The Decalibron 14ers Are Closing Again

[amderr22]

I've put together a FB Group to share info and coordinate action among 14er public access supporters - it'll be a space to share updates and information, allow supporters to network and connect, and help coordinate action to support future attempts to restore access to the peaks.

It's a good way to get more involved and stay up to date: https://www.facebook.com/groups/8831211246952449/

You can also subscribe to the CMC's conservation newsletter, which will also share updates: https://signup.e2ma.net/signup/1728668/1367907/

It is heartening to know so many care about this!

This one also seems to have actual practical value...

One other more recent practical idea: Here is a petition targetting the three Senators that killed the bill, plus Gov Polis (who could easily make it a priority if he wanted - but thus far has stayed out of it entirely.) Sign it and share it widely - they get an email any time someone signs. Add a comment on WHY you support the bill for even more impact (proves it isn't a bot filling out the form)

Sign the petition -> https://www.change.org/14erPublicAccess

[joshuahutton]

Sorry if this was already answered, but do we know when they are closing access to Democrat and Lincoln? I still need to get Democrat since I missed out on it last year due to weather.

[CaptainSuburbia]

Effective immediately. You'll have to do it discreetly.

[daway8]

One other more recent practical idea: Here is a petition targetting the three Senators that killed the bill, plus Gov Polis (who could easily make it a priority if he wanted - but thus far has stayed out of it entirely.) Sign it and share it widely - they get an email any time someone signs. Add a comment on WHY you support the bill for even more impact (proves it isn't a bot filling out the form)

Sign the petition -> https://www.change.org/14erPublicAccess

When done on a mobile the comment box flickered up for a second then vanished - I had to poke around after signing to find a way to add a comment.

Thanks for putting out something where immediate action can be taken.

[TomPierce]

Unless I'm missing something, changing the votes of these three Senators will only move it out of committee, right? If that's accurate, any sense if it would pass the full legislature? And does the petition indicate if those who sign are actually in the legislative districts of these three Senators? If not it wouldn't shock me if they paid less attention to it.

-Tom

[BillMiddlebrook]

Here we are 20 years later.

I’ll be honest, I’m under no illusion that legislative change is the end all. As long as there are private landowners who own sections of 14er land, there will be closures. Their reasoning will never be quelled by one stroke of the pen.

[ekalina]

Here we are 20 years later.

I’ll be honest, I’m under no illusion that legislative change is the end all. As long as there are private landowners who own sections of 14er land, there will be closures. Their reasoning will never be quelled by one stroke of the pen.

Agreed. Liability concerns may ease, but other motivations for blocking access will periodically surface. Even now, my understanding is that reforming the CRUS won't get Bross reopened.

I do want to thank Alex and others for the hard work they're doing to pursue the CRUS avenue. It is certainly worth doing and getting liability concerns out of the way means one less reason to block access. I guess I am just trying to temper people's expectations (including my own) for what CRUS reform alone will achieve.

[oldschool]

If I may please....

Why should the 14ers be in the public domain?

Why should unused land be private, or at least inaccessible? It's land, much like air or water. This is the planet we live on. Things which lay fallow should be all of ours to walk across, to see, to feel, to experience. (Again, land not being used, big difference between undeveloped forest and tundra vs an active mine or logging or ranching or someone's home).

It's very simple.....just follow along.

1. You didn't buy it
2. It's not yours
3. It is irrelevant what the owner does with it and it's none of your business
4.The use of the word "should" usually indicates the sense of entitlement

I know what you want but you can't have it..so deal with it (but that's not you now is it?)

Mike

[Wentzl]

Ultimately, when an accident occurs on private land, at least four different entities can be responsible for the costs: 1) the individual, 2) the land owner, 3) the government, or 4) "other."

When an individual sues a land owner for damages, the land owner -- typically unbeknownst to them -- is essentially acting as the insurance company for the individual. I guess this is kind of a raw deal for the land owner because they never bothered to charge the individual a premium to cover the costs. But no matter, land owner pays.

