The Decalibron 14ers Are Closing Again

[dwoodward13]

Alex,

Thanks for sharing, and all the work you've put into this issue over the years. Do you know which parcels in particular would be "closed"? I'm looking at the private land overlay on Gaia trying to see what could be affected (admittedly with attention to the area below the Lincoln Amphitheater/Lincoln Falls since there's still another month or two of viable ice climbing there).

Is John tied to the parcels that are listed as owned by Earth Energy Resources, LLC? As far as I can tell, it seems Earth Energy Resources, Duke Resources, and several private landowners own parcels across that land (i.e. Parcels listed as owned by Leszek Zajac, etc). Are these other entities/owners closing their parts of the land as well?

His land is the Earth Energy Resources LLC parcels. Not sure about the others.

[terribletigzy]

On a lighter note, I was lucky enough to climb Lindsey the summer before it was closed, and did Decalibron last summer. This feels way too lucky, what peak (or peaks) do I need to do this summer to stay ahead of my own luck?!

[jrbren_vt]

How do they plan to enforce this? Kite lake campground is public. A good bit of the trail is also public. The private areas are high in the alpine. Are they just planning on putting no trespassing signs or actually employing the culebra Gestapo with drones, guns, and ATVs to threaten and kidnap trespassers?

https://www.globalnerdy.com/2020/06/16/ ... available/

[mtree]

Front range peaks are going to get real crowded! Hahahaha

[headsizeburrito]

I'm going to quote some stuff in the Lindsey thread (viewtopic.php?t=60776&start=312) since it's now more relevant to this one to focus discussion here.

First, this is extremely disappointing and frustrating as somebody who was followed this issue closely. There is clear harm being done to recreational access and local economies due to closures, both current and those likely to follow. The fact that legislators and lawyers opposed to the proposed CRUS reforms claim that "one case in 20 years" shows the status quo is working is clearly made in ignorance if not outright bad faith. We see the harms in the form of lost access right now.

I think you are on to something here. One of the things we've already identified we can do differently next time is secure some testimony from the 14er researchers who calculated the economic impact statewide from 14ers - their data, while a bit outdated, is the best available and suggests that the 14ers create between $82 and $100 million in economic activity across the state each year - and that 85% of that is spent within 25 miles of the peaks in mountain towns that rely on that traffic to keep their budget in the black. (https://www.postindependent.com/news/14 ... o-economy/).

If we do this again, I think we'll definitely have some experts testify about these facts and make it clear that there are major economic incentives at play - especially since this law affects much more than just the 14ers. More access for skiing, climbing, hunting, fishing, and camping all increase tourism revenue for the state.

This seems like a very strong and obvious argument, so why wasn't it pushed more aggressively this time around?

I firmly believe that the next year will provide a lot of time to build public awareness through social media, word-of-mouth, news articles, and hiker outreach, and also help us build a larger coalition with more influential groups. When we introduce the bill a second time, it'll be with a much broader base of support, and I think we'll have a strong likelihood of success. For one thing, we'll be able to come back and show them, 'this isn't getting better - it's getting worse - and it's clearly going to continue to spiral until you fix it.'

For one thing, I have no idea if the decalibron will close again. But if it does - and it might - it would raise major awareness and make hundreds of hikers - perhaps thousands - angry enough to email their representative, give them a call, request a meeting, or show up at the next hearing. That's what will ultimately overpower the CTLA.

Again, why didn't this happen in this effort? It seems like it just recreated the previous failed effort with a new bill draft but no real attempt at public mobilization.

Frankly it's pathetic that the Judiciary Committee voted the way they did in such a transparent surrender to lawyers chasing their cut of big (hypothetical future) lawsuits. I can see an argument for not giving landowners a blank check, but when they are offering free access to their land, protection short of malicious intent seems like a reasonable tradeoff. Governmental immunity means you have almost no chance of successfully suing if you get hurt on public land (which is where the Decalibron lease agreement with the town of Alma came in), so why should (unmanaged free access) private land be treated so differently? If I break my leg in either place it's still broken. The state doesn't care if you get hurt on their land, so why not use the same standard on private land in exchange for access? The alternative, as we clearly see, is loss of recreational opportunity and loss of economic benefits for rural areas and small towns that could really use the money.

(also I was finally going to get around to doing my Decalibron snowflake in a couple weeks, booo)

[amderr22]

^Carry on

The bill failing in committee seemed inevitable from what I read, lack of Democrat support, and the small window of off-season time the public had to react. /

By time the bill reached the Committee it had secured Democratic sponsors in both the Assembly and Senate - one Democratic Senator testified in support of the bill too, but it still wasn't enough.

