DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Colorado peak questions, condition requests and other info.
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.
rperth
Posts: 104
Joined: 6/8/2018
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by rperth »

JChitwood wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:26 pm Private property blah. People inherit worthless 150 year old mining claims or buy them for pennies then immediately try to find someone to extort or even better exchange them for 500 acres next to Breckinridge. It isn’t like you’re cutting through someone’s backyard I say run all over them. Talked to a neighbor yesterday who told me he and his wife did the entire Decalibron a week ago. I asked if he was worried about trespassing. He didn’t even know they were closed!
👍
Ptglhs
Posts: 1478
Joined: 1/6/2016
14ers: 58  8 
13ers: 86 3
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by Ptglhs »

Salient wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:02 pm The people who complain about not being allowed on the land are probably the same people who would trespass on that same land given the opportunity.
So? This is a logical and consistent viewpoint. "The people who complain about the rain are probably the same type of people who wouldn't go outside when it's raining."
rperth
Posts: 104
Joined: 6/8/2018
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by rperth »

Ptglhs wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:32 am
Salient wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:02 pm The people who complain about not being allowed on the land are probably the same people who would trespass on that same land given the opportunity.
So? This is a logical and consistent viewpoint. "The people who complain about the rain are probably the same type of people who wouldn't go outside when it's raining."
What? The point that keeps being made is there are no signs saying the peaks are closed. So, unless you are looking for information then you would not know. Not everyone looks at this site and even fewer look at the NFS site.
CORed
Posts: 186
Joined: 8/24/2011
14ers: 10  1 
13ers: 10 2
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by CORed »

rperth wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:34 am
Ptglhs wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:32 am
Salient wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:02 pm The people who complain about not being allowed on the land are probably the same people who would trespass on that same land given the opportunity.
So? This is a logical and consistent viewpoint. "The people who complain about the rain are probably the same type of people who wouldn't go outside when it's raining."
What? The point that keeps being made is there are no signs saying the peaks are closed. So, unless you are looking for information then you would not know. Not everyone looks at this site and even fewer look at the NFS site.
The "closures" on Decalibron, which, AFIK, have never really been enforced, seem to be more about liability than anything else. As long the owners can say, "they were trespassing", they are less likely to be successfully sued if somebody falls down an old mine shaft, cuts themselves on a piece of old rusty steel or otherwise injures or kills themselves on private property. I've already climbed all of them except for Cameron, which I have no current interest in climbing, nor of repeating the other three, so I'm not going to violate it, but my attitude toward trespassing is that what the landowner and the authorities don't know won't hurt them (or me). I'm not going to cut through somebody's back yard without permission, but an absentee owner who can't even be bothered to fence or post their property? Screw 'em.
User avatar
434stonemill
Posts: 92
Joined: 9/6/2011
14ers: 33 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by 434stonemill »

A good article detailing the issues surrounding the Decalibron loop, liability laws, and just plain over-use. One thing to note from this article is the likelihood that a shuttle system may appear in the future to access Kite Lake.

https://coloradosun.com/2022/07/20/colo ... rtnership/

Another thing I took away is that the landowner quoted in the article actually seemed very reasonable. However he was put off by the fact he believes folks won't obey the closures, even if signs are posted. A link to the survey quoted in the article backs up his belief. A quarter of people surveyed stated they were likely/very likely to climb Mt Bross even though they knew it was closed. There are complaints about private landowners in these forums (which sometimes are reasonable), but it is also our responsibility to be good stewards and understand the landowners concerns. Otherwise you will see Mt Bross fenced off and never have access to it. Although most folks on here probably wouldn't be too heartbroken over that :wink:
User avatar
RhodoRose
Posts: 163
Joined: 8/21/2015
14ers: 58 
13ers: 11 3
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by RhodoRose »

"People inherit worthless 150 year old mining claims or buy them for pennies"

Uh, no. Not worthless. Purchased "for pennies"? I wish! :-D
But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3: 13-14
User avatar
hellmanm
Posts: 339
Joined: 8/5/2014
14ers: 58 
13ers: 45 1
Trip Reports (7)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by hellmanm »

It's interesting how in this conversation (and in similar ones), very few folks discuss the responsibility of the hiker. Most conversations boil down to "the landowner is a jerk for reasons X,Y, and Z" vs "the landowner is not a jerk for reasons X,Y, and Z". But, what about the assholes who sue when they injure themselves on private property? These are the ones who truly ruin it for the rest of us -- the tiny minority of people who think that it's someone else's fault that they got hurt doing something stupid.

