The Decalibron 14ers Are Closing Again

[Jim Davies]

What's the deal with Kit Carson (and Challenger) these days?

I believe it was bought out and is now all public. I remember reading that somewhere (maybe here).

A detailed history is here: http://npshistory.com/publications/grsa/timeline.pdf
It was acquired as part of the conversion of the Sand Dunes from a National Monument to a National Park, which happened in the early 2000's, and involved the Interior Department, Nature Conservancy, and (oddly enough) Yale University.

[oldschool]

If I may please....

Why should the 14ers be in the public domain?

Mike

Well that's an easy one. Climbing 14ers is as Coloradan as drinking craft beer, skiing, and being obsessed with your dog. It's part of the state's identity. What kind of claim to fame do we have to 14ers if one or a few individuals can effectively just shutter 10% (or more) of them and effectively say, "yeah, no more 14er finishers around here"? As others have noted it dings the state's economy and also our reputation as a place where outdoor recreation in the mountains is taken very seriously. To get away from the whims of individuals and protect the 14ers that the state is so well known for, these lands should be in the public domain. It is the only way to ensure access, and also protection.

By the way, I am not advocating that any one organization or person should "pony up" to buy out the landowners. If enough people care about this issue, a crowdfunding campaign that sources donations from many organizations and individuals could be extremely effective. I hope that other avenues, like legislative reform, prove to be successful. But I think we should acknowledge that reforming the CRUS only eliminates one obstacle regarding access to these peaks - landowner liability concerns. What happens IF the price of precious metals skyrockets and one or more of these mining claims gets active? We don't need more mountains getting destroyed like Bartlett, especially the 14ers. Or what happens if a claim or private parcel is sold to someone who just isn't into the idea of the public being there, liability or not?

These peaks are precious, irreplaceable state resources that benefit hundreds of thousands of people every year. They have more than earned their place in our canon of public lands.

I appreciate your response. I have to admit I struggle greatly with this issue. As it sits now, private land allows the land owners certain rights. As a rather litigious culture/country, we have seen many court cases that seem ludicrous yet a person may succeed in winning in a court of law. I don't hold any ill will towards the landowners at all in not allowing access.

Just because a crowd funding operation may take place doesn't necessarily mean the land owner will/ has to sell. Some comments on this topic and in this thread state that the future of mineral prices may go up, rendering their land more valuable. You stated it yourself. As a community of climbers and some of those that propose to love the land ( I believe they do) and want to protect it from mining, yet most of us walk around with a lithium battery powered device. The destruction of lives and land caused by this singular activity primarily doesn't happen here in the USA. It's a bit of a NIMBY situation. I want my Tesla, my cell phone, my e-bike, etc...but don't tear up our land to get the minerals and products needed to get such items.

I've read and have been reading these types of topics on 14ers.com for years. There are many angles. Some advocate for "screw it. I deserve/want to have access to 14er's, regardless of private land issues. I'm going to simply trespass." Others choose different paths, such as staying off until it's legal/allowed, as well as other situations such as having to pay to hike Culebra.

Colorado saw approx 84.2 million visitors in 2021 (from several sites, including colorado.gov,). These visitors (not all climbers/hikers) contributed approx $19.7 billion to the Colorado economy. According to CFI, in 2019, the 14er's saw approx 288,000 hiker days. The numbers for 2020 was 414,000 hiker days, a large increase due primarily to Covid-19, as stated by the CFI. Also, according to CFI and other resources, the approx dollars spent by Quandary hikers in 2009 in the Breckenridge area was $271/day. I'm guessing that number was/is higher in 2020/2021. I was unable to find estimates for the years beyond 2009. Let's say the "average" person spends $350/day...we multiply that by 414,000 hikers (2020 numbers) that totals $144,900,000. That represents (if my math is correct) .735% of the total dollars spent by visitors. A very small percentage of the local/CO economy comes from hikers, let alone 14er hikers. It "dings" the economy is a very small way if that money was taken away.

I understand it's personal choice on what side of the fence people stand on. I agree with your statement that the 14er's benefit hundreds of thousand people each year. I disagree that we, as 14 hikers, have some "right" to trespass and hike 14er's, disregard the laws we don't want to follow, and/or "should" be allowed to do what we want, when we want to. I agree with those that are trying, through the channels of law, to change the current situation.

