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
Bean
Posts: 2757
Joined: 11/2/2005
14ers: 45  45  10 
13ers: 9 4
Trip Reports (27)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Bean »

Above_Treeline wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:38 pm Access and politics are absolutely related. If you like mallwalking keep voting republican
This has long been a meme but I'm curious if you have some historical and modern examples of legislative and/or executive actions on either side regarding hiking and access. For all there is to dislike about Cory Gardner (R) we probably wouldn't have this without him. Oil drilling in ANWR comes to mind as related but that's really not a hiking/access issue. Hunting is less partisan (though leans R) and is definitely access-related but I don't have a lot of specific governmental actions in mind.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
seano
Posts: 775
Joined: 6/9/2010
14ers: 56 
13ers: 218
Trip Reports (3)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by seano »

Bean wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:01 am
Above_Treeline wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:38 pm Access and politics are absolutely related. If you like mallwalking keep voting republican
This has long been a meme but I'm curious if you have some historical and modern examples of legislative and/or executive actions on either side regarding hiking and access. For all there is to dislike about Cory Gardner (R) we probably wouldn't have this without him. Oil drilling in ANWR comes to mind as related but that's really not a hiking/access issue. Hunting is less partisan (though leans R) and is definitely access-related but I don't have a lot of specific governmental actions in mind.
One obvious example that comes to mind is access to public land in the Crazies up in Montana, which Ryan Zinke tried to curtail on behalf of his rich friends. See e.g. https://www.fseee.org/2017/10/13/ousted ... post-back/ .
User avatar
Bean
Posts: 2757
Joined: 11/2/2005
14ers: 45  45  10 
13ers: 9 4
Trip Reports (27)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Bean »

seano wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:09 am
Bean wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:01 am
Above_Treeline wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:38 pm Access and politics are absolutely related. If you like mallwalking keep voting republican
This has long been a meme but I'm curious if you have some historical and modern examples of legislative and/or executive actions on either side regarding hiking and access. For all there is to dislike about Cory Gardner (R) we probably wouldn't have this without him. Oil drilling in ANWR comes to mind as related but that's really not a hiking/access issue. Hunting is less partisan (though leans R) and is definitely access-related but I don't have a lot of specific governmental actions in mind.
One obvious example that comes to mind is access to public land in the Crazies up in Montana, which Ryan Zinke tried to curtail on behalf of his rich friends. See e.g. https://www.fseee.org/2017/10/13/ousted ... post-back/ .
This strikes me as more traditional political cronyism than ideologically driven but it certainly fits the criteria.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
User avatar
Ed_Groves
Posts: 142
Joined: 6/6/2019
14ers: 25 
13ers: 11
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Ed_Groves »

yardman wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 4:56 pm
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
Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen an updated status on this. As a Missouri resident I am unaware of when the Colorado legislative session takes place each year. Where does it stand? Any further talks or hints of what direction a solution might take?
"Education is the process of moving from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty." (Utvich)
User avatar
12ersRule
Posts: 2266
Joined: 6/18/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 157
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by 12ersRule »

Midwestlungs wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:26 am 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
That's pretty Fascist of you to try to tell people what they can and can't post about. Fascism is what is wrong with this country.
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 »

Midwestlungs wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:26 amThis 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.
nan.PNG
nan.PNG (54.15 KiB) Viewed 3226 times
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3186
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 84 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by highpilgrim »

Scott P wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:37 am
Midwestlungs wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:26 amThis 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.
nan.PNG
Stupid is as stupid does. ^^
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
Candace66
Posts: 255
Joined: 1/23/2017
14ers: 42  1 
13ers: 207 3
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Candace66 »

Ed_Groves wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:58 am
Maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen an updated status on this. As a Missouri resident I am unaware of when the Colorado legislative session takes place each year. Where does it stand? Any further talks or hints of what direction a solution might take?
I'd also like to see an update. But unfortunately this thread has been completely hijacked.
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 »

Bean wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:01 am This has long been a meme but I'm curious if you have some historical and modern examples of legislative and/or executive actions on either side regarding hiking and access.
Several Utah senators and the governor have proposed many times that all public lands should be sold and be made into private lands.