It would be one thing if there were clear objective hazards (which is why the conversation surrounding Lindsey should be a little different from the Decalibron... but then again, the safer routes have been private for years and should be the primary focus). But, for the most part, the debates surrounding private property on 14ers exist because a few folks lack a sense of personal responsibility.
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by dan0rama »

“Please stay on the trail,” Barringer said.

“Don’t tell me what to do,” the man answered. “It’s a free mountain.”
:lol:
User avatar
dan0rama
Posts: 104
Joined: 1/12/2022
14ers: 26  5 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by dan0rama »

It's amazing at how a chain of events triggered by only a handful individuals managed to upend the leisure of people in CO.

One day a man has a bike accident and decides someone else is to blame for said accident. Another day, three unelected judges decide that this man is right and effectively decide to rewrite a long held statue. Another day after that, a few individuals decide that because of the decisions of those three judges, now nobody can recreate in their lands.
User avatar
oldschool
Posts: 855
Joined: 2/27/2007
14ers: 58  6 
13ers: 2
Trip Reports (23)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by oldschool »

I'm confused.

Why is it so hard for people to understand PRIVATE PROPERTY? It's just like your house, your back yard, your 2nd home. Just leave the door open and let anyone in that happens to stroll by..go ahead. Oh wait, you don't want to do that? But why? You're not there most of the time and I really like that lake you have on your PRIVATE PROPERTY and I bet the fish are big!

Oh, wait, maybe I get it now. The "climbing community" is special. Yeah, that must be it. Gosh, why didn't I figure that out before.

If Decalibron was a 13er or a 12er no would give a rats ass!!

IT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTY! YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU WANT ON IT. DEAL WITH IT!

Mike
"There's a feeling I get when I look to the West and my spirit is crying for leaving" Led Zeppelin
curt86iroc
Posts: 219
Joined: 5/29/2013
14ers: 14 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by curt86iroc »

dan0rama wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 3:22 pm It's amazing at how a chain of events triggered by only a handful individuals managed to upend the leisure of people in CO.

One day a man has a bike accident and decides someone else is to blame for said accident. Another day, three unelected judges decide that this man is right and effectively decide to rewrite a long held statue. Another day after that, a few individuals decide that because of the decisions of those three judges, now nobody can recreate in their lands.
im not sure its that simple. odds are, the same legal reasoning used in the bike crash case could not be applied to any 14er. this is just an example of private land owners freaking out about something they likely don't fully understand.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 02-12.html

The CRUS exception’s remaining relevant text indicates that a landowner is liable for injuries on its land that result from a “willful . . . failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition . . . likely to cause harm.” See id. The Academy also has not disputed the district court’s findings that the sinkhole was a dangerous condition likely to cause harm, seeNelson III, 256 F. Supp. 3d at 1150–52, that Dr. Mihlbachler knew the path was being used for recreational purposes, id. at 1144, 1161, that Dr. Mihlbachler failed to warn or guard against the dangers inherent in the sinkhole on a known bike
9 path, id. at 1147–49, 1162–65, or that Dr. Mihlbachler knew about the sinkhole prior to Mr. Nelson’s accident, id. at 1146–47; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. at 13 (explaining that the Academy is not “challeng[ing] the district court’s findings” of fact). This leaves us with two disputes: whether Dr. Mihlbachler knew the sinkhole was a “dangerous condition likely to cause harm” and whether his failure to warn or guard against that dangerous condition was “willful.” Before addressing those issues, we define the terms “known” and willful” under Colorado law. We then proceed to apply that law to the facts found by the district court. 1. Knowledge Under Colorado Law For a landowner to be found liable despite the CRUS’s liability shield, it (or its agent) must willfully fail to warn or guard against a “known dangerous condition . . . likely to cause harm.” See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-41-104(1)(a) (emphasis added). The Colorado Supreme Court recently explained that “[s]tatutory interpretation in Colorado has consistently construed the words ‘know’ or ‘knowingly’ without [a] qualifying ‘should have known’ to require actual knowledge.” Przekurat ex rel. Przekurat v. Torres, 428 P.3d 512, 516, reh’g denied (2018).3 The court defined 3 The Colorado Supreme Court issued Przekurat ex rel. Przekurat v. Torres, 428 P.3d 512, 516, reh’g denied (2018), after the briefing in this court, but before oral argument. Neither party alerted us to the decision at oral argument or by a letter under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j).
User avatar
vegabond
Posts: 39
Joined: 6/29/2007
14ers: 30 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: DECALIBRON UPDATE FROM CFI

Post by vegabond »

Private property is that… it’s your choice who comes and gos. Yes, it sucks, but in this sue happy society it’s the way it works. Colorado should have long ago bought up this property, but they didn’t. We are so blessed in Colorado to have so much land available for our use, be grateful for what you have, not for what you don’t. Respect others rights to their private lands.
Post Reply