Mike

[nunns]

i have mixed feelings about this, on one hand its a bummer our society is so litigious that it has come to this, on the other i think if coloradans really want access to these places, the state should try to buy out the landowners. the bill seems like a crummy middle ground that doesnt solve the actual problem

https://legiscan.com/CO/text/SB103/2023

Bill linked if anyone wants to read

The main landowner concern comes down a single word that creates a big exemption in the state's liability protection: If owners "WILLFULLY" or maliciously fail to warn or guard against a dangerous condition, they lose liability protection. In a court case several years ago, a bicyclist hit a washed-out section of trail and got injured, proved that the Air Force Academy knew about it but didn't close the trail, and won $7 million. The CMC, CFI, and landowners wanted to strike that word from the law - "willfully" - in addition to some less controversial changes, like stipulating that risks inherent to outdoor recreation are also not grounds for action (falling, lightning, hypothermia, etc.).

The removal of willful from the act would have essentially closed that loophole, and 14er landowners and their attorneys agreed that the changes were enough for them to feel protected and restore or maintain open access.

It really was a nice, long-term solution.

These Taking Points from the Colorado Mountain Club goes into detail about the bill's provisions and why they support it: https://advocacyassets.congressplus.net ... Points.pdf

I will admit to not reading all 12 pages of this thread, since it's about the 40th thread on this same basic topic.

Based on what the poster above has said, I wonder if it would be possible for the state, or a private organization, or the feds (my least favorite choice) could purchase THE TRAILS ONLY. This would leave the owners with 99% of their land, and essentially 100% access to mining claims, while at the same time allowing access to the mountains for hiking.

The state of Missouri has done this in creating the Katy and Rock Island trails. The Katy trail is a state park that is about 200 miles long and about 50 feet wide. Much of the trail runs through private land (mostly farmland). Leaving the trail except at designated points is trespassing, and the land owners of the surrounding land are not liable (I believe) for accidents that occur on their property. Just a thought.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

[oldschool]

i have mixed feelings about this, on one hand its a bummer our society is so litigious that it has come to this, on the other i think if coloradans really want access to these places, the state should try to buy out the landowners. the bill seems like a crummy middle ground that doesnt solve the actual problem

https://legiscan.com/CO/text/SB103/2023

Bill linked if anyone wants to read

The main landowner concern comes down a single word that creates a big exemption in the state's liability protection: If owners "WILLFULLY" or maliciously fail to warn or guard against a dangerous condition, they lose liability protection. In a court case several years ago, a bicyclist hit a washed-out section of trail and got injured, proved that the Air Force Academy knew about it but didn't close the trail, and won $7 million. The CMC, CFI, and landowners wanted to strike that word from the law - "willfully" - in addition to some less controversial changes, like stipulating that risks inherent to outdoor recreation are also not grounds for action (falling, lightning, hypothermia, etc.).

The removal of willful from the act would have essentially closed that loophole, and 14er landowners and their attorneys agreed that the changes were enough for them to feel protected and restore or maintain open access.

It really was a nice, long-term solution.

These Taking Points from the Colorado Mountain Club goes into detail about the bill's provisions and why they support it: https://advocacyassets.congressplus.net ... Points.pdf

I will admit to not reading all 12 pages of this thread, since it's about the 40th thread on this same basic topic.

Based on what the poster above has said, I wonder if it would be possible for the state, or a private organization, or the feds (my least favorite choice) could purchase THE TRAILS ONLY. This would leave the owners with 99% of their land, and essentially 100% access to mining claims, while at the same time allowing access to the mountains for hiking.

The state of Missouri has done this in creating the Katy and Rock Island trails. The Katy trail is a state park that is about 200 miles long and about 50 feet wide. Much of the trail runs through private land (mostly farmland). Leaving the trail except at designated points is trespassing, and the land owners of the surrounding land are not liable (I believe) for accidents that occur on their property. Just a thought.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

Very interesting and good idea...such as what The Access Fund does in relation to climbing areas....

Mike

[nyker]

The purchase idea could work but you would need to find a land owner interested and willing to sell and a buyer with enough capital who is aligned with your objectives. It would also likely need to be in cash given the current rate environment for financing anything.

Probably the only way to make that happen and for among the few folks that have that kind of money to do it would be a large PE firm, a high net worth philanthropist (Gates, Buffett?) or possibly a large corporation in need of some good ESG karma to do it and get some kind of tax credit in doing so. Deep pockets are needed... Cielo Vista ranch (culebra) was sold last for something like $105 million.

[XterraRob]

Can someone design a digital liability waiver app that allows folks to climb the peaks if they scan a barcode at the trailhead or visit a website and sign a digital waiver?

Get the owners on board and away we go.

[Scott P]

Can someone design a digital liability waiver app that allows folks to climb the peaks if they scan a barcode at the trailhead or visit a website and sign a digital waiver?

Get the owners on board and away we go.

To climb at Puoux near Glenwood all you have to do is click a link and type your name then sign a waiver.

The barcode is a good idea too.

The only issue I see with it is that since those peaks get about 30,000 climbers a year, it would be hard for the owners to track the waivers and a lot of hikers probably wouldn't fill them out.

