JayB Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 I saw the post below on R&I concerning a new "objective hazard" found en-route to one of our local icefalls. Anyone out there have a similar story to tell about run-ins and/or access problems they've run into? Colorado (posted by WideId) Colorado (posted by WideId) ---date climbed: January 19, 2002 Don't climb at Gilette Falls. There is a man with a gun who will try to stop you. He will likely also call the Sherriff and let the air out of your tires. Do not follow the directions in Cameron Burns' guide as they will have you passing directly over this man's property. Do not try to find another way in as his property extends quite a ways around his house or he has decided to become the vigilante enforcer of everyone's property rights around there (including the fishing club on which we most certainly were traveling). We have a message for Mr Burns: please correct this mispublication ASAP. Mr Gun also has a message: "Tell him he's an asshole." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 i see nothing wrong with the gun totting property owners actions. maybe letting the air out of your tires might be a bit much.....but still he has the constituional and sate rights to protect himself, his family and his property.....climvber need to realize that what we do makes no baring on the real world....we are out to have fun...they dont consider it fun that is fine and we need to respect that (see my new thread coming in a few when i am done composing it) i think burns is an asshole too, if he piblished beta that was incorrect or not researched.... i will stand up for the property owner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 What about the guy at Michelmoon Falls that said that Ice Climbers Stole His Dog?? I would carry a gun too. Lyle's beta-demo version 2.3 Ice Map shows the property line and how to hike around on public land to reach the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Another Access Issue (Actually, just a peeve): I'm cool with what seems to be the WA standard: A ski area has the right to mess with you if you ride their lifts and exit the area w/o some sort of permission. But recently myself and a friend were greeted at the base area of Eldora ski area by a relatively nice area-guy. My friend and I had driven to the ski area, traveled into a basin on public FS trails, come back out of the basin and exited through Eldora. So the guy at the base tells us that in order to ski in the area, you had to buy a ticket, independant you're method of ascent. (So this seems a litle frustrating. It seems like you should be able to operate as an autonamous unit on public land, leased or not). So we said, "Thanks for the info, but it seems like you should post this on the FS trails that lead right onto ski runs!" (we were very polite. Remember: humble and passive behavior can get you out of alot of trouble). He had no responce. He just kept sayibg it over and over and we kept nodding. "Yep, u-hu. Yep. Right. Ok. Later." The whole situation just seemed dumb, primarily because it was (admittedly leased) public land and that we weren't being stupid in their ski area, and that the ski area guy just wouldn't SHUT UP! ok. That was my access gripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 you know all these problems would be non-existant if climbers/skiers or whom ever would consider the fact that not everything needs to be climbed/skied or whatever..... jay, i think you said that you have to cross buddies land to access the land that access the route you pretty much summed it up. and as we have all found out here in the lst week name calling and jumping to conclusion with only our emotions in hand create issues/hassles. too bad you cannot climb that falls, i am sure there are one or two more in co that you will be able to climb...... max, part of the lease that ski compaines hold with the f.s. includes liabilitye issues and buying a lift ticket is an agreeement between the ticket holder and the ski company that the skier understands and practices all the states/federal regualtions that have to do with skiing. all safety related of course. it in a sense is a contract of understanding.... so either ski somewhere else or follow the law. and as far as someone jumping my shit about paying for services and f.s. well ski compaines do provide a service and a limited scope of liabilty, when oyu abuy your forrest pass you buy bullets and 4x4's and viedo cameras to limit your access to unleased public land..... more 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 i guess we know who the a@(hole is. apologies [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: erik ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpine_Tom Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 quote: Originally posted by JayB: I’m with you on the whole property rights thing, Erik, but I thought that I’d go ahead and add some more information about the property in question. I'm certainly not advocating trespassing or otherwise violating property rights, but established precedents can and should be taken into account in situations like these. Sometimes there’s a longstanding agreement between landowners and climbers, and when it changes abruptly and without notice climbers can be caught off-guard. Well, there's a legal principle called an easement, which can NOT be changed by a simple change of understanding. <practicing law without a license> If the use of property, e.g., driving across your property to get to mine, is allowed to continue for seven years (in Washington) and it's open, notorious, and hostile (i.e., everyone is aware it's happening) then an easement is created. In that case, the gun club would loose the right to prevent crossing over their land. They couldn't, for instance, put up fences to prevent access. The easement stays with the land, so if the gun club sold the land, the easement would continue.Of course, if they had "no trespassing" signs up, and people from the gun club yelled at climbers whenever they saw them, the easement would not be established.This happens most frequently with driveways, and with fences built "on" property lines.