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
timisimaginary
Posts: 777
Joined: 11/19/2017
14ers: 3 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by timisimaginary »

MountainBuhn wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:07 pm Not to be a smartass, but how does one enforce this? Will they sit at the saddle with a shotgun? Will they call the police? Odds are he’ll call the police. Which would use taxpayer dollars. At that point they are using the dollars of the very people trying to access the land to stop them from coming?
it doesn't sound like there's any intention of enforcing it. it's there to avoid legal liability if someone gets hurt and decides to try to sue the landowner.
"The decay and disintegration of this culture is astonishingly amusing if you're emotionally detached from it." - George Carlin
Aphelion
Posts: 166
Joined: 10/22/2017
14ers: 58  17 
13ers: 48
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Aphelion »

timisimaginary wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:09 am
MountainBuhn wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:07 pm Not to be a smartass, but how does one enforce this? Will they sit at the saddle with a shotgun? Will they call the police? Odds are he’ll call the police. Which would use taxpayer dollars. At that point they are using the dollars of the very people trying to access the land to stop them from coming?
it doesn't sound like there's any intention of enforcing it. it's there to avoid legal liability if someone gets hurt and decides to try to sue the landowner.
Idk, Cielo Vista ranch has no problem enforcing their property boundaries. As to how, it's apparently monitored cameras along the likely access routes, and drones. If they see you they send armed ranch hands up to escort you down to the sheriff. I'm not sure if I want to be the test case to see if Trinchera-Blanca ranch is just fooling around with a sign.
User avatar
12ersRule
Posts: 2263
Joined: 6/18/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 157
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by 12ersRule »

Aphelion wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:17 am
timisimaginary wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:09 am
MountainBuhn wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:07 pm Not to be a smartass, but how does one enforce this? Will they sit at the saddle with a shotgun? Will they call the police? Odds are he’ll call the police. Which would use taxpayer dollars. At that point they are using the dollars of the very people trying to access the land to stop them from coming?
it doesn't sound like there's any intention of enforcing it. it's there to avoid legal liability if someone gets hurt and decides to try to sue the landowner.
Idk, Cielo Vista ranch has no problem enforcing their property boundaries. As to how, it's apparently monitored cameras along the likely access routes, and drones. If they see you they send armed ranch hands up to escort you down to the sheriff. I'm not sure if I want to be the test case to see if Trinchera-Blanca ranch is just fooling around with a sign.
PeakPolice.PNG
PeakPolice.PNG (767.08 KiB) Viewed 3117 times
Skimo95
Posts: 410
Joined: 5/19/2021
14ers: 58  11  23 
13ers: 176 8
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Skimo95 »

I wouldn’t want this guy escorting me off the property
Attachments
4867A794-C530-4EC1-A229-DE7C57C71953.jpeg
4867A794-C530-4EC1-A229-DE7C57C71953.jpeg (219.23 KiB) Viewed 3112 times
GuiGirard
Posts: 81
Joined: 8/4/2021
14ers: 28 
13ers: 13
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by GuiGirard »

Aphelion wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:17 am
Idk, Cielo Vista ranch has no problem enforcing their property boundaries. As to how, it's apparently monitored cameras along the likely access routes, and drones. If they see you they send armed ranch hands up to escort you down to the sheriff. I'm not sure if I want to be the test case to see if Trinchera-Blanca ranch is just fooling around with a sign.
And how exactly would Trinchera ranch power their cameras and drones at the col at >13000 ft? An off-the-grid PV station at 13000 ft? So, let's assume they make it work. Then what? Ranch security calls 911: "hey guys, we've got trespassers coming up Mount Lindsey, normal route". Dispatcher: "sure, we'll send an officer up the trail. They will be there in maybe 6 hours."
Now, having said this, it's probably a good idea to stay off the peak until conflict is resolved as it would suck if it escalates to be that way and the ranch pays an armed vigilante to spend their days up at the saddle. Though there might be a rock-throwing dude who frequents in this general area who might volunteer pronto for the job.
User avatar
Dakota
Posts: 171
Joined: 2/27/2009
14ers: 25 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Dakota »

yardman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:56 pm
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative has been working with the Ranch for several years trying to obtain legal public access through an access agreement with a public agency. .............. This was one of the reasons precipitating the closure of the DeCaLiBron Loop earlier in the season.