It's a great idea though.

[dan0rama]

You can't disclaim willful negligence, so no waiver would solve the issue.

However, it seems that the owners can protect themselves by claiming that their land is closed to recreational access? So for instance, if I climb Democrat tomorrow and fall into a sinkhole on private property, I can't sue them using the Air Force precedent because the land was "closed" so I was technically trespassing? So how about if everyone pleaded guilty to trespassing before climbing?

[timisimaginary]

Based on what the poster above has said, I wonder if it would be possible for the state, or a private organization, or the feds (my least favorite choice) could purchase THE TRAILS ONLY. This would leave the owners with 99% of their land, and essentially 100% access to mining claims, while at the same time allowing access to the mountains for hiking.

The state of Missouri has done this in creating the Katy and Rock Island trails. The Katy trail is a state park that is about 200 miles long and about 50 feet wide. Much of the trail runs through private land (mostly farmland). Leaving the trail except at designated points is trespassing, and the land owners of the surrounding land are not liable (I believe) for accidents that occur on their property. Just a thought.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

i wonder if an easement could accomplish the same thing. usually an easement is granted to force owners to allow people to cross private property, but in this case it might benefit the property owners who already want to allow access, by basically superseding any liability they could be subject to with a govt-enforced right of passage. if the govt is telling you that you HAVE to allow people to cross your property, you can't then be held responsible for what happens to those people as a result, right?

the Appalachian Trail is a giant web of public lands, private land open to the public, and easements, crossing 14 states with their myriad different laws, and getting millions of visitors a year to some part of that trail. seems to work for them.

[XterraRob]

To climb at Puoux near Glenwood all you have to do is click a link and type your name then sign a waiver.

The barcode is a good idea too.

The only issue I see with it is that since those peaks get about 30,000 climbers a year, it would be hard for the owners to track the waivers and a lot of hikers probably wouldn't fill them out.

It's a great idea though.

If they don't fill them out, that's fine because then they'd be illegally trespassing.

[Trotter]

I will admit to not reading all 12 pages of this thread, since it's about the 40th thread on this same basic topic.

Based on what the poster above has said, I wonder if it would be possible for the state, or a private organization, or the feds (my least favorite choice) could purchase THE TRAILS ONLY. This would leave the owners with 99% of their land, and essentially 100% access to mining claims, while at the same time allowing access to the mountains for hiking.

The state of Missouri has done this in creating the Katy and Rock Island trails. The Katy trail is a state park that is about 200 miles long and about 50 feet wide. Much of the trail runs through private land (mostly farmland). Leaving the trail except at designated points is trespassing, and the land owners of the surrounding land are not liable (I believe) for accidents that occur on their property. Just a thought.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

The problem is that if the owners are holding onto the land like a lottery ticket, hoping a big mining corporation or speculator will come in and buy their property at a crazy price, that weird strip cutting across it would ruin that plan. You can't do a big open pit mine such as climax mine in leadville, if you have to leave a strip in the middle.

Also, if you had read the thread, you'd see that some of the land owners couldn't be contacted, or refused contact.

[Trotter]

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

I'm participating in the coalition as a CMC member and volunteer, and as a representative of my own org, The Next Summit; Both organizations are part of the broader coalition of 32-ish groups endorsing the bill (the number keeps rising). The CMC's Conservation Staff have played a central role as a convener and coalition-builder; their team is really to thank for keeping it alive and putting in the legwork. I helped with some initial policy research on the issue, and now I've been tasked with updating online communities impacted by the issue and starting some initial grassroots organizing work for future initiatives.

The full list of non-profits, businesses, and public sector supporters, as of now, includes:
Access Fund
American Alpine Club
Bicycle Colorado
Boulder Climbing Community
Central Colorado Cattlemen's Association
Colorado Civil Justice League
Colorado Farm Bureau
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative
Colorado Mountain Club
Colorado Springs Utilities
Colorado Water Congress
Continental Divide Trail Association
International Council of Shopping Centers
International Mountain Biking Association
Mosquito Range Heritage Initiative
The Next Summit
Open Boulder
Outdoor Alliance
Park County Board of Commissioners
People for Bikes
Rec Law
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union
Rocky Mountain Wild
The Town of Alma
The Wilderness Society
Trails and Open Space Coalition
Trust for Public Land
Ute Water Conservancy District
Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association
Winter Wildlands Alliance

I love that you and all those others are actually seriously working on this problem.

And for someone who asked, generally emails you send to a politician aren't read by them personally unless you are on their special donor list. However, a staffer or volunteer will read it, and generally will make a list of the statistics of pro-Bill and anti-Bill emails/calls/etc, and will provide that to the politician if asked.