if it is unjustified. I get you would want to protect your investment and property, but how many people are really going out into the mountains and trying to root around mine property? All of the stories I hear come from hikers who have no interest in doing anything illegal so I am genuinely curious if this is a real issue for mine owners.
OnlineOnline
derekpetrie
Posts: 87
Joined: 9/28/2019
14ers: 17 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by derekpetrie »

PJ88 wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:01 pm Is security around these mines really this big of a deal? I have heard a number of stories about mine employees doing things like this or confronting people even if it is unjustified. I get you would want to protect your investment and property, but how many people are really going out into the mountains and trying to root around mine property? All of the stories I hear come from hikers who have no interest in doing anything illegal so I am genuinely curious if this is a real issue for mine owners.
Unfortunately yes… with legal precedent set from the case where the cyclist sued USAFA and won, finding the US govt liable because they failed to mark and mitigate hazards for the public who accessed Academy trails.

If you are a landowner, and one who might be sitting on hundreds of millions worth of minerals, you don’t want to find yourself in the same spot as USAFA. And when the property in question is a mine under exploration, the safest and most efficient thing to do is restrict all access. While I’m all for public land, I’m also glad someone is digging up the stuff we need so I can type this post out on my magic pocket computer!
PJ88
Posts: 200
Joined: 5/10/2020
14ers: 43 
13ers: 15
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by PJ88 »

derekpetrie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:14 pm
PJ88 wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:01 pm Is security around these mines really this big of a deal? I have heard a number of stories about mine employees doing things like this or confronting people even if it is unjustified. I get you would want to protect your investment and property, but how many people are really going out into the mountains and trying to root around mine property? All of the stories I hear come from hikers who have no interest in doing anything illegal so I am genuinely curious if this is a real issue for mine owners.
Unfortunately yes… with legal precedent set from the case where the cyclist sued USAFA and won, finding the US govt liable because they failed to mark and mitigate hazards for the public who accessed Academy trails.

If you are a landowner, and one who might be sitting on hundreds of millions worth of minerals, you don’t want to find yourself in the same spot as USAFA. And when the property in question is a mine under exploration, the safest and most efficient thing to do is restrict all access. While I’m all for public land, I’m also glad someone is digging up the stuff we need so I can type this post out on my magic pocket computer!
Ah, ok - it is more an issue of liability concerns rather than theft. That makes more sense.
OnlineOnline
derekpetrie
Posts: 87
Joined: 9/28/2019
14ers: 17 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by derekpetrie »

k_fergie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 9:45 am Thanks for the information everyone! I'll do some reading today.



The gate is right on the property line of the mine, but the critical part is that the road continues through their private property (with a documented county easement) to USFS land. They are effectively hijacking the public land by closing a public road
It’s not really hijacking. I’ve seen far worse situations in the western slope where someone will literally block off the .25 mile swatch of county road that cuts through their property, effectively creating a nature/hunting preserve on public land only the private landowner can access.

In this case you can still get to the same USFS land from County Rd 12. And even though 696 ends in USFS land, you’d be trespassing to access any of the peaks in that basin.
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 363
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 234 52 7
Trip Reports (6)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by k_fergie »

derekpetrie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:28 pm
k_fergie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 9:45 am Thanks for the information everyone! I'll do some reading today.



The gate is right on the property line of the mine, but the critical part is that the road continues through their private property (with a documented county easement) to USFS land. They are effectively hijacking the public land by closing a public road
It’s not really hijacking. I’ve seen far worse situations in the western slope where someone will literally block off the .25 mile swatch of county road that cuts through their property, effectively creating a nature/hunting preserve on public land only the private landowner can access.

In this case you can still get to the same USFS land from County Rd 12. And even though 696 ends in USFS land, you’d be trespassing to access any of the peaks in that basin.
The defense of "other people do it worse" is the worst and laziest excuse I've heard. Just because others do it worse, does not mean that it is OK.

Regarding legal access to these peaks, the great irony here is that CR 696 is the best legal way to access London (by avoiding the PP on the west ridge, the S slopes looked like a great snow climb), which is on public land that is currently being blocked off using classic intimidation tactics. Likely with knowledge and tacit support from the county. The other peaks are also legal to access, as the public roads, via easements, lead to USFS/BLM inholdings that include all of the summits in this mess of historical mining claims. Except Pennsylvania, which ironically, is the most climbed of any of these and has a privately owned summit.

Even in the case of the Decalibro situation, the landowners up there cannot close the road to the public land when they are concerned about liability issues, they can only close off their land.
I thought, I taught, I wrought
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6592
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58  47  19 
13ers: 174 45 37
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

derekpetrie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:28 pm And even though 696 ends in USFS land, you’d be trespassing to access any of the peaks in that basin.
CR 696 loops around the west side of London Mtn and at 12,000' enters two large USFS and BLM parcels, which include 13ers Mount Evans and Dyer Mountain. So, yes, from 696 you can get to some summits by sticking entirely to public land.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experienc ... 87a2ab6015

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 656983.pdf
Proud to be against fascism, racism, xenophobia and stupidity.
derekpetrie
Posts: 87
Joined: 9/28/2019
14ers: 17 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by derekpetrie »

BillMiddlebrook wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:49 pm
derekpetrie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 3:28 pm And even though 696 ends in USFS land, you’d be trespassing to access any of the peaks in that basin.
CR 696 loops around the west side of London Mtn and at 12,000' enters two large USFS and BLM parcels, which include 13ers Mount Evans and Dyer Mountain. So, yes, from 696 you can get to some summits by sticking entirely to public land.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experienc ... 87a2ab6015

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 656983.pdf
Thanks Bill, I stand corrected and see where USFS 696 crosses that wedge of BLM and USFS land.

Fergie - Not making excuses, pointing out what already exists in the legal landscape.
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6592
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58  47  19 
13ers: 174 45 37
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

I've used that approach to do a lot of skiing in the basin but I don't access it that way much in summer.
Proud to be against fascism, racism, xenophobia and stupidity.
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 363
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 234 52 7
Trip Reports (6)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by k_fergie »

derekpetrie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 4:11 pm Fergie - Not making excuses, pointing out what already exists in the legal landscape.
Fair enough. However, I will play the semantics card and say what you describe already exists in the illegal landscape :lol:

Bill, I saw people driving down there last summer from Repeater/Kuss, though I accessed from CR12. I assumed they were public 4x4ers and there was not a gate on CR696. But looking back there is a possibility it was mine workers and it had been gated even then. CR696 seems like it would have good skiing, it looked good this weekend.
I thought, I taught, I wrought
User avatar
BillMiddlebrook
Site Administrator
Posts: 6592
Joined: 7/25/2004
14ers: 58  47  19 
13ers: 174 45 37
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Park County Road 696

Post by BillMiddlebrook »

k_fergie wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 4:39 pmCR696 seems like it would have good skiing, it looked good this weekend.
Caked right now.
Proud to be against fascism, racism, xenophobia and stupidity.