The Decalibron 14ers Are Closing Again

[JROSKA]

This is above my pay grade ($0) to dig deeper into but if someone else has some good data to serve as a comeback I can try to re-engage.

Yeah I agree that follow-ups to this letter would be very important, since Roberts seems to be playing the “landowners are blowing things out of proportion and they’re overreacting” game and hoping that people leave it at that and drop it.

So it seems like any response would need to fight back on that aspect (blame the landowner). One thing I wondered when I read his response was, did he think for himself or do any research, or just listen to testimony of people who might be biased?

Also, I specifically recall last week, on local news (NBC) after the bill was voted down, I saw a trial lawyer (I think her name was Kari something) state boldly, “this bill would have taken the right away from hikers to receive compensation from landowners who are negligent, and Colorado is better than that”. Roberts could be asked, what’s up with that? I thought you said that no one is getting sued, yet this lawyer seems to view a green light here for many lawsuits.

I’d like to see him discuss Alma too, we all know how negatively that whole small community (and other nearby towns) will be affected by hikers and 14er checklisters not passing through the area. And point out the hundreds of small communities exactly like that are in his district. “Aren’t those the rural communities you’re supposed to fight for? And not do things that harm them? They don’t have another voice in the state, since most state senators and representatives are beholden to large metro areas”.

Lastly he seems to love to throw around how much he enjoys hiking and the mountains. He should be asked, even if he blames the landowners, as a “fellow hiker” who supposedly shares our values, why in the world would he even remotely wish to be associated with a vote that leads to less access and not more?

[daway8]

One thing I wondered when I read his response was, did he think for himself or do any research, or just listen to testimony of people who might be biased?

Well, other than a couple of people, I would wonder the same thing about a lot of the comments on this thread (including my own! )

Also, I specifically recall last week, on local news (NBC) after the bill was voted down, I saw a trial lawyer (I think her name was Kari something) state boldly, “this bill would have taken the right away from hikers to receive compensation from landowners who are negligent, and Colorado is better than that”.

Well for a politician, that could come across as a fearful thing - he could see it as needing to step in and protect poor defenseless hikers from the big, bad boogeyman landowners (never mind how silly that may be in reality most of the time)

I’d like to see him discuss Alma too, we all know how negatively that whole small community (and other nearby towns) will be affected by hikers and 14er checklisters not passing through the area. And point out the hundreds of small communities exactly like that are in his district.

Well honestly, I've plopped down my fair share of cash in Leadville, Buena Vista, Georgetown, Westcliffe, Fairplay and sometimes Alamosa, Salida, Woodland Park and so forth but Alma? I've done Decalibron several times as well as many 13ers in the area but to be honest I had to Google Alma to remind myself where exactly it is. Maybe I'm missing out and need to check it out sometime but I wonder what percentage of 14er traffic regularly visits the wee little places like that?

I'm 100% for pushing for continued access to all 14ers, I'm just trying to find arguments that are a little more bulletproof since it takes pretty substantial proof to stand a chance of swaying a politician (either that or substantial means of influence which few if any of us have...)

[JROSKA]

@ Daway8,

Not necessarily directing this at you, it’s more the thread in general, but I’ve sensed a lot of “kid gloves” or “I don’t want to go too hard after this guy because he has a (D) by his name” towards Roberts. That’s not going to sway any politician either. I see him as a guy who completely betrayed his voting base. He doesn’t care about rural landowners or he’d have voted for the bill. He doesn’t care about recreational hikers or he’d have voted for the bill. He doesn’t care about small towns that always suffer adverse affects from less traffic passing through, otherwise he’d have voted for the bill. He certainly does not, to me, appear to have the interests of rural Colorado as his top priority at all.

These politicians all have built into their calculations (and district maps) that they don’t have to worry about criticism from the opposite party. They assume that and factor it in. But one thing that will really affect them or encourage them to change is taking heat from within their own party. That’s not something that’s assumed and when they see it, that they angered their base, that’s what causes elections to be lost. So they notice that.

