Democrat, Lincoln, Bross

[IntrepidXJ]

Mt Bross is closed not because anyone has chosen to close it but instead the closure is the result of failure to completely verify access.

I'm fairly positive that hiking across private property in Colorado is legal as long as it is not posted closed by the property owners (or you are asked to leave in person by the owners).

[BillMiddlebrook]

^I don't think so.

I believe it's Third degree criminal trespass when entering private property (land) without permission.

http://www.abclegaldocs.com/Downloads_s ... g_Laws.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[IntrepidXJ]

I guess I should've been more specific above....instead of private property I should have said 'unimproved and apparently unused land'

http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_ ... sl_113.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land which that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.

[Kojones]

I guess I should've been more specific above....instead of private property I should have said 'unimproved and apparently unused land'

http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_ ... sl_113.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land which that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.

I am no land expert, but believe also if a landowner does not make active effort to prevent the public from utilizing the private land for a period of time, it could be considered a public easement just by the sole fact that the public uses it regularly, has been for some time, and has the expectation to be able to use it in the future. I would love for someone with knowledge of the laws in this area to confirm/deny/correct this. But I swear I've heard of that before.

Kojones

[Tortoise1]

"The true summit of Mt Bross remains closed at this time, due to inability to get contact with all of the land owners (100% consensus is needed by all landowners in order to open access.) Hikers can do the full loop (up Democrat, over Cameron, to Lincoln, then around the summit of Bross), but are not granted access to the Bross summit."
-Taken from the Colorado Fourteener Initiative page on Mt Bross.

Mt Bross is closed not because anyone has chosen to close it but instead the closure is the result of failure to completely verify access. Every year hundreds (maybe even a few thousand) people wander over to the summit without conflict and I suspect the situation will remain that way for the foreseeable future. I also don't think anyone on this website would question your checkbox of Bross if you choose to follow Scott P's suggestion. Have a great hike.

If unanimous owner consent is required for opening access it may well be required for prosecuting trespassers too, which makes it seem pretty unlikely, especially if it's true that they can't even find everyone.

[adamjm]

I guess I should've been more specific above....instead of private property I should have said 'unimproved and apparently unused land'

http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_ ... sl_113.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land which that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private land or the forbidden part of the land.

The summit closure is posted at the trailhead

[IntrepidXJ]

The summit closure is posted at the trailhead

Not by the property owners. The USFS cannot post private property as closed.

[adamjm]

Well, they did. Go read the sign.

Not sure what the issue is. Go hike to the true summit if you want to.

[Scott P]

Not by the property owners. The USFS cannot post private property as closed.

I believe CFI posted it, rather than the Forest Service.

[Jim Davies]

Not by the property owners. A non-profit cannot post private property that they don't own as closed.

[larkinrx2]

gatesign.jpg (80.14 KiB) Viewed 200 times

maybe one of these would help?

[GeorgiaTyler]

We made it almost to the TH in a ford focus. I saw the closure sign at the TH and decided to not summit Bross that day.... Until I saw literally everyone going for it, and I changed my mind and followed the crowd. I'm usually a leader, but that day I was a follower and it seemed ok.