(And, BTW, this doesn't apply to publicly owned land.)</practicing law without a license>So, a lot rides on how long this has been going on. And, of course, finding an attorney to represent you who doesn't mind getting shot at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 e dog has issues with the superiority of canadian beer, women, technical clothing and ice and is trying to compromise by claiming that because he is from tacoma he is some sort of honorary canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 21, 2002 Author Share Posted January 21, 2002 quote: Originally posted by JayB:[QB]I’m with you on the whole property rights thing, Erik, but I thought that I’d go ahead and add some more information about the property in question. I'm certainly not advocating trespassing or otherwise violating property rights, but established precedents can and should be taken into account in situations like these. Sometimes there’s a longstanding agreement between landowners and climbers, and when it changes abruptly and without notice climbers can be caught off-guard.QB] Erik - I'm still with you here, but I must confess that I am having trouble finding the logical connection between my post and your response. Maybe the message was lost while I was amusing myself by ripping on mullet-man. Sound like we're coming from the same place though. The key word is precedent. Not all rocks/icefalls have to be climbed, of course, but if the landowner and climbers have worked out an agreement that's held for 25 years, why not climb it? That's been the case until 01-19, and now that the situation has changed I'm sure that the climbers around here will respect this guy's wishes and stay away unless a new access agreement can be hashed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 21, 2002 Author Share Posted January 21, 2002 Okay - I've got another one from along time ago. Some friends of mine were quite nearly killed while descending a Couloir on Pikes Peak's north side when one of the "Rangers" started plowing ice/snow rubble down it. The best part is this is supposedly still the customary practice up there. SKIERS ON PIKES PEAK FACE HIDDEN MAN-MADE DANGER ! When the spring skiing season begins in Colorado many skiers will be anxious to ski those steep couloirs and snowfields that were too risky during mid-winter. The risk of avalanche is more predictable and the highway opening up for the season makes them much more accessible. But when enthusiasts of the sport venture onto Pikes Peak they may encounter a deadly risk factor that is not presented by nature. Last spring (May 1999) four experienced mountaineers set out to descend the Cog Couloir (also know as the Railroad Couloir) from the summit of Pikes Peak. All of them were employees of the renowned mountaineering shop "The Mountain Chalet" in Colorado Springs. John and Ched were seasoned telemark skiers and climbers. Aaron and Lou were snowboarding and were guides for the "Pikes Peak Alpine School" where they led snow and ice climbing trips on the very terrain they were about to ride. They all wore helmets, avalanche beacons, and carried ice axes and shovels. Not only did they know how to use them but professionally trained others in the use of this equipment. The Cog Couloir begins just a bit down the northeast ridge from the summit and descends into the "Y" Couloir which begins from the summit itself and the parking lot there. It is about 45 degrees in steepness with maybe a 50 degree section. The group's timing was perfect for mother nature. It was between 11:00 and 12:00 when the snow had softened from the night's freeze but not so much that it was about to let loose. They began their run one at a time and then paused part of the way down where the Cog entered the "Y" Couloir. Fortunately they were all regrouped at this point and no one was skiing when they heard the roar of debris coming down from above. Instinctively they dove for what little cover they could find along the rocky sides of the couloir. Within seconds huge chunks of snow, rock and ice came careening down. Ricocheting like giant pinballs off the walls of the couloirs they sounded like cannonballs whistling by overhead in the air and thundering when they struck. After a minute that felt more like an eternity it all stopped and they dared to stand up and look around. Skiers and climbers try to avoid such exposure by planning their trips carefully around temperature, the time of year, the time of day, recent wind and storm history and previous experiences with the route. But all is not certain and sometimes you have to duck and pray when the "heavy artillery" starts pounding around you. The group thought that this was such a time. Maybe a cornice let loose. Maybe freeze-thaw conditions loosened a boulder. Maybe another skier they hadn't seen set it off from above. They cautiously prepared to finish skiing out into the "Y" Couloir when suddenly