CFI continues to work with landowners to see if there are appropriate tweaks to state laws that might lessen private landowner liability concerns. This will take time and, if appropriate legal language can be found, will require pushing a bill through the Colorado Legislature next session. So, for now, please respect the closure. We hope to have this resolved by next climbing season, if possible. Stay tuned.

Lloyd Athearn, Executive Director
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative
It would probably be quicker if a non-profit like CFI or a newly formed one (with minimal assets) could survey out the trail and subdivide it out with 5 ft on either side of the trail with a warranty deed and the rancher retaining his mineral rights. I assume it would 1-5 acres and the liability falls on a non-profit who I would hope can protect themselves differently from the litigators of the world. CFI could even require a waiver signed on their website before hand or else you are in risk of trespassing. I know this is all annoying, but does it at least keep things open and everybody wins (except lawyers).
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
-Albert Einstein
Aphelion
Posts: 166
Joined: 10/22/2017
14ers: 58  17 
13ers: 48
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Aphelion »

GuiGirard wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:56 am
Aphelion wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:17 am
Idk, Cielo Vista ranch has no problem enforcing their property boundaries. As to how, it's apparently monitored cameras along the likely access routes, and drones. If they see you they send armed ranch hands up to escort you down to the sheriff. I'm not sure if I want to be the test case to see if Trinchera-Blanca ranch is just fooling around with a sign.
And how exactly would Trinchera ranch power their cameras and drones at the col at >13000 ft? An off-the-grid PV station at 13000 ft? So, let's assume they make it work. Then what? Ranch security calls 911: "hey guys, we've got trespassers coming up Mount Lindsey, normal route". Dispatcher: "sure, we'll send an officer up the trail. They will be there in maybe 6 hours."
Now, having said this, it's probably a good idea to stay off the peak until conflict is resolved as it would suck if it escalates to be that way and the ranch pays an armed vigilante to spend their days up at the saddle. Though there might be a rock-throwing dude who frequents in this general area who might volunteer pronto for the job.
It's not some infeasible enforcement plan. A small PV system hooked up to a webcam is super easy. See this report for the Bar NI Ranch catching someone from the forum on camera and threatening legal action. Or this from reddit showing Cielo Vista catching a trespassing hiker on a high ridgeline and escorting them off the property. You don't need to ask a deputy to hike up the trail or a vigilante living at the saddle, you just send your armed employees on quads and deliver the person to the deputy at the gate.

I'm no fan of the closure, but let's not pretend that access is actually allowed, or that the landowners are powerless to stop anything.
GuiGirard
Posts: 81
Joined: 8/4/2021
14ers: 28 
13ers: 13
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by GuiGirard »

Ptglhs wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:19 am I hope a few thousand people hike up there and pee on the sign before summiting. "Please respect the private property closure" is a siren song of the oppressed embracing the chains which shackle them. Why should we respect it? Do the 'owners' respect our ambition to recreate on land which they aren't using? Owners respect very little save their own avarice. By what right does anyone claim ownership of the earth? We have reified private land ownership, cordoned off the commons, and commodified nature. I shall respect the private property rights in the alpine as much as they respect human dignity, which is to say not at all.
My thoughts, sentence per sentence: 😁😁😁. Yes. See answer later. Sure they do not. Absolutely, although they have to abide to a conservation easement, so they cannot do exactly everything they want on their land. Times have changed since Native Americans (who had it right) were the true "owners" of this continents, and the greedy white European patriarchy brought with them to this continents, along with disease, property rights. Yes. I cannot agree with that sentence as it can only lead to escalating a tense situation any further; and for the same reason, we "should respect it".
These guys have deep pockets and are also greedy, and sure enough it would be cheaper for them to pay an armed vigilante to freeze their butt for 4 months at the property boundary, than dealing with a lawsuit and paying the medical bills of a moron who would get injured on the peak and somehow would think it's the ranch's fault it they made mistakes that led to their injury. I would hope hikers who attempt Lindsey are a little smarter than this and own the mistakes upon themselves, but these days, one never knows... After all, McDonald's had to issue warning signs claiming that their coffee was hot. I'm surprised municipal water utilities yet do not issue warnings that the water they distribute can drown a person if filled in the right container.
User avatar
speth
Posts: 684
Joined: 4/16/2010
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 44
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by speth »

Imagine having a mental disorder serious enough that access to the summit of a peak caused you genuine emotional distress. My goodness.