Again in general on this thread I see no evidence that is occurring. We’ve seen a few critical comments but based on who they came from, they’re from the more conservative members on the forum. Other than that, lots of “tiptoeing” and “dancing” and “be nice”. And then scrutinizing other things, like the landowner. That’s not going to lead anywhere. Other than a guy like Roberts concluding, the models are right, my base will support me no matter what I do.

[daway8]

@JROSKA,
I hear ya, I'm just digging for the sorts of sound bite facts/figures/statistics that make good easy fodder as a comeback to the "one successful lawsuit in 26 years" argument that the "no" voters like to toss out.

Even if it's a weak argument overall it's concise and snappy and makes a compelling first impression. I've been hoping someone could dig up some equally concise, snappy comeback stats - it's easier to grab attention with that than needing a drawn out explanation... Also easier to fire up the base with short, compelling sound bites...

[JROSKA]

Yes, I admit that’s a struggle for me, being too wordy. Maybe I could be hired as some staffer for filibuster ideas. Seriously though you’re probably right. Any comeback to Roberts probably does require a fair degree of conciseness, otherwise it’ll get tuned out.

[Chicago Transplant]

One of things I get from this thread is that Colorado hikers don't WANT to sue landowners, we want access to their land. Lawyers want to sue, hikers want to hike. Let us hike.

I see "willful and malicious" as meaning it has to be intentionally booby trapped to sue, the Nelson case should have been thrown out because it was neither, it was an act of nature that caused a washout. Nobody was acting in a willful or malicious manner and yet they were successfully sued. So therefore the CRUS is flawed and needs to have the language changed.

As far as kid gloves towards a "D", let him know we can primary him with another "D" who share our values towards land access. Our votes are worth more than the $2500 campaign "donation" from the trial lawyers.

[madmattd]

One of things I get from this thread is that Colorado hikers don't WANT to sue landowners, we want access to their land. Lawyers want to sue, hikers want to hike. Let us hike.

Be aware that often times lawsuits from an injured party are instigated by the insurance companies wanting to be compensated for their payouts to the injured, regardless of whether the injured wants to sue or not. I've seen this exact scenario play out with an event I was a large part of where someone was injured who was helping RUN the event; there ended up being a multi-million-dollar suit against both the organization in charge and the landowner who had leased the land for the event (ultimately ending with a sealed settlement as most such cases tend to), driven by the insurance company. Oh, and there were liability waivers in place for those in this thread thinking liability waivers solve the issue.

[two lunches]

I’d like to see him discuss Alma too, we all know how negatively that whole small community (and other nearby towns) will be affected by hikers and 14er checklisters not passing through the area. And point out the hundreds of small communities exactly like that are in his district. “Aren’t those the rural communities you’re supposed to fight for? And not do things that harm them? They don’t have another voice in the state, since most state senators and representatives are beholden to large metro areas”.

although i am certain that our 14ers, especially the "easier" ones draw people to our beautiful state in pursuit of their next post (or whatever), it is possible that the good people of Alma will not miss the visitors. as we saw in many places during the pandemic, some small towns don't want the extra foot traffic, the parking irritations, the littering, or the strain on resources in their communities. for example, Silverton already made it abundantly clear that they don't want or need the SxS community and have banned OHV within city limits. that community put up A FUSS about how much Silverton needs them, @#*& them and "we're taking our business to Lake City". and to my knowledge, that law is not changing any time soon.

i'm not sure if it's safe to assume that hikers hold all the economy cards here, or that you're going to cripple a small town by disallowing access to a few mountains. it seems most likely to me that this would be a Colorado issue, not a Park County issue.

[BillMiddlebrook]

although i am certain that our 14ers, especially the "easier" ones draw people to our beautiful state in pursuit of their next post (or whatever), it is possible that the good people of Alma will not miss the visitors.

This was certainly the case 15+ years ago during that closure. I worked with one of the orgs in attempts to reopen peaks and was surprised at how many locals were happy about the closure and had a negative view of those hiking the 14ers.