the roaring noise began again just as before. Again they dove for cover and again chunks of hardened snow and ice the size of television sets went whizzing by. Lou began to vaguely remember some account of another group that had suffered a similar fate on the mountain. He began to recall a story about some snowplow driver actually pushing the snow from the donut shop's parking lot on the summit down the "Y" Couloir to tumble over a thousand vertical feet upon whatever and whoever might be down there. Here they were at the junction of the Cog and the "Y" Couloir and it seemed a bit strange that the barrage was repeating itself. Could it be a snowplow? Could a driver actually be so thoughtless as to push it all down on them into the huge chasm known as the bottomless pit? The third barrage convinced them all that this was not natural. It came again after about the same length of time as before with the same amount of debris from roughly the same source…the top of the "Y" Couloir. Had they skied the "Y" Couloir they'd be dead. Had they been just a bit further down the Cog and into the "Y" they'd be dead. Thankfully they had all been together just to the side of the main path where the pounding was not as great. Cutting off the remainder of their descent they exited across rock to get out of harms way and climbed back up to the summit. As they moved away from the area they heard several more slides roaring down the "Y" in similarly timed waves. Upon reaching the top, employees of the donut shop confirmed that the plow had been at work and that the driver had driven off down the Pikes Peak highway just five minutes before they inquired about the incident. They walked over to the top of the "Y" Couloir and there, right at the edge was a huge snow bank. It was clear that as snow was added to the top the excess would tumble down the northeast face of the America's favorite fourteener. The backslope of the snowbank was continuous with the top of the "Y" Couloir and it was essentially a pile of icy snow chunks that were just scraped up. Although it hadn't snowed recently, the plow had been clearing the thawing hardpack of the parking lot. Bruce Hamilton, the operator of the "Pikes Peak Alpine School" became concerned for his customers' safety not to mention anyone else on the mountain when he heard about the affair. The four involved opted to let Bruce write a letter to inform the Pikes Peak road crew of the incident. Assuming it was just a one-time error of judgement on the part of a plow driver he expected the cooperation of the road crew to exercise more care. Almost a year later I called the highway maintenance crew of Pikes Peak and spoke with Preston. He recalled the incident and the letter from Bruce. When asked what has been changed as a result he said that the snow bank has been moved back from the edge somewhat but that there was really no other place to put the excess snow during times of heavy snowfall. I asked if any signs were posted to warn skiers and climbers. Preston answered that the highway's permit with the Forest Service only extends 150 feet on either side of the road. I took that to mean that they did not have the authority to post signs at the runout of the couloir where climbers would begin their ascent. Certainly they could post one at the top where skiers would start. I asked him how skiers and climbers would be able to find out when the plowing would occur so they could avoid it. He suggested that they call 719-385-PEAK (7325) and hit the appropriate button after listening to the menu to reach the highway crew. When I asked him if he was aware that the Pikes Peak Alpine School had a permit from the Forest Service to use that side of the mountain he answered that he was not aware of what permits the school may have with the Forest Service. Asking a lawyer with the Colorado Attorneys General's office about liability if there were an injury or death resulting from the parking lot's snow removal actions I got an interesting answer. The state and all city governments within the state have "sovereign immunity" which means you can't sue the state (or Colorado Springs which manages the Pikes Peak Highway) without the state's permission. The governor can waive this and allow a lawsuit to proceed. Gov. Romer did in a case where the state highway department rolled a boulder onto people in cars driving below. The lawsuit was successful and the victims' families won. One can only guess at what the governor would do in the hypothetical case of a skier/climber being injured/killed by parking lot snow removal on Pikes Peak. Since the event would happen on Forest Service land that would involve yet another complication. If the highway department doesn't have a big liability problem here perhaps they have a moral obligation to at least warn others who they endanger. During the months of April and May there are dozens of people skiing all over the peak. Most of them are customers of the Pikes Peak Highway and have payed $8 - $20 per vehicle to use it. While it's true that a fraction of those skiers attempt to ski the terrain below the parking lot the school is bringing folks up there on a more routine basis. Let's face it, not everyone is up there just taking pictures and eating donuts. If you are thinking about taking some runs anywhere on Pikes Peak please be aware that it is not a ski area, there is no ski patrol, obstacles are certainly not marked, there is no avalanche control and trails are not groomed. Frequently the snow is so wind packed or frozen so hard that your skis won't