From Mike Lee's webpage:

But Congress has not honored that promise to sell federal land in Utah or most of the west. They should. Sen. Lee is fighting to make Congress keep that promise and to mitigate the damage the federal government is inflicting on rural communities in the meantime.

https://www.lee.senate.gov/issue-lands

Of course his claim on the promised sale of the public lands is very misleading. In reality the Feds tried to give the land back to Utah at the expiration of the Taylor Grazing Act, but Utah and other western states refused saying that "we already have enough desert".

In Colorado some county commissioners (i.e. John Kinkaid of Moffat County) have also said that all public lands should be sold into private hands as well, but as far as I know it has only been from the county level politicians rather than Senate.
I'm old, slow and fat. Unfortunately, those are my good qualities.
Above_Treeline
Posts: 437
Joined: 8/19/2017
14ers: 3 
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Above_Treeline »

My understanding is that in 2015 the Republicans passed legislation to give all federal lands to states. Obama vetoed it as I believe that both house of Congress republican controlled at that time. I don't think they would have been returned to states in the vast majority of instances as the states probably never owned othem. One can only imagine the effect in Utah as Scott mentioned above. State and local governments there are generally opposed to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. And I have no idea how Arches Zion and other national parks might turn out under state management. I doubt it would be good. At all.

Of course of they actually did give lands to states the states aren't set up to handle them. Making it more likely they get rid of these lands sold or other right into republican donors hands. Pretty sneaky plan. The states aren't likely to have the budget or personnellike rangers etc since they never administered them. Even if you want to say I'm wrong on the 2015 bill look at libertarian platform on public lands. I think you'll see they are interested in local control. Locals usually are republican and interested in destroying them. And listen to republican senators talking about how great it is that TX is only 2% federally owned and ask yourself what you think about hiking TX.

Then there'sthe Mahleur NWR armed takeover. That gets a lot of support in republican circles. Do you think ranchers who went in, in an armed takeover to steal a NWR from all Americans to fence it off for themselves did that and are going to let people go hiking. Fat chance. It really is a big threat. And it's mostly one sided. You might not like my posts, but scary times.
I support reintroducing grizzlies and wolves to their historic ranges.
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 »

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.
Traveling light is the only way to fly.
IG: @colorado_invasive
Strava: Brent Herring
User avatar
12ersRule
Posts: 2266
Joined: 6/18/2007
14ers: 58 
13ers: 157
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by 12ersRule »

Above_Treeline wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:30 am My understanding is that in 2015 the Republicans passed legislation to give all federal lands to states. Obama vetoed it as I believe that both house of Congress republican controlled at that time. I don't think they would have been returned to states in the vast majority of instances as the states probably never owned othem. One can only imagine the effect in Utah as Scott mentioned above. State and local governments there are generally opposed to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. And I have no idea how Arches Zion and other national parks might turn out under state management. I doubt it would be good. At all.

Of course of they actually did give lands to states the states aren't set up to handle them. Making it more likely they get rid of these lands sold or other right into republican donors hands. Pretty sneaky plan. The states aren't likely to have the budget or personnellike rangers etc since they never administered them. Even if you want to say I'm wrong on the 2015 bill look at libertarian platform on public lands. I think you'll see they are interested in local control. Locals usually are republican and interested in destroying them. And listen to republican senators talking about how great it is that TX is only 2% federally owned and ask yourself what you think about hiking TX.

Then there'sthe Mahleur NWR armed takeover. That gets a lot of support in republican circles. Do you think ranchers who went in, in an armed takeover to steal a NWR from all Americans to fence it off for themselves did that and are going to let people go hiking. Fat chance. It really is a big threat. And it's mostly one sided. You might not like my posts, but scary times.

In the past, I've been all about pro-Public lands because it's the easiest way to secure access.

However, the Federal Gov't is woefully slow at addressing issues with our forests, letting pine beetles run amok, and 100+ years of fire suppression have made them volatile tinderboxes. Often times, the land is in better hands being private. Look at Culebra for example, you couldn't find a more pristine looking 14er.

I still root for public access most of the time because I want to see healthy ecosystems with a good number of apex predators (grizzly, wolves, mountain lions etc). However, in general, we the public are idiots and can't handle co-existence with these species.

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.
Post Reply