Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Info, conditions and gear related to skiing or riding Colorado Peaks, including the 14ers! Ski/Ride Trip Reports

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby pioletski » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:55 pm

Tallgrass: I'm giving up on you. Not only do you fail to understand what has been written in fairly simple terms, you also resort to baseless invective and name-calling. Your posts do not advance your argument any more than the "Tom Chapman is a douche-bag" bumper stickers advance the cause of the T-ride locals.
The greater danger, for most of us, is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low, and we reach it.
- Michelangelo

User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Boulder

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby DaveSwink » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:06 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by DaveSwink on Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby pioletski » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:32 pm

Possessed by the spirit of live4pc?


what?
The greater danger, for most of us, is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low, and we reach it.
- Michelangelo

User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Boulder

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby DaveSwink » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:02 pm

Post removed. I just can't figure out anything positive to contribute. #-o
Last edited by DaveSwink on Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby TallGrass » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:53 pm

Oman wrote:Here's an idea: ... Install the loudest P.A. system known to man
So you equate disallowing Trespass with Disturbing the Peace? :roll:

pioletski wrote:Tallgrass: I'm giving up on you. Not only do you fail to understand what has been written in fairly simple terms, you also resort to baseless invective and name-calling.
Correction, you're confusing "agreement" with "understanding," and that something "written in fairly simple terms" somehow makes it "free from error." And just what "name-calling" are you referring to, or are you glossing over a link to a classic? I'd love to be able to hike to the top of Mt. Bross or Culebra Peak for free, but it's the same issue of a government having sold the land into private ownership, then the owner(s) disallowing free recreational use.

dswink wrote:I mean that the headache I am getting from trying to follow Tallgrass' semantical twists ... assume he has strong feelings on this subject but isn't able to bring it across this time.
Just pointing out some faulted arguments.

My sentiment is simply Unpopular is not Illegal, and while it may seem appropriate to vilify and or override the rights of those you do not favor, it leaves you open to having your rights overriden when unpopular with someone else. I've no problem with however the bacon-strip land plays out so long as the law is abided by. It's like the old Two Cows Jokes

What's this socialism yer talkin' about?

Well, if your neighbor has two homes and you have none, we take one of his and give it to you.

Hmm, don't see a problem with that.

And, if your neighbor has two cars and you have none, we take one of his and give it to you.

Sounds good to me.

And, if your neighbor has two cows and you have none, we take one of his and give it to you.

Now wait a minute! I don't think I like this socialism stuff any more.

Why is that?

You see, I have two cows.
Not sure if I'll do more 14ers. The trip reports are too tiring. :wink:

User avatar
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Boulder

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby DaveSwink » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:17 pm

Post removed, apologies. :oops:

User avatar
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Durango, CO

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby Vincopotamus » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:26 am

The Dude's take on Tom Chapman
Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby lordhelmut » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:37 am

Forgive my ignorance if it was already stated in this thread or in any of the attached articles, but does this land deal affect the Bear Creek Falls dayhike (or does the private property start after that?) and also, and way more importantly, does this have an impact on the San Joaquin Couloir? If they block access from the T-ride side, can you still legally ski from Ophir side? If not, what are the odds of Chapman and his henchman manning the SJC apron with semi-automatic weapons? Someone should designate the SJC A National Monument.....

User avatar
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:55 am
Location: Boulder, CO

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby shaunster_co » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:06 am

lordhelmut wrote:...and also, and way more importantly, does this have an impact on the San Joaquin Couloir? If they block access from the T-ride side, can you still legally ski from Ophir side?


I was actually curious about this too, ever since seeing the TR on Joaquin it has been on my 'want to do list'.

Looking at this brief map though, I am assuming it could be done from the Ophir side if one were to re-ascend and not go too far down the apron? If anyone has any beta on that I would appreciate it as well.

bearcreek_closure.jpg
bearcreek_closure.jpg (119.5 KiB) Viewed 297 times

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby mtnfiend » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:22 am

Helmut/Shaunster - From my understand the summer trail and legal right to cross the property on that trail already exists. But the problem is that if you are off the trail 5ft (or what ever the distance) with snow cover, then you are technically trespassing. But, that issue is resolved as they have said all you have to do to cross their property is print out and sign the liability waiver.

