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.
User avatar
Istoodupthere
Posts: 118
Joined: 5/5/2022
14ers: 43  1 
13ers: 33 3
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Istoodupthere »

I’m just happy that nobody has been called a fascist…yet
User avatar
JROSKA
Posts: 556
Joined: 8/19/2010
14ers: 50 
13ers: 5
Trip Reports (11)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by JROSKA »

I did a little research into where the 3 senators who voted “no” serve.

Gonzales (District 34) - Denver Metro, an area roughly bounded by I-70 (N), Wadsworth (W), Evans (S) and I-25 (E). Near the Broncos stadium.

Rodriguez (District 32) - Denver Metro, roughly bounded by Evans / Iliff (N), Hampden (S), Havana (E) and C470 (W)

Roberts (District#8) - Most of NW Colorado. Roughly bounded by I-70 (S), Utah border (W), Wyoming border (N) and Highway 40 / 125 (E).

I think it’s situations like these where it’s very important to remember who these people are and hold them accountable at election time. If that means voting for someone of another party, just to get them out of there, then so be it. It doesn’t mean you’re abandoning your principles, it just means you’re standing up to someone who has proved to be fake. Sometimes that’s the only way to send a message. Call their bluff. They’ve calculated that you won’t have the guts to do that.

I’m particularly stunned that a guy like Roberts could go through with a “no” vote. The other two at least serve in Denver metro, he does not. He openly advertises himself as a Democrat who faithfully serves Colorado’s best rural and mountain towns. Did he really do that here with this vote? He’s got countless towns just like Alma and Gardner in his district, and just imagine how they will be affected by his “no” vote. His instagram page says “mostly .. mountain pictures here” so he obviously enjoys his recreational activities like hiking. Yet that didn’t shine through in his vote. He didn’t serve his constituency at all with this. We can speculate on the “why”, but clearly he turned his back on his own branding.

Once the emotion from this settles, again, I’d encourage anyone who lives in any of these districts (especially district 8 / Roberts; anyone who lives near the I-70 corridor west of Denver is very likely in his district), remember them and vote them out at election time. It’s easy for politicians across the spectrum to forget their roots and who put them in office. And who they serve. It’s important that we don’t let them forget that.
“Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.” - Ecclesiastes 1:10-11
DaveLanders
Posts: 537
Joined: 3/7/2009
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by DaveLanders »

JROSKA wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:09 pm I did a little research into where the 3 senators who voted “no” serve.

Gonzales (District 34) - Denver Metro, an area roughly bounded by I-70 (N), Wadsworth (W), Evans (S) and I-25 (E). Near the Broncos stadium.

Rodriguez (District 32) - Denver Metro, roughly bounded by Evans / Iliff (N), Hampden (S), Havana (E) and C470 (W)

Roberts (District#8) - Most of NW Colorado. Roughly bounded by I-70 (S), Utah border (W), Wyoming border (N) and Highway 40 / 125 (E).

I think it’s situations like these where it’s very important to remember who these people are and hold them accountable at election time. If that means voting for someone of another party, just to get them out of there, then so be it. It doesn’t mean you’re abandoning your principles, it just means you’re standing up to someone who has proved to be fake. Sometimes that’s the only way to send a message. Call their bluff. They’ve calculated that you won’t have the guts to do that.

I’m particularly stunned that a guy like Roberts could go through with a “no” vote. The other two at least serve in Denver metro, he does not. He openly advertises himself as a Democrat who faithfully serves Colorado’s best rural and mountain towns. Did he really do that here with this vote? He’s got countless towns just like Alma and Gardner in his district, and just imagine how they will be affected by his “no” vote. His instagram page says “mostly .. mountain pictures here” so he obviously enjoys his recreational activities like hiking. Yet that didn’t shine through in his vote. He didn’t serve his constituency at all with this. We can speculate on the “why”, but clearly he turned his back on his own branding.

Once the emotion from this settles, again, I’d encourage anyone who lives in any of these districts (especially district 8 / Roberts; anyone who lives near the I-70 corridor west of Denver is very likely in his district), remember them and vote them out at election time. It’s easy for politicians across the spectrum to forget their roots and who put them in office. And who they serve. It’s important that we don’t let them forget that.
Interesting. The 2 Denver area senators are probably in "safe" Democratic districts and would be hard to unseat. The Western Slope guy would seem to be very vulnerable; it's somewhat surprising that a Democrat would get elected from that area in the first place.
Every village has at least one idiot. Successful villages choose someone else to be their leader.
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 4035
Joined: 9/7/2004
14ers: 58  12  24 
13ers: 697 44 34
Trip Reports (66)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Chicago Transplant »

He has a lot of the ski towns and our towns vote Dem. Don't forget even Smith and Wesson Barbie almost lost and she has GJ to buffer her from the ski town left.

