Problems with CO 14ers access

“Legal wrangling may end access to Colorado's top peaks

Knight Ridder News

ALMA, Colo. - Four 14,000-foot peaks declared off-limits this summer may be the first in a series of trail closures on private mining claims throughout Colorado.

Or they may be a precaution meant to head off lawsuits, with little more daily consequence than a printed warning on a takeout coffee cup.

U.S. Forest Service rangers started handing out fliers in and around this former mining town at the end of June warning hikers that Mount Bross, Mount Cameron, Mount Democrat and Mount Lincoln were closed because getting to their summits would mean crossing private mining claims whose owners no longer welcomed hikers.

Because they all can be climbed in a one-day hike, the four peaks are among the most popular 14,000-foot peaks, or fourteeners, in Colorado.

"For now these peaks are closed," said Sarah Mayben, head of the Forest Service's South Park Ranger District. "They are private property, and there is nothing we can do."

But rangers, sheriff's deputies and landowners have done nothing to stop hundreds of trespassing climbers. Recently at Kite Lake, the main trailhead for these forbidden fourteeners, there were no signs warning the summits were closed. The only sign, posted by the Forest Service, advised hikers wanting to explore Colorado's highest peaks that they "are in luck because South Park Ranger district is home to four of Colorado's famous 'Fourteeners."'

"It's a bunch of baloney," said Keith Wood, an Australian now living in Seattle who had spent a week climbing in the area and had seen scores of hikers. "There's bloody people all over these bloody mountains, and not a 'no trespassing' sign to be seen."

Steve Smith, visiting from Florida, said he knew the peaks were off-limits.

"We saw something about them being closed on the Internet, but we came anyway," he said.

On July 20 he climbed Democrat and Lincoln and saw about 30 other peak baggers. He didn't see any irate landowners or sheriff's deputies writing tickets.

Sandra West of the Park County Sheriff's Office said the next day that deputies had not issued any tickets or made any arrests of trespassers on the peaks.

Alma's fourteeners were closed when three of the roughly 60 mining-claim owners on the peaks told the Forest Service in June they no longer wanted to allow hikers on their land because they feared allowing access would leave them open to lawsuits if a hiker was injured.

"We have so many ways we can be sued that we thought the simple solution was just telling people to stay off," said Ben Wright, one of the claim owners.

Similar fears eventually could affect large swaths of the high country.

Although mining has disappeared largely in Colorado, the state's mountains are riddled with what the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization, estimates are 800,000 acres of patented mining claims, an area three times the size of Rocky Mountain National Park.

Patented mining claims are sections of public land that became private through the 1872 Mining Act, a frontier-era law that gave away land to encourage development of the West.

Since the claims followed mineral deposits, many are in alpine settings surrounded by public land. These parcels, many of which have not been mined in decades, can be bought, sold and developed like any private land.

"The access issues near Alma are just part of a much larger story," said T.J. Rapoport, executive director of the Fourteeners Initiative, a nonprofit group that builds sustainable trails on Colorado's highest peaks.

"With Colorado's mining history, there are similar issues all over the high country."

A narrow claim cuts across the north shoulder of Pikes Peak, including the Pikes Peak Highway and the Crags Trail.
Mount Sherman, a fourteener south of Mount Democrat, is owned by a company that could bar hikers at any time.

Wilson Peak, near Telluride, Colo., had its most popular trail blocked this year by a private claim owner.

The Sawatch Range in central Colorado, which has 15 peaks topping 14,000 feet, is pockmarked with private holdings.

"Mount Shavano alone has 11 different claims," said Chris Welker, a forester with the Salida Ranger District, which oversees many of the peaks. "So far we haven't had any access issues with them, but the potential is there."

Owners who publicly deny access while quietly looking the other way as hikers cross their claims reap a substantial advantage, said Ken Jaray, a personal-injury lawyer.

"There is a stricter legal standard for a trespasser versus someone who is just visiting," Jaray said.

Under state law, he said, any nontrespassing visitor injured on private land must prove that an injury was caused because a landowner "failed to use reasonable care." But a trespasser must prove the harm was "willfully or deliberately" caused by a landowner.

