Kite Lake Improvements

[nunns]

I didn't mean to imply that simply applying what has worked on the Katy & Rock Island trail to DeCaLiBron would magically solve all the problems.
There are issues in CO that we don't have in MO. Obviously the risks inherent in mountain climbing are significantly greater than those involved in hiking on a flat trail. And yes, the volume of people on the MO trails is often lower than on DeCaLiBron.

However, I would argue that there are probably more unprepared people accessing our trails in MO than there are unprepared people trying to climb DeCaLiBron. There are places on the Rock Island where you can be driving through a small town and just happen upon the trail, complete with a parking lot and everything. The biggest difference is that it would be fairly tough (but not impossible) to fall and get significantly injured on Rock Island or Katy.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

[GuiGirard]

Maybe use some of that money to buy a 10 foot wide stretch through mining claims to the summits of De, Cal, Li, and Bron.

Won't happen - the owner would still be liable for idiots who wandered off the trail and fell into a hole. Changes to liability law are required.

It makes me wonder how Missouri has made it work with the Katy and Rock Island trails. Many places those trails pass right through areas of private property. Granted those are not on a mountain above tree line with all the dangers inherent in that, but even so... Maybe it is because the land used was originally owned by the railroads?

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

Here's how most rail trails I know of in my neck of the woods (Illinois and Wisconsin) are organized: they mostly go THROUGH private property (much of which is farm land), but the trail footprint is not ON private property, and is actually public property, typically owned and managed by the county or the state. Typically, there had been a change of ownership from the railroad company who abandoned it. Of course, originally, the railroad company had purchased the land from its original owner. So, if someone gets hurt on the trail including in the case that they "fly" off the trail into the adjacent private land (could happen to a snowmobiler for instance for those trails open to snowmobiles in the winter months), the owner of that private land is not liable for it.

So, I suppose that a purchase agreement of the TRAIL footprint (say, the trail and a few feet on either side of it) through the private lands of the DeCaLiBron loops could work out and release landowners from liability.
Having said that, an easier, more economical, and more agreeable solution is to let the owner own the land and work out legislation that releases them from liability, in virtually all circumstances (willful and malicious negligence of addressing a hazard is in fact reasonable as an exception for which they'd be liable, assuming that it is also clearly worded that a landowner cannot prevent the forces of nature from happening, e.g., cannot be held responsible for a rock slide injuring people hiking on "his" trail).

[Scott P]

There are issues in CO that we don't have in MO.

That's a strange comment considering that Missouri has almost no public land.

Missouri is 88.8% private land vs. 56.7% in Colorado. Colorado does have a lot of private land issues (such as the peaks around Kite Lake), but nothing like Missouri has. The hiking opportunities and public access in Missouri are extremely limited. I lived in Missouri for a bit and it was shocking (to me) how little public access they had to outdoor activities. Missouri might not has issues with people falling into Mines, but they certainly do have a lot of other issues with private land.

[nunns]

Won't happen - the owner would still be liable for idiots who wandered off the trail and fell into a hole. Changes to liability law are required.

It makes me wonder how Missouri has made it work with the Katy and Rock Island trails. Many places those trails pass right through areas of private property. Granted those are not on a mountain above tree line with all the dangers inherent in that, but even so... Maybe it is because the land used was originally owned by the railroads?

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

Here's how most rail trails I know of in my neck of the woods (Illinois and Wisconsin) are organized: they mostly go THROUGH private property (much of which is farm land), but the trail footprint is not ON private property, and is actually public property, typically owned and managed by the county or the state. Typically, there had been a change of ownership from the railroad company who abandoned it. Of course, originally, the railroad company had purchased the land from its original owner. So, if someone gets hurt on the trail including in the case that they "fly" off the trail into the adjacent private land (could happen to a snowmobiler for instance for those trails open to snowmobiles in the winter months), the owner of that private land is not liable for it.

So, I suppose that a purchase agreement of the TRAIL footprint (say, the trail and a few feet on either side of it) through the private lands of the DeCaLiBron loops could work out and release landowners from liability.
Having said that, an easier, more economical, and more agreeable solution is to let the owner own the land and work out legislation that releases them from liability, in virtually all circumstances (willful and malicious negligence of addressing a hazard is in fact reasonable as an exception for which they'd be liable, assuming that it is also clearly worded that a landowner cannot prevent the forces of nature from happening, e.g., cannot be held responsible for a rock slide injuring people hiking on "his" trail).

I agree with everything you are saying. The purchase of the trail footprint is essentially what happened in MO, except that the land was purchased (or reclaimed as public land, I am not sure which) from the railroad instead of a private landowner.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

[nunns]

There are issues in CO that we don't have in MO.

That's a strange comment considering that Missouri has almost no public land.

Missouri is 88.8% private land vs. 56.7% in Colorado. Colorado does have a lot of private land issues (such as the peaks around Kite Lake), but nothing like Missouri has. The hiking opportunities and public access in Missouri are extremely limited. I lived in Missouri for a bit and it was shocking (to me) how little public access they had to outdoor activities. Missouri might not has issues with people falling into Mines, but they certainly do have a lot of other issues with private land.

I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying. The issues in CO that I am referring to don't concern the AMOUNT of land available for recreation. They concern issues that have a political context, and I am not trying to incite a political firestorm.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

[cougar]

The public trail easement was proposed and partially implemented, but may not work so well when the mountains are covered in snow most of the year and people can't identify the route, or ski across the slope.

I think for owners wanting to not be held liable, but sympathetic to hikers, declaring the land officially closed opens the door for countersuits, but otherwise they look the other way.