People don't even have to vote against party, just find another candidate to run in the primary vote for that person instead
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
Ryan987
Posts: 105
Joined: 8/7/2022
14ers: 31  3 
13ers: 4
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by Ryan987 »

So how likely is it that the owner will fence off access to this peak? And now do we consider the USFS official summit per CFI similar to what they stated about the bross bypass?
timisimaginary
Posts: 777
Joined: 11/19/2017
14ers: 3 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by timisimaginary »

amderr22 wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:41 am
timisimaginary wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:36 am for years, you had to sign and carry a waiver with you to "hike" the summit of Black Mountain, KY's high point (ironic since the "hike" is really just a mile-long road walk). there's no significant danger but since the propery used to be owned by a coal mining company, i guess they were worried maybe a company vehicle would hit somebody walking that road or something and they'd get sued. the state eventually took ownership of the land and now the waiver is no longer needed.
but i wonder why Lindsey or other summit property owners couldn't implement something like that. different state, different laws, i know, but surely some lawyer could craft a simple waiver agreement people could download and fill out that would absolve the property owner of all liability for any injury or accident, and protect the landowner from any legal responsibility.
The owners have considered using liability waivers - but who would print them out and ensure everyone has one? Who enforces the rule and forcibly removes or blocks people who don't want to sign one? Any liability waiver program for a 14er or similarly busy trail would require staff to check that visitors have waivers 24/7 - which would cost thousands of dollars each year. If the owner charged an entrance fee to pay for that, they lose recreational use statute protection. So they decided it wasn't a realistic solution.

For small-scale situations where only a few hikers or climbers visit an area, a waiver works, but not on peaks with tens of thousands of annual visitors.
RobLowe wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:51 am This is called an exculpatory agreement. They aren’t guaranteed to be enforceable and are not an absolute bar from being sued. They do make summary judgment more likely, however.

But it’s not practicable for a landowner to sit at their boundary line every day and have visitors sign waivers. This has been one of the problems with Cielo Vista, which is why they charge so much money to cover the opportunity cost of doing other landowner things with their employees that otherwise are at the gate collecting a fee.
not a lawyer, so i don't know all the legal details, and there are state-to-state differences. but the Black Mountain waiver was something people who hiked on that property were responsible for printing themselves off a website, filling out, and carrying on them for the entire time they were on private property. if they didn't have that waiver, they were legally considered trespassing. carrying a filled out and signed waiver was a condition for having permission to be on the property. so if you were on that property, legally, you were either a) subject to the waiver you signed, or b) trespassing. if you subsequently got hurt and tried to sue, then the first thing they would have asked you is, did you sign the waiver. yes? you waived your right to sue. no? you were trespassing, and have no grounds to sue (assuming appropriate signage was posted).
either way, the property owners were absolved of liability. there was nobody on that property checking the waivers of every person who came there; if a worker happened to be there, they could request to see your waiver, but the vast majority of the time nobody was there. other than maintaining the cost of a website for the waiver, there were no costs to the owners for printing waivers, hiring additional personnel, etc.
the property owner isn't obligated to try to prevent or remove trespassers, check waivers or anything like that; all they have to do is post a sign that anyone on the property without possession of a waiver is trespassing. no different than how all they had to do to close Decalibron was publicly announce it and post a sign. the landowners aren't required to try to prevent access or remove trespassers now that it's closed, so why would it be different under a waiver program? trespassing is trespassing.
"The decay and disintegration of this culture is astonishingly amusing if you're emotionally detached from it." - George Carlin
cyrrus
Posts: 20
Joined: 6/19/2014
14ers: 45 
13ers: 11
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by cyrrus »

The CRUS exception is "willful" and you can't use an exculpatory waiver to immunize yourself from the consequences of "willful" conduct so the waiver wouldn't do anything that the CRUS doesn't already do.
User avatar
jmanner
Posts: 1417
Joined: 5/26/2009
14ers: 58  31  10 
13ers: 55 14 3
Trip Reports (15)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by jmanner »

I’m not sure they need to “buy” votes. A lot of representatives are former plaintive attorneys. I could probably convince someone in my profession of a lot by just bringing up our shared background and reminding them of where they got their income from.
A man has got to know his limitations.-Dr. Jonathan Hemlock or Harry Callahan or something F' it: http://youtu.be/lpzqQst-Sg8

'Life is too short to ski groomers'

"That man's only desire was to stand, once only, on the summit of that glorious wedge of rock...I think anyone who loves the mountains as much as that can claim to be a mountaineer, too."-Hermann Buhl, Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage
glad2be
Posts: 3
Joined: 5/3/2012
14ers: 42  1 
13ers: 30
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by glad2be »

From Senator Roberts:





Thank you for reaching out to share your perspective on SB23-103. As your State Senator, I appreciate hearing from you and understanding your perspective on legislation, even if we may disagree.


