Claim Access Options

[swizz]

I am still thinking that you should be able to have access. If they allow (by law) the NFS management personnel vehicular access.... I believe you should also have some rights here. They may not want you to add a lock to their chain and refer to it as vandalism, which is probably correct in the eyes of the law. I would probably be back barking up the tree of the NFS and obtain a key for one of their existing locks. The NFS person that recommended you add a lock.... go back to him and explain that the City refers to this as vandalism. NFS should be required to comply.

[Crusty]

I am still thinking that you should be able to have access. If they allow (by law) the NFS management personnel vehicular access.... I believe you should also have some rights here. They may not want you to add a lock to their chain and refer to it as vandalism, which is probably correct in the eyes of the law. I would probably be back barking up the tree of the NFS and obtain a key for one of their existing locks. The NFS person that recommended you add a lock.... go back to him and explain that the City refers to this as vandalism. NFS should be required to comply.

I did walk most of it last year and they did do a lot of work to put it back in shape after the floods and it is definitely used by vehicles of some sort, so it would seem this would be a good angle. Agree the NFS would be more viable angle; guessing the city folks ain't gonna concede anything

[jhidek]

That's kind of what I've been doing, working both angles and seeing which one works out. The section of High Dr that I'd be driving on has ZERO damage to it, it seems like all the damage is always confined to the Cheyenne Canyon park side and all the switchbacks. USFS still maintains that they have no access to it at all and they do not have a lock on it themselves, yet I've shown them pictures multiple times of the USFS stamped lock on the daisychain

[swizz]

Request that a USFS person meet you at the gate. Show them the Federal padlock. Have a copy of your active mineral claim filing in hand. Demand your key.

[CP]

This is a confusing situation obviously in the field. And you all are responding so quickly in this thread.......Zing!!

Ok Jhidek, let me make sure I have this straight, at first you were saying your claim was on NF but now you're saying it's on BLM lands....that makes a difference which gov dept. office you should be dealing with to start off.

This spot also involves a city park parcel? ....No matter if the "park" is state, county or city.....those parks are all factually private land deeded to those depts. and they can restrict/make rules as they see fit.

This sounds very very similar to a spot I discussed at length (concerning access via the park) with one of our club members sometime last year.... The responses posted thus far have been top notch everyone good work! Love to see cub members in here helping folks out as best they can with the info given!

If there is a "park" involved where your access point is stopped and you're parking there inside the park to hike onto FS lands.....they probably can do that based on it's private land and the FDR380 sounds like it's been named differently than other FS roads too......the word "development" added leads me to think the road was made or re-opened for the park possibly? Thus is not part of the actual FS system of roads? Just guessing on the legal stance from the parks end but I'll be that's their stance.

At this point I'd be looking at who uses the gated road you're wanting to use for vehicles......if it is only the parks dept (state, city or county....whichever) using the road then you're probably going to have to look for another access point/road. But on the other hand if it's FS (or BLM) using that gated road for any type of vehicular access, then I'd agree, you're access should be granted as a claim owner as well. As I just said though, which dept that is FS or BLM is who you should be contacting then at that point.....not the park.

Not sure if you're a club member or not yet Jhidek, but I would highly recommend club membership for you if you're not one yet.....this is exactly the kind of things we all help each other with, and I personally spend quite a bit of time consulting with club members individually, as the topics arise during ones research, staking of claims and working them or acquiring claims and then successfully working them without being mislead by misinformation that just confuses a person when trying to deal with their individual scenarios encountered. Seems like there is always another question that comes up or concern someone in a uniform puts forth for every answer gained as you go.....but that's how it works best when you have better knowledge, find the right answer and then move ahead with confidence on your claim work! It makes the world of difference when you're treated as a claim owner by the gov. depts. as you can see by our club members responses of their own experiences.

[Crusty]

This is a confusing situation obviously in the field. And you all are responding so quickly in this thread.......Zing!!

Ok Jhidek, let me make sure I have this straight, at first you were saying your claim was on NF but now you're saying it's on BLM lands....that makes a difference which gov dept. office you should be dealing with to start off.

This spot also involves a city park parcel? ....No matter if the "park" is state, county or city.....those parks are all factually private land deeded to those depts. and they can restrict/make rules as they see fit.

This sounds very very similar to a spot I discussed at length (concerning access via the park) with one of our club members sometime last year.... The responses posted thus far have been top notch everyone good work! Love to see cub members in here helping folks out as best they can with the info given!

If there is a "park" involved where your access point is stopped and you're parking there inside the park to hike onto FS lands.....they probably can do that based on it's private land and the FDR380 sounds like it's been named differently than other FS roads too......the word "development" added leads me to think the road was made or re-opened for the park possibly? Thus is not part of the actual FS system of roads? Just guessing on the legal stance from the parks end but I'll be that's their stance.