"Those are very significant differences," Jaray said. Under the "reasonable care" standard, he said, a person who fell through the floor of a rotting mining shack probably could sue successfully to recover damages.

"Whereas under the 'willful and deliberate' standard," he continued, "you'd basically have to prove that the shack was booby-trapped."

Claim owner Wright said owners aren't up at Kite Lake trying to stop anybody.

"People have been climbing those peaks for years and years," he said. "I have no problem with them climbing them. I just have a problem with a lot of stupid laws that say you have to keep your land perfectly safe."

He and other owners have been meeting with officials from the Forest Service, local government and conservation-minded nonprofit groups to try to find a compromise.

Gary Nichols, Park County's director of community development and tourism, said they had discussed purchasing a trail easement across the claims that would keep climbers off private land.
In recent years, purchasing easements has solved many access problems. One recent easement kept a trail open across a mining claim on the saddle between Grays and Torreys peaks, Colorado's two most-climbed fourteeners.

The group also discussed purchasing the land outright.

Wright said he didn't think a trail easement would protect him sufficiently, and he doesn't want to sell his gold-mining claims. Instead, he said, he wants the county to pay for an insurance policy to protect against lawsuits.

Both sides say there is no agreement yet.
Colorado's growing number of peak baggers are not waiting for a final resolution.

"Make us sign a waiver - I don't care," said Robert Schmerr, who drove out from Wisconsin to climb Bross, Cameron, Democrat and Lincoln. "Until then, even if there is a 'no trespassing' sign on every summit, I'm going."


Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises.”

“personally, i dont blame the landowners, considering the stupidity of people and the lawsuit-happy bent of americans”

“Owners who publicly deny access while quietly looking the other way as hikers cross their claims reap a substantial advantage, said Ken Jaray, a personal-injury lawyer.

this is what i would do. i wouldnt want to stop people from climbing, but i wouldnt want to be in danger of a lawsuit, either. once you post a no-trespassing sign, the person is essentially going on at their own risk.

hell, the gubmint is so into taking peoples land for "eminent domain" to build trails, why dont they take peoples land, when doing so would be doing them a favor?

on parts of the AT, there was resentment towards hikers because of eminent domain taking their land for the trail. personally, id rather road-walk than have the locals taking their frustration out on me. but some of the things they do go too far.
last edited: 8/08/05 6:31:11 PM”

“I wonder how much a 14,000' peak costs? I want one.”

“Owners who publicly deny access while quietly looking the other way as hikers cross their claims reap a substantial advantage, said Ken Jaray, a personal-injury lawyer.

Can't blame them...

Its not that they own the peaks, just the land around them.”

“Thanks for pissing me of, lizs (not you personally of course).”

“Aaaack! Just letting you know so you guys living there can spearhead something pro-active.”

“lizs

I'm upset too. You told me if I moved to Colorado you would move here too. Here I am waiting for your arrival.

Perhaps I should drink more coffee.”

“I say "hike on." Screw the "land owner."

Land ownership is still one of the most bizarre constructs ever developed by man.”

“LOL, adventurist aka "Feeney"”

“:P

Well, you atleast have to visit every once in a while!”

“Land ownership is still one of the most bizarre constructs ever developed by man.”
karma police

so are trolls
last edited: 8/09/05 4:41:28 PM”

“on parts of the AT, there was resentment towards hikers because of eminent domain taking their land for the trail. personally, id rather road-walk than have the locals taking their frustration out on me. but some of the things they do go too far. - crash

What'd they do?”

“vandalize cars, harass hikers, but the worst i heard was stringing up fishing line at just the right level for somebody to come along and get hurt”

“There was a guy dumping his garbage, all of it, including his insulin needles, on the AT in that general area for awhile as well. It seems like I read they finally caught him red-handed and stopped him though.
last edited: 8/09/05 4:58:45 PM”

“oh yea i heard aobut that guy. makes me sick”

“In Colorado, landowners do not have to post "no trespassing" signs on their property. I know this from experience.