As an avid outdoorsman myself and someone who grew up in the mountains of Colorado, I share your appreciation of our great outdoors and want to protect access to outdoor recreation opportunities. While I believe the reasons for bringing this bill forward are and remain valid, the bill as written was overly broad and could have been harmful to my constituents and Coloradans due to that breadth.


Under current law, a landowner that grants land access to a recreational user is already not liable for the vast majority of injuries that could occur. The only exception is if any injuries are proven to be a result of the landowner's “willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the land likely to cause harm.” Because “wilful and malicious” failure rarely occurs and is difficult to prove in a court of law, recreational users almost never successfully sue landowners. In fact, the Nelson v. United States case, which was at the center of the discussion on this bill, was actually the first instance in 26 years in which a plaintiff successfully sued a landowner in Colorado. The testimony during this bill revealed that even simple and limited signage or other warning will be completely absolved of any liability and thus, I believe the current very pro-landowner protections already in Colorado did not need to be changed in this way.


I understand that certain landowners are viewing the state of the case law differently at this point and that is why I hope to work with you, the bill sponsors, and the outdoor recreation community to work on other, more narrowly-tailored solutions to this problem.


Thank you again for reaching out to share your perspective, and I hope my email helped explain the reasoning behind my vote on this bill. Please do not hesitate to reach out again on this issue or any other.


Best,

Dylan
User avatar
greenonion
Posts: 1948
Joined: 10/3/2012
14ers: 50  1 
13ers: 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by greenonion »

glad2be wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:53 pm From Senator Roberts:





Thank you for reaching out to share your perspective on SB23-103. As your State Senator, I appreciate hearing from you and understanding your perspective on legislation, even if we may disagree.


As an avid outdoorsman myself and someone who grew up in the mountains of Colorado, I share your appreciation of our great outdoors and want to protect access to outdoor recreation opportunities. While I believe the reasons for bringing this bill forward are and remain valid, the bill as written was overly broad and could have been harmful to my constituents and Coloradans due to that breadth.


Under current law, a landowner that grants land access to a recreational user is already not liable for the vast majority of injuries that could occur. The only exception is if any injuries are proven to be a result of the landowner's “willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the land likely to cause harm.” Because “wilful and malicious” failure rarely occurs and is difficult to prove in a court of law, recreational users almost never successfully sue landowners. In fact, the Nelson v. United States case, which was at the center of the discussion on this bill, was actually the first instance in 26 years in which a plaintiff successfully sued a landowner in Colorado. The testimony during this bill revealed that even simple and limited signage or other warning will be completely absolved of any liability and thus, I believe the current very pro-landowner protections already in Colorado did not need to be changed in this way.


I understand that certain landowners are viewing the state of the case law differently at this point and that is why I hope to work with you, the bill sponsors, and the outdoor recreation community to work on other, more narrowly-tailored solutions to this problem.


Thank you again for reaching out to share your perspective, and I hope my email helped explain the reasoning behind my vote on this bill. Please do not hesitate to reach out again on this issue or any other.


Best,

Dylan
Pretty vague response. How could the overly broad wording be potentially harmful? How could that be mitigated/eliminated? What are some of the more narrowly-tailored ideas. No, this response really doesn't explain much since it does not get into details other than a mentioning of simple and limited signage being supposedly adequate.
User avatar
two lunches
Posts: 1366
Joined: 5/30/2014
14ers: 38  2 
13ers: 62 1
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by two lunches »

greenonion wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 9:56 am
Pretty vague response. How could the overly broad wording be potentially harmful? How could that be mitigated/eliminated? What are some of the more narrowly-tailored ideas. No, this response really doesn't explain much since it does not get into details other than a mentioning of simple and limited signage being supposedly adequate.
frustrating because if the "current very pro-landowner protections already in Colorado did not need to be changed in this way" then why would the aforementioned landowners feel they were under-protected enough to revoke access to those lands?
“To walk in nature is to witness a thousand miracles.” – Mary Davis
User avatar
greenonion
Posts: 1948
Joined: 10/3/2012
14ers: 50  1 
13ers: 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Mount Lindsey Closure

Post by greenonion »

two lunches wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:19 am
greenonion wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 9:56 am
Pretty vague response. How could the overly broad wording be potentially harmful? How could that be mitigated/eliminated? What are some of the more narrowly-tailored ideas. No, this response really doesn't explain much since it does not get into details other than a mentioning of simple and limited signage being supposedly adequate.
frustrating because if the "current very pro-landowner protections already in Colorado did not need to be changed in this way" then why would the aforementioned landowners feel they were under-protected enough to revoke access to those lands?
Bingo.
Post Reply