The Forest Service is exploring a lawsuit to reopen access on these spectacular trails. We need evidence of use of the trails (Wasatch Trail and East Fork Trail). Photos of trail signs that you can put a date on (approximate is OK) would be great. We are focused on the period from 1990 through 2009 but are interested in anything earlier than this as well. Please spread the word and have anyone that has helpful information contact lawyerKen. I should also note that we have evidence that these public trails existed in the 1880s before the parcel that is being blocked came into private ownership. We are not trying to create public access but trying to regain access that has existed for well over 100 years.
Ken - Can you identify yourself and your affiliation/client? I want to sure where this information will be going.
Steve Johnson
Same here. I’d just assume see the Three Stooges all stuck in the doorway jam (while all trying to get through at once) vs. handing Bear Creek over to Telski!
And yes. I do have a couple photos of interest.
(woo woo woo, nyuck ynuck yuck)
Yes, I represent the Forest Service, not Telski.
OK, “lawyerKen” … they aren’t close ups, but were taken on 7/29/2000:
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/hippie421/PIC00006.jpg?t=1326935923
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/hippie421/PIC00005.jpg?t=1326935983
Consider this carefully, it’s not the job of the NFS to ask “how high” when told to jump by a tenant! Maybe work is work to you, so you might not mind the fierce and relentless opposition to any new lifts in Bear Creek … but I can assure you there will be no shortage from those of us who believe enough is enough & an expansion is completely unwarranted!
Hey Miki,
Can you please provide a definition for “intittled”? I haven’t been able to find one and my inner Beavis is going crazy over that word. :lol 
:flower
Thanks!
You’re intittled to your opinion.
The laws vary by state, but I believe most states actually have laws whereby if private land is open for public traffic for a certain period of time, the public gets an easement on that part of the land (from a cursory reading of Wikipedia, it may be what’s called a prescriptive easement). Essentially, you’re allowed to rope off your land, but if you leave it unroped for a very long period of time, and people become used to using part it as a thoroughfare, they get to continue using that part of it as a thoroughfare. It sounds like that is what is being invoked here.
Let me guess landshark, you’re “pro tarp” :cheers
I was amazed when I learned about the legal concept of adverse possession. I just couldn’t believe this could be true. I had similar thoughts in grade school about eminent domain … but at least there is some “greater good” involved with such a taking (or at least there is supposed to be). Of course, we’ve witnessed all sorts of applications which cover a broad spectrum (for “good” or “bad”). Easements seem to offer the shades between black and white with respect to the absolute nature of private property. If the U.S. was attacked by an invading force, surely there would be military authority to utilize “private property” however it sees fit to defend our borders. There are probably more ways to look at private property being subtle at best, but not looking to dwell.
I’m actually for a strict adherence to private property rights generally speaking, but sometimes I believe the boundaries will have been pushed enough to warrant extra-ordinary action or simply to recognize the existence of some available “tools” (i.e. prescriptive easements). I think the Wasatch Trails is one of the “crown jewels” in the state & certainly ranks up there in the NFS registry on a national level. In a certain sense, much of the Telluride region could be considered the NFS’s version of a “national park intermingled with free enterprise”. So, I think there’d be sufficient cause to at least try to preserve public access … at least on a limited basis.
On the other hand, if the NFS obtains easement rights or even ownership of the parcels in question and then in turn grants an expansion of the ski area into Bear Creek with an allowance to utilize said easements or property, I would be adamantly opposed to such a turn of events … in light of the fact that there has been NO such prior historical use by such means (i.e. mechanically transporting people into the immediate area).
Retrieving more, here are some. Following will be more of the '96-2001 era. All can be dated accurately by the photographer.
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=d4483cd5be&view=att&th=134f41cdf2d72b2f&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=d4483cd5be&view=att&th=134f41cdf2d72b2f&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=d4483cd5be&view=att&th=134f41cdf2d72b2f&attid=0.1.3&disp=emb&zw
Those are 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. The middle photo, w/ hiker, is Bluegrass weekend. If they don’t come up perhaps I could get a private message or something simple, I’ll try and check back here, telling me how I can display them better. They are .jpg images so you’ll need an image viewer.
Colorado is a beautiful place and I want a chunk all my own, so I can take off my shirt and talk to the birds if I wish. Now what good is PRIVATE property if we cannot take full advantage.
This property I looked at that had been encrouched upon, georgeous! But with all the folks running, hiking and horseback riding I thought. Why should I pay taxes on this land, its a rec center, let them pay for it. I want privacy, if you cannot get it on your own land than where?
Pretty soon the lines will be so grey no one will buy land.
Your images are in your personal e-mail so we can’t view them from those links.
If you have them on your computer use the “Additional Options” below the “Listening to” and attach each picture in a separate post. :thumbsup
If you don’t have them on your computer you’ll have to download them from your gmail account. :cheers
Discussion of Private Property Rights, I’m sure fits in with discussion of Politics and Religion. Nearer to heart to many than either Politics or Religion. Lets start with your body. First it was your Mum’s, then your parents to care for, then it was yours. Is that body in the womb the possession of the Mother? If so, what percentage is the Father’s? “If you don’t like what the Big Chief say, you say, ‘Jackamo Fee Nah Neh.’” Look it up. Good Luck. You’d have an easier time looking up CONCUPISCENCE, and that would require at least a pre-1850’s definition. Even then you might find some repressive pre-1850’s definition. As far as the “Aiko, Aiko,” part, ya’ll got that or you would not be on this forum. And while I’m on my soapbox; why does the Devil need an advocate? Last time I checked (now) he does not need another advocate. Imagine communication without adversity. Is it possible? Peace on Earth. Truth, Non-violence, even in thought. Self-regulating people, self- aware to check every thought. Certainly difficult when the palette of the mind is mine and mine alone, though possible as many seekers, Profits, and Saints have shown. Ever notice in the Sistine chapel’s Michelangelo how GOD (in his bearded, and anthropomorphic, splendor) is pointing at man (ADAM) and Adam is limply reaching to GOD with the support of his own knee. I and I might try reaching like it was the most important reaching in our lives, all the time. Rather than have a tracery experience with the Spirit, why not Primary and let our fear, mock-control, and pride fade away. Shirtless anywhere, privacy to be found in our wilderness, naked before Him, always. “Him,” with lacking femininity? Impossible. “It,” not such gracious reference. Love ya, for real.
Thanks TT.
On a scale of one to ten, Love is an $11 word. :flower and that’s your short version.
Huge Image:
I tried, attached, didn’t see them in “Preview?”
another
The other image I presently have, of Wasatch from Bluegrass 2010 weekend, is to large to post here. Though I’d like to post images, cause they’re nice, perhaps there is a better way for LawyerKen to get them? There will be more sent to my e.mail this weekend or early next week.
:wave
You can take full advantage of your private property, within the law. But you cannot prevent others from enjoying what isn’t your property by blocking off their access to that land. That’s why prescriptive easements exist. If there is public land that has historically been accessed through your property, you can’t block it off. You can block off part of your land, but you have to provide a path for the public to get through.
There’s nothing wrong with that. If you want your land completely to yourself, don’t buy land that has an easement. There’s not really any grey area here. The slope is not as slippery as you’re suggesting.
Not really. If you are the owner of the land, you simply have to block off access before enough time has elapsed to gain the easement. It takes a long period of hostile use for the easement to be created (I think in Colorado it is a whole 18 years). You really need quite a bit of neglect on the part of the owner for this to happen.
It’s actually not a half bad idea!
… although I can still see people bringing out individual tarps to place on the big communal tarp.
I want to paint the kids zone!