There may be other private property trespassing issues if you approach from Ophir. I don't recall seeing any posted signs, but that was several years ago and things change.
Didn't I ever tell you.....Bumble's bounce!!!

User avatar
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:55 am
Location: Boulder, CO

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby shaunster_co » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:35 am

mtnfiend wrote:Helmut/Shaunster - From my understand the summer trail and legal right to cross the property on that trail already exists. But the problem is that if you are off the trail 5ft (or what ever the distance) with snow cover, then you are technically trespassing. But, that issue is resolved as they have said all you have to do to cross their property is print out and sign the liability waiver.

There may be other private property trespassing issues if you approach from Ophir. I don't recall seeing any posted signs, but that was several years ago and things change.


Thanks for the info, I knew about the GHDC waiver, but I thought that only encompassed access from the other direction i.e. Bear Creek - I also saw the post from TMC, and I say I have to agree. This whole thing is strikingly similar to the debacle of Silver Pick Basin & Nichols (not to dredge up yet another tale of extortion or anything). :roll:

User avatar
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:14 am
Location: Golden

Re: Tom Chapman Announces "New" Resort

Postby madbuck » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:03 am

TallGrass wrote:
My sentiment is simply Unpopular is not Illegal


Fair enough, but my (our) sentiments are as follows:

1. Following Randianism -- I'm not calling it objectivism, because it more often blurs into a creepy cult of unquestioning worship of a singular person's idea (IMHO) -- to the ends of each argument equally leads to the same tired criticism and arguments against it that fill up internet fora everywhere.
Since this is a forum regarding public Wilderness, it's not surprising that many of us feel one of the limitations of "rational self-interest" is possible permanent loss of wilderness itself.
Oops.
(* - Yes, there can be privately-owned and maintained wilderness in theory. Whatever).

2. "Legal" is not always ethical, and at least is not always "civil."
Furthermore, "illegal" is sometimes more civil than something that's legal.
And finally, not all things that are unethical or uncivil to the same degree.

I can legally smoke on the beach someplace in front of a crowd of kids, despite a nearby empty stretch of beach.
I can legally nab the close parking spot if I get there before the elderly person.
I can legally refuse assistance to a frantic neighbour needing emergency help.
But it's illegal for me to cross a corner of a neighbour's property, or speed 1mph over the limit on an empty road.
I'm not proposing changing any of those laws (and I would defend there respective existence or non-existence as strongly as anyone), but they are examples of the difficulty of codifying every possible behaviour, and specifically why "douchiness" is not necessarily codified into law(!)

3. Land-use, ownership, and "Right to roam" have varied historical and cultural differences. There isn't a "right" answer. But yes, Chapman is still "legal," so it brings up useful discussion of how to handle inholdings in general.

TallGrass wrote:while it may seem appropriate to vilify and or override the rights of those you do not favor, it leaves you open to having your rights overriden when unpopular with someone else. [/code]


1. The "slippery slope" argument is only a diversion to the specific discussion on this "right." While disagreeing with some on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, e.g., I'm never worried that doing the "right" thing, in my mind, is any sort of slippery slope among other related topics, because like any average citizen capable of modestly complicated thought, I think some regulations should be imposed for the common good, while others I think are too restrictive or outdated. Rarely (if ever) does anyone think that every single action needs to be regulated (just like many Randians are OK with freeways and firefighters), despite cute email and Facebook allegories suggesting otherwise.

2. See above regarding "civil" and "unethical." I rarely do illegal things but am perfectly fine listening to a point-of-view of a person thinking I'm being uncivil or harmful to them -- if my neighbour asks me to turn the music down mid-day because the baby's sick and trying to sleep, I'm not going to tell him about my "rights" -- and I'll listen even more if the argument is well-structured and held by a fairly large group of people.

*

The bumper sticker may be uncivil, but I hold the opinion that it's more civil and righteous than Chapman's actions.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests