Mount Lindsey Closure

Information on current and past 14er closures, usually due to private property issues.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jorts
Posts: 1113
Joined: 4/12/2013
14ers: 58  4  2 
13ers: 102 11 5
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Jorts »

12ersRule wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:48 am Most of the time when it is isn't, I've heard the 'I can't be liable if you get hurt on our land' reasoning. Maybe some legislation saying you can't sue someone for getting hurt on their land is necessary.
Bingo.
Traveling light is the only way to fly.
IG: @colorado_invasive
Strava: Brent Herring
User avatar
painless4u2
Posts: 1298
Joined: 7/14/2010
14ers: 58 
Trip Reports (8)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by painless4u2 »

Above_Treeline wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:30 am You might not like my posts.
Correct. I don't. BTW, since you brought up how dismal Texas public land ownership is, consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP. And Big Bend State Park has over 1.2 million acres of public land, which isn't counted in your 2.0% Federal lands.
Bad decisions often make good stories.

IPAs + Ambien = "14ers" post (Bill M.)

In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps. Proverbs 16:9
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 4008
Joined: 9/7/2004
14ers: 58  12  24 
13ers: 697 39 34
Trip Reports (66)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Chicago Transplant »

Jorts wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:21 am It's hard to follow along on all these derivative political tangents many of you have gone on, but it helps to keep in mind that many if not all of these new public access closures to or through private land are directed to liability issues that stem from the precedent set by the courts in James Nelson and Elizabeth Varney v. United States of America.

If you're injured on privately owned land that says "no trespassing" then the land owners are off the hook should calamity befall you. By and large they don't care if you're there. They just don't want the risk you're accepting to be passed on to them by the courts. Really the access issues in the instant case come down to tort reform if anything.
I think that liability issue is a big reason why people want to keep the lands that are public as public and not see them sold off. Selling them off will close them as the new owners get freaked out over the Nelson decision. Ironically which was on public land, but seems to be what has prompted the Lindsey and the earlier Decalibron closures. Agree with the idea of a blanket "if you get hurt out there its your own damn fault" type of language. That is the risk I take, if I get hurt its on me, regardless of who owns the land.

The giving federal land to the states thing, when the states can't afford to manage it, is feared as a likely a stepping stone to the states selling it off to the highest bidder. Likely mineral and gas extraction that will turn our recreation lands into a cash cow for private industry. The "drill baby drill" folks who see this as a positive should not support this transfer of public lands either, as the roads to these wells will be gated off and the land closed to OHV and hunting uses just as much as they will be closed to peakbaggers, ski tourers and mountain bikers. Anyone who uses public lands will lose out.
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
User avatar
benmangelsdorf
Posts: 83
Joined: 10/13/2020
14ers: 38  6 
13ers: 29 1
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by benmangelsdorf »

painless4u2 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:11 am
Above_Treeline wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:30 am You might not like my posts.
Correct. I don't. BTW, since you brought up how dismal Texas public land ownership is, consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP. And Big Bend State Park has over 1.2 million acres of public land, which isn't counted in your 2.0% Federal lands.
To be fair, Texas is also much larger than Kansas, Iowa, and Illinois combined
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 781
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Boggy B »

12ersRule wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:48 am This past year, I did a fair amount of knocking on doors and asking for access on private land. Most of the time, it is granted. Sometimes, it isn't. Most of the time when it is isn't, I've heard the 'I can't be liable if you get hurt on our land' reasoning. Maybe some legislation saying you can't sue someone for getting hurt on their land is necessary.
Well, in theory, the Colorado Recreational Statute should prevent frivolous lawsuits against landowners for injuries occurring on their property as a result of the injured party's own negligence, whether invited or trespassing, as unwinnable or prohibitively costly. I think reasonable landowners, if they even know about the Nelson case (which hinged on an implied warranty), could be convinced that it doesn't weaken the CRS as it pertains to them. I recommend carrying a copy with the relevant language highlighted if you're going door-to-door.
Ptglhs
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1/6/2016
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 86 3
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Ptglhs »

painless4u2 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:11 am
consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP. And Big Bend State Park has over 1.2 million acres of public land, which isn't counted in your 2.0% Federal lands.
I've been to those parks and they definitely have there charms, as does the little lake creek wilderness area in the Sam Houston national forest, or the blue hole near Austin.

I think this conversation is starting to miss the mark. Most public lands in the US are public because it wasn't feasible to farm them. Forests in mountains, swamps too expensive to drain, rocky areas above treeline, deserts. The reason NY and Illinois and Kansas and TX have so little public land is most of it is suitable for farming and ranching. When the US was still operating under the Homestead Act the homesteaders snagger valley floors and grasslands. Forests are valuable for logging, and much of that is managed as lease permits from the federal government. Mountains are valuable for mining, which is why there are private mining claims available for exploration with the land still owned by the USFS.

Since the early 1900s there has been a push to have certain areas be set aside as parks, because they were viewed as being uniquely beautiful. Since then private motor vehicle ownership has driven, pun intended, a desire to access areas with less human contamination. This has led to tension between who want to recreate on public land and people who wish to exploit its resources.

The US had been trying to sell off government owned lamds for most of its history. A proposed method of recouping debts incurred in the revolutionary war was to sell lands to private ownership. Turns out there weren't many takers back then, not enough to pay off the debt at any rate. I fall squarely on the public use side of this argument. I don't think private entities should be able to restrict access to land which isn't being used (active mining and logging or farming operations) and isn't next to someone's home.
Ptglhs
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1/6/2016
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 86 3
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Ptglhs »

Midwestlungs wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:09 pm Comparing my innocent joke to the communist manifesto I was referring to is hilarious. I’ll admit I’m guilty of not reading the room and I shouldn’t have made that post. However to be referred to as a fascist by another is honestly scary and it’s an eye opener that people are actually ok with throwing around that term at anyone who has a different opinion than them. All good though as I’m deleting my account so you all can have only people on this site who have the exact same viewpoints on everything…I hope to be able to climb Lindsey in the future. Happy climbing to everyone
Right of center democrats call center right and far right Republicans facist, and center right and far right Republicans call democrats socialists and communists. It's an insult devoid of any intellectual worth. When was the last time you heard a Democrat saying workers needed to seize the means of production? Or a Republican saying genocide was the Final Solution to a question?

Is political rhetoric scary? Yes, do I believe we're heading for sectarian violence in my lifetime in this country? Yes. But let's actually engage with problems with knowledge instead of calling people by labels which don't apply.

I've read more of Marx and Marxist thinkers than nearly all members of this site. So when someone calls me a Marxist or a Communist I just assume they have no idea what those terms mean. It's pointless to argue with the ignorant.
User avatar
disentangled
Posts: 533
Joined: 6/15/2018
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by disentangled »

Ptglhs wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:26 pm I've read more of Marx and Marxist thinkers than nearly all members of this site.
I win that contest. lol
User avatar
12ersRule
Posts: 2264
Joined: 6/18/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 157
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by 12ersRule »

Midwestlungs wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:09 pm
highpilgrim wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:21 pm
Scott P wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:37 am

nan.PNG
Stupid is as stupid does. ^^
Comparing my innocent joke to the communist manifesto I was referring to is hilarious. I’ll admit I’m guilty of not reading the room and I shouldn’t have made that post. However to be referred to as a fascist by another is honestly scary and it’s an eye opener that people are actually ok with throwing around that term at anyone who has a different opinion than them. All good though as I’m deleting my account so you all can have only people on this site who have the exact same viewpoints on everything…I hope to be able to climb Lindsey in the future. Happy climbing to everyone
I called your post Fascist because it was assuming yourself in a majority position and attempting to suppress the voice of a minority opinion. It has nothing to do with your politics. Couldn't give a s**t what you think about Nancy Potosi.

To review, here's your post and my interpretation - I speak for the majority here, you need to keep your leftist trap shut.
Midwestlungs wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:09 pm This site is for all of us who love the mountains to share experiences and provide beta to help others. Again nobody wants to read your political rants. People on the far left and far right are what’s wrong with this country. Tag you’re it
User avatar
painless4u2
Posts: 1298
Joined: 7/14/2010
14ers: 58 
Trip Reports (8)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by painless4u2 »

benmangelsdorf wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:50 am
painless4u2 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:11 am

Correct. I don't. BTW, since you brought up how dismal Texas public land ownership is, consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP. And Big Bend State Park has over 1.2 million acres of public land, which isn't counted in your 2.0% Federal lands.
To be fair, Texas is also much larger than Kansas, Iowa, and Illinois combined
Yeah, that's why I said percentage-wise...
I've been to those parks and they definitely have there charms, as does the little lake creek wilderness area in the Sam Houston national forest, or the blue hole near Austin.

I think this conversation is starting to miss the mark. Most public lands in the US are public because it wasn't feasible to farm them. Forests in mountains, swamps too expensive to drain, rocky areas above treeline, deserts. The reason NY and Illinois and Kansas and TX have so little public land is most of it is suitable for farming and ranching. When the US was still operating under the Homestead Act the homesteaders snagger valley floors and grasslands. Forests are valuable for logging, and much of that is managed as lease permits from the federal government. Mountains are valuable for mining, which is why there are private mining claims available for exploration with the land still owned by the USFS.

Since the early 1900s there has been a push to have certain areas be set aside as parks, because they were viewed as being uniquely beautiful. Since then private motor vehicle ownership has driven, pun intended, a desire to access areas with less human contamination. This has led to tension between who want to recreate on public land and people who wish to exploit its resources.
Good stuff, Ptglhs.
Bad decisions often make good stories.

IPAs + Ambien = "14ers" post (Bill M.)

In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps. Proverbs 16:9
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 9438
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 58  16 
13ers: 50 13
Trip Reports (16)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Scott P »

painless4u2 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:11 am BTW, since you brought up how dismal Texas public land ownership is, consider this: it has as much public land, percentage-wise, as Illinois, Iowa and Kansas combined. And Texas has some great places to hike, should you ever leave your Marxist-infused environs, such as Big Bend NP and Guadalupe NP.
Of course it should be brought up that Guadalupe National Park used to be private land until the landowner donated his land with the request that it be made into a National Park.

Anyway, Texas is 4.2% public land (including state lands), the 6th lowest of the states. If the private lands weren't donated from people such as Pratt (who donated his lands at Guadalupe), it would be less.
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
Scott P
Posts: 9438
Joined: 5/4/2005
14ers: 58  16 
13ers: 50 13
Trip Reports (16)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Scott P »

Ptglhs wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:20 pm The reason NY and Illinois and Kansas and TX have so little public land is most of it is suitable for farming and ranching.
New York actually has a larger percentage of public land than might be expected, but much of it is state land.

The percentage of public land in New York is 37.1%, which is about the same as Montana's and not that much lower than Colorado. It has by far the largest percentage of public land of any state east of the Rocky Mountains. Much of the public land is in Adirondack and Catskill Parks.
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
Post Reply