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
Cole_Train89
Posts: 12
Joined: 3/22/2017
14ers: 57  3 
13ers: 10
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Cole_Train89 »

Just sent Lindsey 2 days ago..bunch of folks at the top. Glad I didn't read the sign \:D/
User avatar
bunny256
Posts: 98
Joined: 8/2/2012
14ers: 58  3  4 
13ers: 357 7 1
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by bunny256 »

Cole_Train89 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:59 pm Just sent Lindsey 2 days ago..bunch of folks at the top. Glad I didn't read the sign \:D/
Image
LoJ
IG @i_heart_mountains
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3186
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 84 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by highpilgrim »

Cole_Train89 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:59 pm Just sent Lindsey 2 days ago..bunch of folks at the top. Glad I didn't read the sign \:D/
Sent Lindsey?

Like the Dawn Wall?!

Damn, good for you.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
User avatar
angry
Posts: 662
Joined: 10/5/2017
14ers: 58  45 
13ers: 231 8
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by angry »

Cole_Train89 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:59 pm Just sent Lindsey 2 days ago..bunch of folks at the top. Glad I didn't read the sign \:D/
How do you send a walk up? :-k
User avatar
Gene913
Posts: 470
Joined: 12/15/2006
14ers: 58 
13ers: 11
Trip Reports (7)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Gene913 »

supranihilest wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:44 am
Candace66 wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 6:03 pm
12ersRule wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:30 am

=D>

Totally agree. BS to claim ownership of the earth. Gotta love how people are consistently voting against their own best interests and idolizing people just because they're rich.
I'm curious, what are your living arrangements? I presume it's some sort of fixed abode, aka private property. But I'm sure you'd be okay with it if I "squat" there next time I visit Colorado. After all, I have as much right to be there as you do, correct? \:D/
Who knew that Louis Bacon resided on top of Mount Lindsey or even anywhere close. A residential structure is not the same as a 170,000 acre ranch and your argument is like comparing apples to a 170,000 acre ranch. Hiking one of the most unique pieces of land in the entire world is not the same as squatting in a residential structure and your argument is like comparing apples to squatting in a residential structure.
The comparison is valid. We're not talking about public lands here; we are talking about private property. If it is private property, then it is private property, no matter whether the tract is large or small. If you say the person who owns or controls a large tract of property has no right to control who has access to his property, then there is no principled or reasoned rationale for saying the person who owns or controls a small tract of property has the right to limit or control access to his property.
"If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, and you say to this mountain, 'move from here to there,' it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:21
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3186
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 84 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by highpilgrim »

Gene913 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:31 pm The comparison is valid.
bulls**t. It’s the equivalent of kids cutting across my yard, as the shortest way home.

STAY OFF MY LAWN, PUNKS!

I don’t think I’ll play that. It’s the top of a mountain they’ve probably never hiked. Like those Highland Ranch dipshits with a Range Rover that has never and will never leave the pavement; no respect due.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
jlawer
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/25/2020
14ers: 47 
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by jlawer »

It’s not that simple Gene and I did see you are retired federal prosecutor. In my mind it’s the same as the situation in California where private landowners cannot restrict access to the beach.
We are not taking about random private property in Kansas. These are the highest peaks in this part of the world and no man should be able to restrict access.
User avatar
supranihilest
Posts: 719
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58  42 
13ers: 709 1 8
Trip Reports (112)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by supranihilest »

Gene913 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:31 pm
supranihilest wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:44 am
Candace66 wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 6:03 pm

I'm curious, what are your living arrangements? I presume it's some sort of fixed abode, aka private property. But I'm sure you'd be okay with it if I "squat" there next time I visit Colorado. After all, I have as much right to be there as you do, correct? \:D/
Who knew that Louis Bacon resided on top of Mount Lindsey or even anywhere close. A residential structure is not the same as a 170,000 acre ranch and your argument is like comparing apples to a 170,000 acre ranch. Hiking one of the most unique pieces of land in the entire world is not the same as squatting in a residential structure and your argument is like comparing apples to squatting in a residential structure.
The comparison is valid. We're not talking about public lands here; we are talking about private property. If it is private property, then it is private property, no matter whether the tract is large or small. If you say the person who owns or controls a large tract of property has no right to control who has access to his property, then there is no principled or reasoned rationale for saying the person who owns or controls a small tract of property has the right to limit or control access to his property.
The comparison is not valid. Squatting in someone's residence, aka staying for an indefinite amount of time, is not the same as hiking a peak. I do agree that the landowner, Louis Bacon, has the right to restrict access (even though it seems like he doesn't want to, considering Lindsey was open for decades prior to the legal case mentioned several times in this thread) but nobody in their right mind could possibly consider someone hiking a peak to squatting in someone's residence. They are varying degrees of trespassing and not close degrees either. There are literally three degrees of trespassing in Colorado law for a reason.
User avatar
Gene913
Posts: 470
Joined: 12/15/2006
14ers: 58 
13ers: 11
Trip Reports (7)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Gene913 »