even make a mark in it. If you fall on this surface you could take off like a bar of wet soap. Check the runout below you to see if you'll smash into rocks or trees below. Know where you're skiing. It's easy to get confused and start down a run only to find it ends in a cliff. You may want to climb an extreme run before you ski it. Like any other backcountry destination you should be aware of potential avalanche danger as well, carry the recommended equipment and know how to use it. The road makes this mountain accessible to hoards of skiers and boarders who otherwise would not be there. As you can imagine there have been many deaths and injuries over the years. Some of the victims were experienced and prepared. Don't be lulled into complacency by the party-like atmosphere that sometimes occurs on a beautiful May weekend. And finally, if you think you're skilled enough to do something as steep and dangerous as the Cog or "Y" Couloirs and you think you have the mountain smiling on you that morning, watch out for the plowman. Dave Sauer [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: JayB ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 I'm no lawyer and Erik may be in the right based on the law, but it seems to me a FS trail through a ski area should imply an easement. Certainly having lived in CO and skied at Eldora I think it might be equally likely that the ski area employee may have just been trying to restrict acess not based on laws but based on intimidation. There are XC trails at Eldora that the ski area maintains. Were you on one of the XC trails Max? Even if this were the case being forced to pay for a downhill ticket would still be totally unfair. If you are right Erik, and if us skiers are to stay away from ski areas that really restricts backcountry skiing. Given that ski areas are on public land and the government indirectly subsidises them through low lease rates I don't see why they shouldn't have to put up with people walking through, "their land." PS Don't get such a chip on your shoulder about us stuck up Seattle types diss'n Tacoma Erik remember you live in the city of Destiny. And it sure doesn't stink as much as it used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: I'm no lawyer and Erik may be in the right based on the law, but it seems to me a FS trail through a ski area should imply an easement. Yeah, my "peeve" is not that someone mis-interpreted the law, but more that the law seems unfair. I don't think the ski area should be able to do that. quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: Certainly having lived in CO and skied at Eldora I think it might be equally likely that the ski area employee may have just been trying to restrict acess not based on laws but based on intimidation. Another piece in this puzzle is that earlier this year, one skier was killed and another generally fucked when they were swept into Yankee Doodle lake, approached via our route through the area. I suspect things are in a hightened state due to this incident. quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: Given that ski areas are on public land and the government indirectly subsidises them through low lease rates I don't see why they shouldn't have to put up with people walking through, "their land." Yeah, this is more what I'm whining about. For me it's not a matter of being strictly justified, I'm just annoyed by it. As to the comment "there are plenty of other places to ski/climb": yes this is true. And again, I'm not saying these places should be open, I'm just lamenting that a great day was dulled by being brow beaten by a (only moderately) power-trippin' ski-area dude. Further, this argument is somewhat invalidated by applying it's principle other access issues. No one would accept the argument "there are plenty of other places" if it were a matter of a crag being inappropriately bolted or a municiple trail being decommisioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 22, 2002 Author Share Posted January 22, 2002 I’m with you on the whole property rights thing, Erik, but I thought that I’d go ahead and add some more information about the property in question. I'm certainly not advocating trespassing or otherwise violating property rights, but established precedents can and should be taken into account in situations like these. Sometimes there’s a longstanding agreement between landowners and climbers, and when it changes abruptly and without notice climbers can be caught off-guard. People have been accessing Gillete Falls in this manner for as long as people have been climbing ice in Colorado, and until now the property owners ( members of a private fishing club who own the property that the falls are accessed through, but probably not the falls themselves) have had a very good working relationship with climbers. The members of the fishing club rarely, if ever use the property in winter, and the deal has always been that as long as climbers remain quiet, considerate, and clean the access would remain open. Accordingly, that’s what Burns, who makes a point of informing climbers to remain off of climbs that are closed elsewhere, states in his book. Moreover, the property that the gun wielding fellow was on when he accosted the climbers belongs to the club, not him, but apparently to access the club’s land you must cross his – but I doubt that he pulls a gun on the men who belong to the club and their families when pass through his property every day during the summer. Have relations between climbers and the club deteriorated to