I expect the bill will be re-introduced in 2024, which will provide a lot more time to build public awareness, create more support, highlight the impact of the closures, and apply more pressure, especially now that there is a large, engaged coalition of 25 orgs that remains committed to finding a solution.

[andrewhamilton]

Im also extremely frustrated by this. I’ve met the owner personally and i know that he would definitely prefer to keep it open. Is there an actual argument for not changing the law? Because there doesn’t seem much downside except as one of the previous posts suggests that then a bunch of law firms could miss out on future hypothetical lawsuits.

Anyway I’m all in on helping spread the word about this if it would make a difference.

[Ptglhs]

when they are offering free access to their land, protection short of malicious intent seems like a reasonable tradeoff. really use the money.

100% agree. Respect the outdoors and leave no trace, stay away from crops and livestock or structures someone else built, and don't sue for stupid sh*t.

[colingoodman]

Here is the vote where the bill died: https://legiscan.com/CO/rollcall/SB103/id/1266135

I don’t know why each senator voted the way they did. If anyone recognizes their own here they may want to reach out and ask, and perhaps emphasize support for finding a solution next session.

[amderr22]

I'm going to quote some stuff in the Lindsey thread (viewtopic.php?t=60776&start=312) since it's now more relevant to this one to focus discussion here.

First, this is extremely disappointing and frustrating as somebody who was followed this issue closely. There is clear harm being done to recreational access and local economies due to closures, both current and those likely to follow. The fact that legislators and lawyers opposed to the proposed CRUS reforms claim that "one case in 20 years" shows the status quo is working is clearly made in ignorance if not outright bad faith. We see the harms in the form of lost access right now.

I think you are on to something here. One of the things we've already identified we can do differently next time is secure some testimony from the 14er researchers who calculated the economic impact statewide from 14ers - their data, while a bit outdated, is the best available and suggests that the 14ers create between $82 and $100 million in economic activity across the state each year - and that 85% of that is spent within 25 miles of the peaks in mountain towns that rely on that traffic to keep their budget in the black. (https://www.postindependent.com/news/14 ... o-economy/).

If we do this again, I think we'll definitely have some experts testify about these facts and make it clear that there are major economic incentives at play - especially since this law affects much more than just the 14ers. More access for skiing, climbing, hunting, fishing, and camping all increase tourism revenue for the state.

This seems like a very strong and obvious argument, so why wasn't it pushed more aggressively this time around?

I firmly believe that the next year will provide a lot of time to build public awareness through social media, word-of-mouth, news articles, and hiker outreach, and also help us build a larger coalition with more influential groups. When we introduce the bill a second time, it'll be with a much broader base of support, and I think we'll have a strong likelihood of success. For one thing, we'll be able to come back and show them, 'this isn't getting better - it's getting worse - and it's clearly going to continue to spiral until you fix it.'

For one thing, I have no idea if the decalibron will close again. But if it does - and it might - it would raise major awareness and make hundreds of hikers - perhaps thousands - angry enough to email their representative, give them a call, request a meeting, or show up at the next hearing. That's what will ultimately overpower the CTLA.

Again, why didn't this happen in this effort? It seems like it just recreated the previous failed effort with a new bill draft but no real attempt at public mobilization.

Frankly, it's pathetic that the Judiciary Committee voted the way they did in such a transparent surrender to lawyers chasing their cut of big (hypothetical future) lawsuits. I can see an argument for not giving landowners a blank check, but when they are offering free access to their land, protection short of malicious intent seems like a reasonable tradeoff. Governmental immunity means you have almost no chance of successfully suing if you get hurt on public land (which is where the Decalibron lease agreement with the town of Alma came in), so why should (unmanaged free access) private land be treated so differently? If I break my leg in either place it's still broken. The state doesn't care if you get hurt on their land, so why not use the same standard on private land in exchange for access? The alternative, as we clearly see, is loss of recreational opportunity and loss of economic benefits for rural areas and small towns that could really use the money.

(also I was finally going to get around to doing my Decalibron snowflake in a couple of weeks, booo)

Essentially, those things didn't happen because of bad luck with the timing. The CMC worked for quite a while to find a Senator willing to sponsor the bill, finally succeeding about a month before the Hearing, a month into the legislative season. They're also going through some major staff transitions in their Policy, Conservation, and Marketing Teams - the three teams most involved with this. It's hard to run a public mobilization policy campaign when you don't have a communications manager and you're hiring a new policy director.