highpilgrim wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:20 pm
Gene913 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:31 pm The comparison is valid.
bulls**t. It’s the equivalent of kids cutting across my yard, as the shortest way home.

STAY OFF MY LAWN, PUNKS!

I don’t think I’ll play that. It’s the top of a mountain they’ve probably never hiked. Like those Highland Ranch dipshits with a Range Rover that has never and will never leave the pavement; no respect due.
It's your yard and your property; you get to decide whether to tolerate or not tolerate those who encroach on it.
You may not care if the kids cut across your yard, and that's fine.
You own your yard, you get to control who has access to it.
Whether you use every square inch of your yard doesn't really matter, anymore than whether the owner of a mountain has ever set foot on it.
Like it or not, he owns the mountain and gets to control who has access to it.
"If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, and you say to this mountain, 'move from here to there,' it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:21
User avatar
Gene913
Posts: 470
Joined: 12/15/2006
14ers: 58 
13ers: 11
Trip Reports (7)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Gene913 »

jlawer wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:30 pm It’s not that simple Gene and I did see you are retired federal prosecutor. In my mind it’s the same as the situation in California where private landowners cannot restrict access to the beach.
We are not taking about random private property in Kansas. These are the highest peaks in this part of the world and no man should be able to restrict access.
You're right; we are not talking about random private property in Kansas. But we are talking about private property. I'm not saying I like or even agree with the decision to limit or restrict access, but if he owns it, he has the right to control access to it. California may have a specific set of provisions regarding beach access, and that's OK too. But that apparently is not the rule in Colorado, so until Colorado decides to adopt the California rule, we all have to live with the fact that access can be limited or restricted.
"If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, and you say to this mountain, 'move from here to there,' it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:21
timisimaginary
Posts: 777
Joined: 11/19/2017
14ers: 3 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by timisimaginary »

Cole_Train89 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:59 pm Just sent Lindsey 2 days ago..
where did you send her? and why isn't she back yet? maybe you should go check on her.
"The decay and disintegration of this culture is astonishingly amusing if you're emotionally detached from it." - George Carlin
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 778
Joined: 10/14/2009
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 777 76
Trip Reports (40)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Boggy B »

HikerGuy wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:24 pm ... there was more to it than I was reading. The original judgement found CRUS did not apply and therefore Nelson was not considered an invitee under CRUS which if he was would have made the CLPA moot. The US appealed the verdict to the 10th Circuit Court. The circuit court found that CRUS did apply, which means Nelson was an invitee and therefore CLPA did not apply. However, once the circuit court found that CRUS did apply, it meant that the lower court had to reexamine the rest of the CRUS statute that was not initially considered because that threshold had not been met in the original decision. So, upon reconsideration the lower court found that an exception in CRUS did apply (the US was willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition likely to cause harm) and damages were awarded. The US appealed again to the circuit court and the new findings of the lower court were upheld. Westword actually has a pretty good summary of how the case unfolded.

So, this issue with CRUS is way more nuanced than I first believed it to be. The ranch's knee jerk reaction to put up the no trespass signage is understandable, but I have a feeling it does not protect them unless they enforce it. If they do not have plans to enforce no trespassing and they really don't mind folks summiting Lindsey, they would be better off placing signage that tells folks to stay on trail and be aware of dangerous conditions that may exist. I imagine this is what CFI will be working with them on.
Thanks for this, as it's the real issue here. I don't read the outcome of the Nelson case as weakening the CO Recreational Use Statute, and it's surprising to see the case cited as the reason for posting a closure. A maintained (whether or not officially) MTB path carries a reasonable expectation of upkeep and therefore protection against hazards. A mountain trail does not. I guess a revision to the CRUS is in order to remove ambiguity, perhaps to exclude, generically, common natural hazards and to emphasize the exclusion of hazards inherent to the activity.
Post Reply