the point that they’ve deputized this guy to defend their land – unlikely but perhaps they have. In that case a sign informing climbers of the situation at the entrance to the road and/or just asking the guys to leave and tell their friends not to climb their would have sufficed. Were the theatrics with the gun, deflating the tires, and the rest of the shit that went down necessary? I doubt it – I think I’ve met the guy who posted the note before and he was polite to a fault. The fact that he took the time to get the word out (on two separate message boards) and prevent other climbers from accessing the falls without the landowner’s consent seems to bear this out. Judging by the looks of the guy’s pad and property, the behavior of the dude with the gun resulted from a guy who hardly ever finds himself in a postion to exert authority on anyone confronted with a rare opportunity to do so and not being able to contain himself. If he was really interested in keeping people off of his land he’d post a sign and that would take care of it – but when the guy isn’t counting the teeth he has left, polishing the chrome on his camaro or cooking up a fresh batch of meth in his trailer, pulling a gun on people and chewing them out probably provides a welcome diversion from his usual routine, and bossing around the same people who he would normally have to greet in quite a different fashion if they were to meet elsewhere is probably too rare an opportunity for him to pass up. Anyhow – the point of my post wasn’t to berate landowners for enforcing their property rights (although I apparently lacked the self-control necessary to pass-up the opportunity to rip on an aggressive mullet), just to get some funny/interesting stories out of people who ran into trouble on the way to a climb when they weren’t expecting any. [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: JayB ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Hey Erik, I'm from Tacoma originally and I was wondering why you have "capital of canada: Tacoma, WA." for where you're from. Tacoma couldn't even capitalize on itself, much less another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 A couple of years ago, me and a buddy drove around a gate on a loggin road. The path was well used and obvious. It went past an old abandoned house North of Monroe about 10 miles. In fact, I had used it several times previously We completed our mission of driving every road to its end and not finding any deer. Upon returning, we discovered a very large dodge pickup blocking the little road that goes around the gate. A rough lookin character approached us while another 6 or 7 large loggerish men (Deliverance baby!)stood back and observed, slowly sipping beverages. The man appeared intoxicated and identified himself as the property owner and explained that he was quite upset and tired of people driving through his property. In fact, we had been the last people who were going to complete the traverse and we certainly weren't going to be able to travel back across to leave. HMMM I said. Being bow hunters we couldent count on shooting our way out. My friend was interested in intensly debating the man but, regained his temper when the man's freinds moved closer to assist in the debate. I got out and assumed a non threatening posture, acted politely and asked him if there was anything we could do. He went on to loudly exclaim how mad he was about the garbage previous trespassers had left garbage and torn up the yard. I bs'd with him calmly about the price of land and lumber (it was apparent he had planted a small tree farm) and offered to haul off a truck load of garbage if he would agree to let us out. After some additional threats of what he and his freinds would do if they caught us on his property again he relented. We loaded up a bunch of scrap metal, bike frames and a water heater and he moved his truck. His friends tried to intercede by throwing half full beer cans at my truck as I sped away late for a date with the wife. Greatful to be on our way in one piece, my friend and I decided it was wise not to test the guy again and the deer hunting wasen't that great anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 We were driving out of Hyalite Canyon in Bozeman after a day of ice climbing. It was a low snow year so the road was clear, but covered with black ice. We saw a Subaru take a nose dive thirty feet into the creek bed/boulder field straight in front of us. Luckily everyone was ok and we all had a good laugh about it. The car wasn't happy though. They must have had to haul it out of the river with a crane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 22, 2002 Author Share Posted January 22, 2002 Hey - anyone out there know any details about the "Ice Climbers Stole My Dog!" story that the guy by Michelmoon Falls is telling everyone. I've heard of access problems caused by noise, litter, etc but this is a first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Nope dont know details but it is presumably true that they claim this. I dont know maybe they are making a lame excuse to ban climbers [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Cpt.Caveman ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 actually after an epic last winter on michelmoon falls, the dog was wandering at the base of the climb, i forgot my lunch that morning and i wasn't sure if i would be able to make it back out due to the fact that i had to lead and was completely void of any energy so we ate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.