14ers.com

I was under the impression that the easement would allow hiking, as reported here:

https://www.theactivetimes.com/trincher ... -conserved

Here is the case text for the Nelson vs. US case. The judgment ultimately was made using the Colorado Premises Liability Act ("CPLA"). Basically, Nelson was found to be an invitee vs. trespasser and was subsequently awarded damages. By posting signs the ranch can claim that you are not an invitee, but rather a trespasser. A trespasser may recover only for damages willfully or deliberately caused by the landowner.

EDIT: The above statement is not accurate. I just ran through this case with my lawyer wife and there was more to it than I was reading. The original judgement found CRUS did not apply and therefore Nelson was not considered an invitee under CRUS which if he was would have made the CLPA moot. The US appealed the verdict to the 10th Circuit Court. The circuit court found that CRUS did apply, which means Nelson was an invitee and therefore CLPA did not apply (no damages). However, once the circuit court found that CRUS did apply, it meant that the lower court had to reexamine the rest of the CRUS statute that was not initially considered because that threshold had not been met in the original decision. So, upon reconsideration the lower court found that the exception in CRUS did apply (the US was willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition likely to cause harm) and damages were awarded.

Not to be a smartass, but how does one enforce this? Will they sit at the saddle with a shotgun? Will they call the police? Odds are he’ll call the police. Which would use taxpayer dollars. At that point they are using the dollars of the very people trying to access the land to stop them from coming?

I also remember the venerable TG also posted similar signs on the ridge that goes east off of the col of Lindsey/Huerfano, so it's not like there weren't signs there before. The word was to not drop into there below tree line - I guess because there's no access to get out!

justiner wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:11 pm I also remember the venerable TG also posted similar signs on the ridge that goes east off of the col of Lindsey/Huerfano, so it's not like there weren't signs there before. The word was to not drop into there below tree line - I guess because there's no access to get out!

It goes… there’s switchbacks on the far side after wrapping around to the Huerfano TH. Easy hike back up to LL, obviously private property and I don’t recommend doing this loop.

I wish there was just a waiver I could sign at the trailhead that stated "Hey, I'm a chill guy. I promise not to sue you if I stub my toe or something." Sigh

I hear the rules for accessing this property change, so be sure to have the most up to date information. This was the most up to date info I could find: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Maps/RFW_ ... th_geo.pdf

rijaca wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:12 pm I hear the rules for accessing this property change, so be sure to have the most up to date information. This was the most up to date info I could find: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Maps/RFW_ ... th_geo.pdf

Doesn't show Lindsey, yeah? The last update on this file was Jan 30th. of 2019, so although rules may change, they haven't changed in a while. (also timestamped as updated last on 12/21/18)

A friendly reminder that the billionaire hedge fund owner of the property was more than likely mainly letting people access the property because tax benefits from government and not because he cares about any of us on 14ers.com

Flyingfish wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 5:41 pm Do you know how this affects access to Huerfano, Iron Nipple, and Huerfanito since all 3 of those peaks are split by private property?

This is posted along the south side of the iron nipple / Lindsey saddle

HikerGuy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:02 pm Here is the case text for the Nelson vs. US case. The judgment ultimately was made using the Colorado Premises Liability Act ("CPLA"). Basically, Nelson was found to be an invitee vs. trespasser and was subsequently awarded damages. By posting signs the ranch can claim that you are not an invitee, but rather a trespasser. A trespasser may recover only for damages willfully or deliberately caused by the landowner.

Exactly!

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

The Ranch is one of, if not the, largest ranches in Colorado. The conservation easement protects wildlife habitat, working ranching operations, etc. It is not an access easement. CFI is hopeful that an access easement of some fashion can be established that will allow for climbing through a limited corridor (the gulley and ridge). However, the Nelson case seemed to upend many lawyers and insurance people across the state regarding private landowners who allow public recreational access absent a fee.