All I want is to just have fun, live my life like a son of a gun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sarcasm or not, it's not even funny to post something like this. Not at this time. Reported.
TomPierce
Posts: 2735
Joined: 11/21/2007
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by TomPierce »

GuiGirard wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:34 am
Ptglhs wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:19 am I hope a few thousand people hike up there and pee on the sign before summiting. "Please respect the private property closure" is a siren song of the oppressed embracing the chains which shackle them. Why should we respect it? Do the 'owners' respect our ambition to recreate on land which they aren't using? Owners respect very little save their own avarice. By what right does anyone claim ownership of the earth? We have reified private land ownership, cordoned off the commons, and commodified nature. I shall respect the private property rights in the alpine as much as they respect human dignity, which is to say not at all.
My thoughts, sentence per sentence: 😁😁😁. Yes. See answer later. Sure they do not. Absolutely, although they have to abide to a conservation easement, so they cannot do exactly everything they want on their land. Times have changed since Native Americans (who had it right) were the true "owners" of this continents, and the greedy white European patriarchy brought with them to this continents, along with disease, property rights. Yes. I cannot agree with that sentence as it can only lead to escalating a tense situation any further; and for the same reason, we "should respect it".
These guys have deep pockets and are also greedy, and sure enough it would be cheaper for them to pay an armed vigilante to freeze their butt for 4 months at the property boundary, than dealing with a lawsuit and paying the medical bills of a moron who would get injured on the peak and somehow would think it's the ranch's fault it they made mistakes that led to their injury. I would hope hikers who attempt Lindsey are a little smarter than this and own the mistakes upon themselves, but these days, one never knows... After all, McDonald's had to issue warning signs claiming that their coffee was hot. I'm surprised municipal water utilities yet do not issue warnings that the water they distribute can drown a person if filled in the right container.
As for the reason injured hikers file a lawsuit based on their voluntary assumption of the risk (e.g. they chose to hike a particular peak on a particular day, i.e. no one put a gun to their heads) I'd bet my 401K balance that it has to do with a lack of health insurance. I've heard of this over & over in the tech climbing realm, e.g. a climber gets injured in a fall at a cliff, has no health insurance, then sues the land owner to cover the costs of the care. Of course they are prodded on by the lawyers who file such cases. Such lawyers typically want to recoup their contingent fees, typically 33% of the amount recovered, so a lawyer has a vested interest in driving the settlement amount above the actual costs of the health care. Some climbing areas have closed because of such lawsuits.

Purely my opinion, but this is BS. If you can't pay for the costs of your voluntary activities, including possible injuries, don't do it. Simple as that.

-Tom

PS: If a property boundary is in dispute, I think those affected should investigate, e.g. do a title search, etc. But if, as is apparently the case here, the property boundary isn't in dispute then yeah, such property should be off limits unless there are valid exceptions (e.g. invitation by the owner, etc.)
KBowBow
Posts: 2
Joined: 3/30/2021
14ers: 47 
13ers: 3
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by KBowBow »

Strider29 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:13 am I climbed Lindsey 8/27. Whoever put those signs up did so after I passed the saddle and before I made it back down to there. I don't remember the exact wording on the sign, but my interpretation was that access to the summit is still permitted, but you aren't supposed to go off trail at all - e.g. down into the basin on the other side. I believe the sign says something like, "Private Land Protected by a Conservation Easement" - which I take to mean the trail itself (the easement) remains open to the public.
That was my understanding of the posted sign on 8/29. Assumed it summated to stay on trail and a posted property line
User avatar
painless4u2
Posts: 1298
Joined: 7/14/2010
14ers: 58 
Trip Reports (8)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by painless4u2 »

KBowBow wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:25 pm
Strider29 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:13 am I climbed Lindsey 8/27. Whoever put those signs up did so after I passed the saddle and before I made it back down to there. I don't remember the exact wording on the sign, but my interpretation was that access to the summit is still permitted, but you aren't supposed to go off trail at all - e.g. down into the basin on the other side. I believe the sign says something like, "Private Land Protected by a Conservation Easement" - which I take to mean the trail itself (the easement) remains open to the public.
That was my understanding of the posted sign on 8/29. Assumed it summated to stay on trail and a posted property line
Is it the altitude affecting your corneas or what? The sign clearly states, in Caps, no less, "PUBLIC ACCESS IS NOT ALLOWED". Hard to be confused by that, right?
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
Post Reply