14ers.com

Will this have any impact on ability to access Bartlett illegally?

EigenDylan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:23 pm Right to roam laws would be super cool.

Hard agree, however: all the popular examples of right to roam laws that I've had the privilege to visit...people tend to treat that land with way more respect. The tragedy of the commons has plenty of poignant examples in this country and this state.

EigenDylan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:23 pm There should be consequences for trying to weaponize private land to close off public land like this.

They aren't closing off any public land. The landowner only owns one small piece of land near the parking lot and then the summits themselves. There really is no public land that they are blocking access to.

Democrat showing the closed section:
Lincoln and Bross showing the closed sections:
None of the sections block off any access to public land other than a tiny little sliver on Bross (if you can see it)

I agree about the right to roam laws though. I don't think they will ever happen in the US though, at least not in our lifetimes.

Anyway, like a mentioned before, you can get very close to the summit of Democrat and Bross without touching any private land at all.

Scott P wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:14 pm

EigenDylan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:23 pm There should be consequences for trying to weaponize private land to close off public land like this.

They aren't closing off any public land. The landowner only owns one small piece of land near the parking lot and then the summits themselves. There really is no public land that they are blocking access to.

Technically they own a significant portion of the Kite Lake trailhead itself - so I believe they have the legal right to close the trailhead, as happened back in 2004/5. That means there's no where to park except along the forest access road, which is not typically allowed - so unless you're willing to hike a few miles in from further down the road, it will be difficult to access the entire area - though technically possible.

amderr22 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:25 pmTechnically they own a significant portion of the Kite Lake trailhead itself so I believe they have the legal right to close the trailhead

There is a public easement along the road to Kite Lake (and the road is maintained with taxpayer money), so no, they can't block that off. They can only block parking on their small patch of private land. The trailhead is still on public land. The problem is that there are usually so many cars there that the parking places on the public land usually are taken so once they are filled people have to park on the private land. If the public land parking places aren't all taken however, you can still park there. The landowner has no authority to keep people from parking on public land. The landowner can however block people from parking on private land.

If the land owner bans parking on his property, you can't park in the red area. You can still park (approaximate boundary) in the green area (where the campground is).

I'm not sure if parking is allowed along the NF section of the road just before the private land. I haven't been recently. Usually (but not always!) it is allowed on public land as long as you aren't impeading traffic, blocking an access road, creating a hazard, or parking on sensitive or flammable vegetation (and not on a highway ROW). If it is allowed, you could still walk the road to Kite Lake. Regardless you can always park at Kite Lake-when there is space available.

I am aware they "own" the summits. I called it public land because that is how it is currently used by the public. I don't plan on climbing these during the closure, but I think people should if they want to. Landowners will earn my respect when the return the land to the people. Thanks to Scott for finding those informative maps!

Jorts wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:34 pm Will this have any impact on ability to access Bartlett illegally?

Isn't Bartlett close to not being a 13er? I good portion of that mountain was chopped off last I checked.

quackquackcolorado wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:06 am Isn't Bartlett close to not being a 13er? I good portion of that mountain was chopped off last I checked.

It may very well no longer be ranked because it is losing elevation as Freeport and climax mine remove the base of it causing subsidence. It is still well over 13k. Bartlett is being used (and destroyed, but that's another issue), and it's damn dangerous to go cavorting around near an active industrial mining and milling operation. The groups / individuals who "own" Democrat/Lincoln/Gross, or others who own Culebra, aren't using them, and there's no more hazard going up there than other areas of national forest.

Ptglhs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:14 am The groups / individuals who "own" Democrat/Lincoln/Gross, or others who own Culebra, aren't using them, and there's no more hazard going up there than other areas of national forest.

Not quite. There's active mining going on intermittently all over Buckskin Gulch and not just on the summits. (Culebra was never a mining district, that's a different issue.) As for there being no more hazard in Kite Lake basin than other areas of national forest, well, that depends on which national forest. There's patented, active, inactive, and abandoned shafts, adits, and glory holes all over the CO mineral belt. Some are filled in, some exploded shut, some gated and locked, some collapsed, many exposed, hidden, unmarked, or unstable. We don't know where all of them are located. The hazards, though, are real and not to be taken lightly. To research known claim locations and status, you have to look at county assessor records (which may or may not be updated).

EigenDylan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:23 pm Maybe Deb Haaland can go to the CEO's house and punch them in the face.

EigenDylan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:04 am. I don't plan on climbing these during the closure, but I think people should if they want to. Landowners will earn my respect when the return the land to the people.

This kind of immaturity will only make the situation worse. You dont get to threaten violence when people don't do what you want them to and encouraging others to break the law is never ok. Nobody's going to give up their land rights because someone on the internet doesnt believe in property and I dont think they care about your respect.

EigenDylan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:23 pm A mining company concerned about LNT. Hilarious. There should be consequences for trying to weaponize private land to close off public land like this. Maybe Deb Haaland can go to the CEO's house and punch them in the face. In all seriousness, the state government should do more to prevent landowners from acting like this. Right to roam laws would be super cool.

You gotta chuckle at the irony of them being irritated with LNT. It's laughable.

I don't understand why anyone cares about the parking lot. You can go via an alternate route if one TH is closed. That should weed out a substantial amount of climbers too. Curious how summit access will play out though...