14ers.com

Thank you Lloyd for all the work you and CFI do to find tangible solutions to problems. Just made a donation to CFI.

Aphelion wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:33 am

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:13 am I don't remember the exact wording on the sign, but my interpretation was that access to the summit is still permitted, but you aren't supposed to go off trail at all - e.g. down into the basin on the other side. I believe the sign says something like, "Private Land Protected by a Conservation Easement" - which I take to mean the trail itself (the easement) remains open to the public.

The sign very clearly states that public access is not allowed. A conservation easement is an agreement that controls use and development of land, it's not permission to enter.

Like I said, I don't remember the exact wording. But the impression I got was that access to the summit was allowed. Anybody got a better pic of the sign? I didn't think to take one when I was up there.

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:45 pm

Aphelion wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:33 am

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:13 am I don't remember the exact wording on the sign, but my interpretation was that access to the summit is still permitted, but you aren't supposed to go off trail at all - e.g. down into the basin on the other side. I believe the sign says something like, "Private Land Protected by a Conservation Easement" - which I take to mean the trail itself (the easement) remains open to the public.

The sign very clearly states that public access is not allowed. A conservation easement is an agreement that controls use and development of land, it's not permission to enter.

Like I said, I don't remember the exact wording. But the impression I got was that access to the summit was allowed. Anybody got a better pic of the sign? I didn't think to take one when I was up there.

Lloyd just stated:

yardman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:56 pm Colorado Fourteeners Initiative has been working with the Ranch for several years...
So, for now, please respect the closure. We hope to have this resolved by next climbing season, if possible. Stay tuned.

Sounds like they're in contact with the owners and - for now - this is indeed a closure of the trail as well.

Ptglhs wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:19 am I hope a few thousand people hike up there and pee on the sign before summiting. "Please respect the private property closure" is a siren song of the oppressed embracing the chains which shackle them. Why should we respect it? Do the 'owners' respect our ambition to recreate on land which they aren't using? Owners respect very little save their own avarice. By what right does anyone claim ownership of the earth? We have reified private land ownership, cordoned off the commons, and commodified nature. I shall respect the private property rights in the alpine as much as they respect human dignity, which is to say not at all.

Love it!

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:45 pm

Aphelion wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:33 am

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:13 am I don't remember the exact wording on the sign, but my interpretation was that access to the summit is still permitted, but you aren't supposed to go off trail at all - e.g. down into the basin on the other side. I believe the sign says something like, "Private Land Protected by a Conservation Easement" - which I take to mean the trail itself (the easement) remains open to the public.

The sign very clearly states that public access is not allowed. A conservation easement is an agreement that controls use and development of land, it's not permission to enter.

Like I said, I don't remember the exact wording. But the impression I got was that access to the summit was allowed. Anybody got a better pic of the sign? I didn't think to take one when I was up there.

A picture of the sign is the very first post in this thread. It reads: "NOTICE You are leaving public lands and entering private lands that are protected by a Conservation Easement. PUBLIC ACCESS IS NOT ALLOWED"

For anyone confused by the 'easement,' a conservation easement is a contract between a landowner and some flavor of land trust or government agency in which the land is protected from some form of use or development, and the landowner gets some sort of tax credit in exchange. It's about stopping Xcel from forcing a conventional easement through to run power lines. It blocks access, not grants it.

Aphelion wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:25 pm

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:45 pm

Aphelion wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:33 am

The sign very clearly states that public access is not allowed. A conservation easement is an agreement that controls use and development of land, it's not permission to enter.

Like I said, I don't remember the exact wording. But the impression I got was that access to the summit was allowed. Anybody got a better pic of the sign? I didn't think to take one when I was up there.

A picture of the sign is the very first post in this thread. It reads: "NOTICE You are leaving public lands and entering private lands that are protected by a Conservation Easement. PUBLIC ACCESS IS NOT ALLOWED"

For anyone confused by the 'easement,' a conservation easement is a contract between a landowner and some flavor of land trust or government agency in which the land is protected from some form of use or development, and the landowner gets some sort of tax credit in exchange. It's about stopping Xcel from forcing a conventional easement through to run power lines. It blocks access, not grants it.

I saw the pic, just couldn't make out the wording. Not trying to be pedantic, but wouldn't it depend on the details outlined in the easement? From what I could find, this easement has been in place since 2012 and is managed by the USFWS. Just seems odd to me that the easement wouldn't include continued access to established hiking trails. At any rate, I'm glad I did it on the first day of my trip and not the last. Looks like I was the last person to summit before the signs went up.

I wonder if this is in any way related to the recent trespass of neighboring peaks and landowners getting tired of people disregarding private property.

Signage on the trail and posts on this forum or on the trailhead/route description doesn't seem to deter selfish individuals. There were plenty of people still going up Democrat et al., while it was closed and they continued posting conditions updates here and on social media.

There is a certain irony to the few reprobates here crying foul of this property owner establishing a Conservation Easement and restricting use. By its very nature, this land has been made permanently protected by the agreement from even the land owner and for future generations against development. If one is truly interested in protecting the earth and it's wildlife, this would seem the ultimate designation to do just that. Think just making it National Forest land would do the same? Think again. Now, get off his property.

Strider29 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:37 pm
I saw the pic, just couldn't make out the wording. Not trying to be pedantic, but wouldn't it depend on the details outlined in the easement? From what I could find, this easement has been in place since 2012 and is managed by the USFWS. Just seems odd to me that the easement wouldn't include continued access to established hiking trails. At any rate, I'm glad I did it on the first day of my trip and not the last. Looks like I was the last person to summit before the signs went up.

That was good timing. I'm a little jealous, I had been thinking about re-climbing Lindsey this fall. But yeah, would be up to the specific easement agreement, and I'm not sure why they felt the need to specify that an easement was in place. But I'd be very surprised if the owner gave up any ability to control access to his private ranch.

The property owner should hire some Afghan refugees to guard the mountain from trespassers. Just give them a PKM, couple RPGs, and let them nestle up in a rock bunker.

Private Property is Private Property. There are plenty of accessible mountains in the state as it is.

XterraRob wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:08 pm The property owner should hire some Afghan refugees to guard the mountain from trespassers. Just give them a PKM, couple RPGs, and let them nestle up in a rock bunker.

Private Property is Private Property. There are plenty of accessible mountains in the state as it is.

Solid advice.

yardman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:56 pm However, the recent Nelson vs. USA case (bicyclist injured on an unofficial bike path on the Air Force Academy) has caused increased concern by landowners that the Colorado Recreational Use Statute may be insufficient in protecting them from lawsuits by injured recreationists. This was one of the reasons precipitating the closure of the DeCaLiBron Loop earlier in the season.

Lloyd Athearn, Executive Director
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative

I don't think situations like this would come up as often if it wasn't for an exceptionally few "bad cookies" out there who don't know how to take responsibility for their own actions. Same train of thought as an obese person suing McDonald's for making them fat or a person dying from emphysema suing Camel after smoking for 30 years.

It's shameful, disgusting and juvenile to place blame on someone or something else when the whole ideation to recreate comes from the person.
It ruins things for everyone else. And unfortunately, our f*ed up legal system has pretty much pushed common sense out of decision-making & laws in favor of black/white vision.
So we end up with stupid circumstances like this that shouldn't be happening in the first place.

I hate seeing this. I have a lot of fond memories up there. I hope things get worked out.