When an individual calls search and rescue, here the government, i.e., county sheriff department, and "other," i.e., volunteer SAR organizations, cover the costs of the rescue. Although, if some people are considerate, they purchase COSAR cards to help cover the costs.

The trend as I see it, is that the individual is not required to internalize the costs of the activity. Perhaps that's not fair when the individual derives the benefit of hiking.

The issue of access ultimately comes down to who should bear the costs when something goes wrong, and if hikers assume this risk, then the issue of access may improve in many instances.

Along these lines, the state should offer hiking licenses where a holder of a license agrees not to sue land owners and asserts they have adequate insurance to cover costs. The insurance companies offer "recreational coverage," and the premiums are based upon claims made by individuals who suffer injuries and county sheriff departments and SAR organizations who wish to be reimbursed for costs.

With this land owners can open up their lands with peace of mind that they won't be sued, as there is no need to sue the land owner when an insurance company will assume the costs.

Now, as for those unlicensed/uninsured hikers who hike upon private land, the penalty should have big teeth -- 1) a hiker can't sue a land owner in the event of an accident, i.e., any lawsuit is immediately dismissed (hey, if you don't care enough to insure yourself against accidents, don't expect others to care either); 2) in the case of mere trespassing, the fines are significant to help defray costs that people don't want to pay for in the first place; and 3) SAR/the government can sue unlicensed/uninsured hikers for rescue costs.

So, I guess if pigs could fly, right? We don't exactly live in a society where people wish to internalize the costs to themselves for "whatever" -- people tend to want free stuff and/or for others to assume the risks or costs. It's the land owners who should continue to look after the safety of hikers because people are too stupid, cheap, and irresponsible to do this individually.

Anyways, some late-night ramblings...

Thank you for the most well reasoned and sensible argument I have seen put down on this forum in a long time. Of course, nothing will come of it, but your analysis seems spot on to me.

[amderr22]

SB 23-103 was crafted by a group of 6 groups and endorsed by 30+ organizations, including the Fourteeners Initiative, CMC, Wilderness Society, Trust for Public Land, Continental Divide Trail Association, RevLaw, Access Fund, local municipalities, and others with insight on this and similar issues. The consensus among them is that it would provide ironclad protection to address the landowner liability concern at its root - in a way that previous changes to the law did not (they previously had to compromise with the Trial Lawyers to get it passed).

With nearly a year to raise awareness, combined with the media attention from the 14er closures, we think the bill has a solid chance of passing in the future. It's really dependent on how much of the hiking, climbing, and broader outdoor recreation community can be mobilized to take action to support it. 14ers.com and other online communities can play a big role in making that happen by sharing info and raising awareness of the issue, promoting the bill, and encouraging action.

All of the landowners working with us have been very consistent in their reasoning that the closures are due to their liability concerns - and that these changes would address those concerns. There are other issues that could lead to future closures (Leave No Trace and vandalism are at the top of the list). However, I'm a believer that if these issues ever escalated to threaten public access, the 14er community would find a way to intercede and address it to keep the area open. CFI and CMC's work to reopen the Decalibron in 2021 by installing signs, surveying visitors, and recruiting peak stewards to educate visitors is an example of that in action.

Maybe someday the opportunity or need will arise that leads to the purchase of the peaks - I'd always support that if the owners were open to it and the price was reasonable, or if owners unilaterally shut down access with no other way to get it back. However, I view eminent domain as a last-ditch solution, for use once all other options have failed, and this bill is just starting off (most bills must get introduced several times before they pass into law).

[KentonB]

All of the landowners working with us have been very consistent in their reasoning that the closures are due to their liability concerns

Alex, when you talk about the landowners you've been working with, what mountains does this impact? I assume Lindsey, Democrat, and LIncoln... Bross also? Any 13ers (or other significant mountains) that would be affected if this change went through?

[JQDivide]

All of the landowners working with us....

Sorry if I missed this, but, who is "US,"
Are you a member or staff of an organization that is working on this?
Or is 'us' just a general term for all of us who are interested in this?

Thanks
Joel