At this point I'd be looking at who uses the gated road you're wanting to use for vehicles......if it is only the parks dept (state, city or county....whichever) using the road then you're probably going to have to look for another access point/road. But on the other hand if it's FS (or BLM) using that gated road for any type of vehicular access, then I'd agree, you're access should be granted as a claim owner as well. As I just said though, which dept that is FS or BLM is who you should be contacting then at that point.....not the park.

Not sure if you're a club member or not yet Jhidek, but I would highly recommend club membership for you if you're not one yet.....this is exactly the kind of things we all help each other with, and I personally spend quite a bit of time consulting with club members individually, as the topics arise during ones research, staking of claims and working them or acquiring claims and then successfully working them without being mislead by misinformation that just confuses a person when trying to deal with their individual scenarios encountered. Seems like there is always another question that comes up or concern someone in a uniform puts forth for every answer gained as you go.....but that's how it works best when you have better knowledge, find the right answer and then move ahead with confidence on your claim work! It makes the world of difference when you're treated as a claim owner by the gov. depts. as you can see by our club members responses of their own experiences.

High drive was created in the early 1900s; land was later donated to the city as a park.

http://evergreencemetery.blogspot.com/2011...ptain-jack.html

this link makes it sound much more exciting than it really is lol
http://www.city-data.com/articles/High-Dri...-CO-Scenic.html

[Gene Kooper]

Since I don't know the particulars of this area and the land status, I'll offer a couple of generic suggestions.

From your posts, your claim is located in the Pike National Forest. I suggest arranging a meeting with the USFS District Ranger in Colorado Springs to discuss your access problem(s). Some items you may wish to bring up are: has the USFS issued an order restricting access to the portion of the road on FS land; is there an agreement between the city and FS regarding motorized vehicle access past the city park's locked gate; is there another way to access your claim that avoids the city park; and what records does the FS have regarding the road, city park and other adjacent land owners, esp. access issues.

Regarding the last question, you may find those answers by talking with the PSICC (Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimmaron and Commanche National Grasslands) Boundary Program Manager. This position is held by a BLM Cadastral Surveyor. I don't know if the same person holds the position now, but in 2014 they were very helpful in getting the FS to recognize the encroachment of a trail head parking lot onto my client's property. Needless to say, my client was less than happy that the Forest Service's concessionaire was was collecting money from people parking on his patented claim. I can send you the old contact info via email (cekooper at gmail dot com) if you'd like to contact him.

One more idle thought....the road in question may no longer be a public road (if it ever was). The city may have gone through the process of vacating the road when they acquired or upgraded the park land, thereby eliminating access as a public roadway.

[Clay Diggins]

I looked up the area where the park and gate is. The Master Title Plat clearly indicates the land there as private. The Patent numbers indicate the grants were early.

I suggest you study the Master Title Plat, download the patents and patent surveys noted on the MTP and determine if the public way was reserved from the grants. If so the gate can not be closed to the public.

If the public way was not reserved from the patent you may have rights under public doctrine in Colorado State or there may be a servitude or prescriptive easement from notorious and continued use. Those would be controlled by State, not Federal, law.

Before proceeding to enter any land you don't own it is your legal duty to perform a diligent search for the status of those lands. If you had been informed about that land status before posting here the advice you seek could have been tailored to your particular situation.

As it stands you have more research to do before your required due diligence is complete. Get a better grasp on the land status there and you will find informed people here to help you. Until then you should consider all our advice to be uninformed as to the facts.

I am barred from sharing my research tools here but there are several knowledgeable people here who can guide you to the resources you will need. Good Luck and...

Heavy Pans

[Crusty]

As an extra bit of info, this road has (for awhile) been closed seasonally from oct-may (?); it has now been closed permanently after the bad floods a couple years ago.

[Woody]

A person would have a hard time believing what that road looked like just a few short years ago after that flood. They have been working on it for the last
two years or so and have come a long way. It used to have ruts about 3 feet deep going right down the middle. I'm sure it will be opened to the public sometime
in the future, hard to guess when.

Here is another thought to ponder...

jhidek, your claim does not directly connect to that road. It only gets you closer. Does that change anything?

Have a good one, Woody

[Goldshark]

Great information Chris and I'd agree, this discussion could continue on with more details in the club members protected section for anyone interested.

I have a similar situation where I cross several patented claims on the way to my unpatented claims. There is a gate on the one patented claim. I submitted a plan of operations to the FS. They stated that I needed written permission to cross the patented property before they would approve my plan of operations. I showed them the reservations in the patent stating that in the absence of legislation from Congress, the state of Colorado shall provide for the rules and regulations for it's development. Show them the Colorado Revised Statutes pertaining to minerals, particularly 34-48-104, "Every miner has a right of way across any and all claims for the purpose of hauling quartz". The FS said I need a court order to state that this applies.I say BS, but they won't budge. It is a civil matter, but can't find a competent mining law attorney to litigate it. Any body know of a competent attorney to recommend.