To make a long story somewhat short, I was ticketed and charged with second-degree criminal trespassing in Gilpin County,Colorado, while I was snowshoeing. The land was not posted. In court, the judge said it is up to every person to have a corrct map showing private property; the land does not have to be posted. It sucks, huh?

Just for the record, I had no idea I was on private property, and neither did the other 40 people who had to go to court for the same thing. I would never trespass deliberately - I respect other people's property.”

“There's bloody people all over these bloody mountains, and not a 'no trespassing' sign to be seen."

if there's bloody people and bloody mountains they need more than no trespassing signs, they need a medic”

“Woodzie

You rebel you!”

“Hey, adventurist, how are you and Tequila Woman liking the new house?

Me, I hate Tennessee :-(

I am staying away from TR for a while. Too many software glitches over there. I can't deal with it anymore.”

“woodzie, was it a misdemeanor? What was the fine?”

“woodzie hates Tenn cause the Smokies are kicking her butt =)
last edited: 8/09/05 6:20:09 PM”

“Lizs, I can't remember what it was, other than second-degree criminal trespassing. It was thrown off the record after one year(if I behaved, which I did). The fine was something like $130. It was several years ago and I have forgotten all the specifics.

Ewker, the humidity is kicking my butt :-( But yeah, the Smokies are up and down and up and up and down a little then up again...”

“Hey, Crash Bang, or whatever your name is....

Land ownership is a relevant topic to this thread, since of course, it's land ownership that is causing the problem.

Is anyone that expresses an opinion you don't agree with, or perhaps don't understand, a troll? Is that what you call them?

I don't recall having any exchanges with you whatsoever, so I think your name calling is a little harsh.
last edited: 8/09/05 6:24:11 PM”

“woodzie - LOL! Reminds me ... One of my best friends is the most environmentally friendly liberal dude you'd know - He is always picking up other's recyclables, etc...

He tried to get rid of some yard waste, and the rules are so confusing, he got stopped by a cop and was warned for litering. I was cracking up.”

“CB chill, Karma has posted here before and he isn't a troll”

“Well, hurry up and get back here!

We close this Friday.”

“I say "hike on." Screw the "land owner."

thats not the issue. the issue is, "landowners" dont want to get sued by stupid hikers who fall into a hole and get hurt. theyre not trying to keep people from hiking, theyre trying to keep them from suing. besides, if there is no such thing as land ownership, then they defineitely have no responsibility to make the land safe

but i sort of agree we dont own land, but we pay for the right to tend the land”

“If you're trespassing, you have no case in a civil suit, so the "don't hike on my land cause I don't want to get sued" excuse is just BS.

They just don't want hikers on their land.”

“Me and my hubsand Gissmaeioux and my daddy go trutspassin all the time. Some times we get verry sneeky. That is what we have to do to go walkin in the woods aroun heer...”

“It is very simple.

You pay for a pass ($1/day, $5/week, $50 for the year).

When you purchase your pass,

1. You pledge (i.e., SIGN and print your name) to NOT enter any dwellings.

2. You relieve landowners of any liability (again you SIGN and print your name) for
your travels over the private property.

The key point is this: Most owners do not care if you hike on their land. However,
they do care if you do "inappropriate things"
(example: entering mine shafts cleared marked with DANGER) and you cry 'Foul' in a court of law and expect to compensated for your injuries incurred by your negligent actions!

Personally, should I hike in this area again, I would find out just whose land I would be crossing, then ask for permission to cross their land, I would offer to make a small donation (say $50) for lifetime hiking access (w/waiver for injury) to a charity of their choice.

It is ALL about respect.

Respect their position.

Respect their land.

For those of you who take an owners-be-damned approach and will trespass "regardless" consider this:

Imagine that I entered your home in very muddy boots, walked in all the rooms of your home/apt and then walked out. How would you feel? Violated? Outraged, perhaps.
THINK about it.

Your actions today can and will dictate how owners react to future hikers.

Be ACCOUNTABLE and you should have no worries.”

“youre making a big assumption, kp”