[TomPierce]

One of things I get from this thread is that Colorado hikers don't WANT to sue landowners, we want access to their land. Lawyers want to sue, hikers want to hike. Let us hike.

Eh, respectfully disagree. A lawyer takes a case brought to him/her by a client. Sure, some lawyers advertise (just watch midmorning TV...) but no case exists until a client contacts the lawyer, thinks about a case, signs a retention agreement, etc. A lawyer is required by the professional code of ethics to zealously represent a client, but the client is the linchpin of the legal process. Yep, some lawyers are jerks/scumbags/whatever, but this idea that it's all the fault of lawyers is IMO just not grounded in reality. In the at-issue dispute, I doubt anyone put a gun to Mr. Nelson's head and forced the filing of the lawsuit.

Being the cynical hard-nosed lawyer that I am, I'd say the middle ground is that hikers don't initially want to sue, but if they are out of work due to an accident (that IMO they probably could have reasonably foreseen/prevented or realized that hiking has some inherent risk which they assumed, but I digress...) or they don't have any/enough medical insurance to cover the cost of treatment, well...they start shopping for a lawyer all on their own.

Some might have an opinion of fellow hikers as wholesome altruistic saints, but IMO the reality is just like real life: Some are, some aren't, and most are somewhere in the middle.

-Tom

[Chicago Transplant]

One of things I get from this thread is that Colorado hikers don't WANT to sue landowners, we want access to their land. Lawyers want to sue, hikers want to hike. Let us hike.

Eh, respectfully disagree. A lawyer takes a case brought to him/her by a client. Sure, some lawyers advertise (just watch midmorning TV...) but no case exists until a client contacts the lawyer, thinks about a case, signs a retention agreement, etc. A lawyer is required by the professional code of ethics to zealously represent a client, but the client is the linchpin of the legal process. Yep, some lawyers are jerks/scumbags/whatever, but this idea that it's all the fault of lawyers is IMO just not grounded in reality. In the at-issue dispute, I doubt anyone put a gun to Mr. Nelson's head and forced the filing of the lawsuit.

Being the cynical hard-nosed lawyer that I am, I'd say the middle ground is that hikers don't initially want to sue, but if they are out of work due to an accident (that IMO they probably could have reasonably foreseen/prevented or realized that hiking has some inherent risk which they assumed, but I digress...) or they don't have any/enough medical insurance to cover the cost of treatment, well...they start shopping for a lawyer all on their own.

Some might have an opinion of fellow hikers as wholesome altruistic saints, but IMO the reality is just like real life: Some are, some aren't, and most are somewhere in the middle.

-Tom

Sorry, I shouldn't throw all layers under the bus over this case, but to me this was a frivolous lawsuit. The lawyer should have never taken Nelson's case in my opinion, so put blame on them as a "they should know better" type of thing because they are the professional. I saw the Nelson case as an inherent risk, caused by a natural event, and in no way fit as "willful and malicious". The idea that it was tried and rewarded shows that the problem went far beyond the lawyer. In my opinion their victory sends a bad message that seems to have directly affected access, as evident by these peak closures, and could impact many other access points through private lands beyond just a few 14ers.

My apologies for generalizing the profession over this incident but the whole case bothers me as an example of a system driven by money. As you can tell, my opinion of civil law is not a positive one so sorry for introducing so much of my own bias here. I just want to hike (and bike and ski and rock climb etc), I want the access to do so and I accept that I might get hurt through no fault but my own.

[12ersRule]

One of things I get from this thread is that Colorado hikers don't WANT to sue landowners, we want access to their land. Lawyers want to sue, hikers want to hike. Let us hike.

Sure, some lawyers advertise (just watch midmorning TV...)
-Tom

I just watch sports mostly, and they always have these ads for pills to treat Low T (testosterone) with Doug Flutie and Frank Thomas. Those drive me crazy. C'mon guys, you were professional athletes, you know the
solution isn't in the bottle. Lift weights, FFS, that's the Low T solution. You know this!

Also, Kars4kids sends me running for the mute button on the remote, what a dumpster fire that is. I'd take 10 Azar ads over that any day.