14ers.com

Have seen this on the news a couple of times in the past week. From https://heartoftherockiesradio.com/

"The U.S. Forest Service’s South Park Ranger District is seeking comments on a plan for improving Kite Lake recreation area near Alma in Park County.

Increasing visitation has impacted natural resources and infrastructure at the Kite Lake site along with the Buckskin Gulch corridor. The public comment period will run through April 24th. Improvements include road and campground modifications, designated dispersed campsites and parking areas, and installing additional restrooms, gates, and signage."

Guess I don't understand the government as to why they are considering improvements at a trailhead where recreation is largely closed to the public.

Bill, don't ban me for life for starting this thread.

John Landers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:09 am Guess I don't understand the government as to why they are considering improvements at a trailhead where recreation is largely closed to the public.

I don't know how the management side of FS works, but typically these projects are planned well in advance and will be completed regardless. Land management is so mired in bureaucracy and oversight that once things are set in motion it's easier (more efficient) to complete rather than stop the work.

And/or they have faith the area will eventually reopen to the public.

When I've climbed from the Kite Lake TH, lots of people were visiting the lake with no interest in the nearby 14ers. Maybe hard to believe among followers of this site.

John Landers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:09 amGuess I don't understand the government as to why they are considering improvements at a trailhead where recreation is largely closed to the public.

Most of the area around Kite Lake it public land. It's only the summits of the 14ers and some other areas that are private.

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.

Sean Nunn

nunns wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:16 am 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.

Jim Davies wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 6:35 pm

nunns wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:16 am 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.

Too bad we are at the point in our society.
People like you and I need to serve on juries more.

Sean Nunn
Raytown MO

Jim Davies wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 6:35 pm

nunns wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:16 am 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

Missouri has a law protecting landowners who don't charge for recreational access from most liability, but still allows liability for "malicious or grossly negligent failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, structure, personal property which the owner knew or should have known to be dangerous, or negligent failure to guard or warn against an ultrahazardous condition which the owner knew or should have known to be dangerous". So the AFA lawsuit probably would have still happened in Missouri.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection. ... &bid=49844

nunns wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:06 am 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.
....

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.

Both trails are public, as you say, and the trails are actually Missouri state parks. So I don't think your suggestion is crazy, Sean. Effectively everything off the trail for the Decalibron circuit would be signed "No Trespassing" basically as it is now. There are plenty of easements and land swaps for rec trails throughout Colorado, and we haven't particularly seen systematic major issues with adjacent property owner liability concerns that are so strong they say "No way."

Doesn't mean Jim D. isn't also right -- an effective change to liability law would be the broadest solution.

madbuck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:46 pm

nunns wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:06 am 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.
....

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.

Both trails are public, as you say, and the trails are actually Missouri state parks. So I don't think your suggestion is crazy, Sean. Effectively everything off the trail for the Decalibron circuit would be signed "No Trespassing" basically as it is now. There are plenty of easements and land swaps for rec trails throughout Colorado, and we haven't particularly seen systematic major issues with adjacent property owner liability concerns that are so strong they say "No way."

Doesn't mean Jim D. isn't also right -- an effective change to liability law would be the broadest solution.

The Katy Trail uses old railroad beds, which are often elevated above the surroundings. It'd be really easy for someone to ride or be forced off the side and get hurt on that private property.
The trail itself is not private property, unlike these mining claims. That's different, FWIW (maybe nothing).
There must be some legal protection there for landowners. MO is very different than CO, legislatively speaking, but money and property owners still have an inordinate influence on politicians. We failed here, but a change in liability law seems like the most effective way to resolve this.

Matt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:16 pm

madbuck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:46 pm

nunns wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:06 am 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.
....

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.

Both trails are public, as you say, and the trails are actually Missouri state parks. So I don't think your suggestion is crazy, Sean. Effectively everything off the trail for the Decalibron circuit would be signed "No Trespassing" basically as it is now. There are plenty of easements and land swaps for rec trails throughout Colorado, and we haven't particularly seen systematic major issues with adjacent property owner liability concerns that are so strong they say "No way."

Doesn't mean Jim D. isn't also right -- an effective change to liability law would be the broadest solution.

The Katy Trail uses old railroad beds, which are often elevated above the surroundings. It'd be really easy for someone to ride or be forced off the side and get hurt on that private property.
The trail itself is not private property, unlike these mining claims. That's different, FWIW (maybe nothing).
There must be some legal protection there for landowners. MO is very different than CO, legislatively speaking, but money and property owners still have an inordinate influence on politicians. We failed here, but a change in liability law seems like the most effective way to resolve this.

MO is very different from CO in more than just a legislative sense. the tourism volume and particularly the outdoor recreation volume are vastly different, unless you consider people attending MLS and MLB games as outdoor recreation. i would be flabbergasted if the use numbers for the katy trail come close to the use numbers for kite lake rec area, and therefore assume the exposure to litigation is almost non-existent for MO private landowners. additionally, as someone mentioned above, the risks associated with the katy trail are not comparable with the associated risks of hiking any one or all of the peaks on the decalibron route.

sean while i completely agree that there should be some sort of easement along the trail for people to access these peaks, it's an apples and oranges comparison for anything that is "working" in missouri to function in colorado.