In any case, I think it would have been difficult to mobilize the public before the decalibron closure. I posted in every single major 14er group a week before the hearing, urging people to act, and got an anemic response - but now, it'll be much easier. No one wanted to see these peaks close, but now that they have, there is a silver lining in terms of obtaining a long-term solution that protects access.

The economic researchers are retired and no longer live in Colorado - that's why they didn't testify. The former Mayor of Alma spoke about the economic importance of the peaks to their community, and I believe CFI testified about the estimated impact of the 2021 closure (around $5 million, based on that earlier research). But I think it could be more explicit next time.

It was beyond frustrating sitting there and listening to them repeatedly say that one lawsuit in 26 years is proof of success - I couldn't agree more. 10% of the Colorado 14ers will now be closed to the public specifically due to landowner liability concerns - peaks that bring in $5-10 million for local communities. We hammered the point repeatedly: The law only works if it is PERCEIVED to be effective and 100% protective. All it takes is one lawsuit to prove the exemptions have teeth - because what happens once can clearly happen twice. Why would an owner pay thousands for insurance and sign installation to allow public access - and still be at risk - when they can just close it off for good and walk away safe? The incentives are clearly moving in the wrong direction.

[Fisching]

Here are the emails for the 3 senators who votes NOT to advance it out of committee:

julie.gonzales.senate@coleg.gov; dylan.roberts.senate@coleg.gov; robert.rodriguez.senate@coleg.gov;

I wrote a draft email to make this easier for everyone to respond to them quickly.
Collectively, hit their inboxes fast, and him them hard.


Dear Senator,

I am writing to express my disappointment in your decision to delay the passing of SB 103, a bipartisan bill that would have strengthened liability protections for landowners who allow public access to their land for outdoor recreation. I encourage you to reconsider your decision immediately for the benefit of Coloradoans and the state's outdoor tourism industry.

As we all know, Colorado is renowned for its beautiful landscapes and outdoor recreational opportunities. However, many landowners are hesitant to allow public access to their property due to exposure over liability. SB 103 would have addressed this issue by providing greater protection for landowners who open their land to the public for activities such as hiking, fishing, and hunting. By opposing this bill, you have missed an opportunity to support Colorado's outdoor recreation industry, the Colorado economy, and the many Coloradans who enjoy spending time in nature. The bill had broad support from a range of stakeholders, including conservation groups, outdoor recreation organizations, and the agricultural community. As a result, we're already seeing landowners close access to high traffic trails in the state.

Moreover, the bill was crafted through a bipartisan effort, demonstrating that this issue transcends political boundaries and has the potential to unite Coloradans across the political spectrum.

I urge you to reconsider your position on this issue and work towards passing legislation expeditiously that will protect landowners while also promoting public access to Colorado's beautiful outdoor spaces.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]

[amderr22]

Im also extremely frustrated by this. I’ve met the owner personally and i know that he would definitely prefer to keep it open. Is there an actual argument for not changing the law? Because there doesn’t seem much downside except as one of the previous posts suggests that then a bunch of law firms could miss out on future hypothetical lawsuits.

Anyway I’m all in on helping spread the word about this if it would make a difference.

Hey Andrew, I would love to get in touch about ways to help spread public awareness on this - I'm sure the CMC and CFI would love to have your help.

The argument against changing the law came down to a moral argumement: The lawyers say all the law does is require owners to warn people about hazards they are aware of - and that means it is simply asking them to 'do the right thing' and warn people, rather than intentionally choosing not to warn them - and that someone who gets injured by something a landowner knew about should have the right to go after them.

They suggested that if we change the law, the message the state sends is akin to: We don't protect you, we don't require folks to warn others of danger, and we don't provide any recourse if you are injured as a result, because we don't take care of our neighbors.

And they hammered that the law must be working, since there's only been one successful lawsuit over 26 years, and that the balance is appropriate as is.

That of course ignores a few key facts:
-The law's stated purpose is to protect public access to private lands - not to prevent lawsuits. They aren't judging it based on what it was designed to do. The fact that 10% of the state's 14ers are now closed highlights this disconnect - clearly, it is not working.
-There are at least 2 additional cases that settled out of court, meaning landowners ended up paying and weren't protected by the statute. So the idea that this is the only case is literal bulls**t - but it's impossible to prove they are wrong because settlements are sealed. 1 cases might appear an aberration - but 3 is definitely a pattern.
-Every major hiking, biking, and climbing organization in the state, representing their members, supports the trade-off: accepting personal responsibility for our safety in exchange for access to private lands. Not a single group or recreationist opposed the bill. The CMC surveyed hikers at the decalibron: 95% supported the bill. Clearly, the people the Senators were 'protecting' don't want their protection if it means losing access.