Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

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
XterraRob
Posts: 1148
Joined: 7/20/2015
14ers: 42  7 
13ers: 14
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

Post by XterraRob »

Are the landowners responsible for maintaining the proper signage in order to limit their liability? I'm thinking of what if property changes hands and maintaining signage falls to the wayside.
RIP - M56
Re-introduce Grizzly Bears into the Colorado Wilderness™
User avatar
k_fergie
Posts: 317
Joined: 8/28/2019
14ers: 58  2  1 
13ers: 176 39 6
Trip Reports (5)
 

Re: Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

Post by k_fergie »

XterraRob wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 12:17 pm Are the landowners responsible for maintaining the proper signage in order to limit their liability? I'm thinking of what if property changes hands and maintaining signage falls to the wayside.
That is what the OP said. About 25-50% of his post was about landowner responsibility and helping landowners with signage. I have not read the bill
I thought, I taught, I wrought
User avatar
XterraRob
Posts: 1148
Joined: 7/20/2015
14ers: 42  7 
13ers: 14
Trip Reports (4)
 

Re: Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

Post by XterraRob »

k_fergie wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 pm That is what the OP said. About 25-50% of his post was about landowner responsibility and helping landowners with signage. I have not read the bill
I meant to add speculation on if the responsibility of signage maintenance can be passed onto an organization to ease the burden on landowners.
RIP - M56
Re-introduce Grizzly Bears into the Colorado Wilderness™
User avatar
Trotter
Posts: 1418
Joined: 6/5/2013
14ers: 58  5 
13ers: 229 2 8
Trip Reports (10)
 

Re: Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

Post by Trotter »

XterraRob wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:56 pm
k_fergie wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 pm That is what the OP said. About 25-50% of his post was about landowner responsibility and helping landowners with signage. I have not read the bill
I meant to add speculation on if the responsibility of signage maintenance can be passed onto an organization to ease the burden on landowners.
I could see someone like Alma taking responsibility for keeping the signs up on decalibron. They collect the parking fee.
After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. -Nelson Mandela
Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called Ego. -Nietzsche
User avatar
ballardwf04
Posts: 19
Joined: 6/2/2020
14ers: 48  1 
13ers: 3
Trip Reports (2)
 

Re: Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

Post by ballardwf04 »

dwoodward13 wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:16 am Bross won't reopen. The issue there is too many fractional owners to even figure out who owns it, let alone get all to buy in to allowing recreational access.

You are probably asking about the others in the Decabilron Loop. Democrat was sold and transferred to the USFS last year, but Lincoln and Cameron are still held privately. Given the landowner was very vocal about his support of this bill I'd expect those to remain open (they were still opened prior to the bill passage, just with an additional waiver needed).

Last I heard the owners of Lindsey had ceased contact with CFI. Hopefully that has changed, but its also possible that Lindsey remains closed.
I did hear about the purchase of Democrat back in September or so, and I hope that eases tensions. Curious about Lindsey since there is currently no (legal) way to finish the 14ers, unless someone else knows differently. It seems like the landowner would be receptive to reopening given this quote from CPR:

"The owner of Trinchera Blanca Ranch in the San Luis Valley — billionaire conservationist Louis Bacon — closed trails leading to Mount Lindsey on his property 'as a result of the ruling … which limited the scope of the Colorado recreational use statute and increased landowner exposure,' a ranch spokesman told The Sun last year."

But who knows. I've learned it's pretty useless to speculate on the activities of billionaires, at least those whose planes aren't being tracked.
"In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God."
Luke 6:12
User avatar
dwoodward13
Posts: 777
Joined: 3/26/2011
14ers: 58  12 
13ers: 159 6
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Recreational Access Bill (SB 58) Clears Colorado Senate!

Post by dwoodward13 »

One thing to note is the bill takes effect at 12:01am following the 90 day waiting period after the end of the general general assembly, barring a petition. General assembly ends May 8th, so the bill takes effect August 7th. So if landowners were waiting on the increased protection to open their land, they wouldn't have that until early August.
Post Reply