Heads up: the Denver metro area Jeep clubs are attempting to claim that another private mining road is public for their joy rides and other entertainment. The miner that owns it has been experiencing vandalism and closed it to the vandals. Recent article in the Times-Call:
http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=7779
Here is a forum where the off-road clubs are debating whether or not to respect the owner's right to close his property:
http://colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65365
This is happening alot in the front range where new uses are clashing with traditional uses.
Full Version: Trouble near Boulder
Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums > Prospecting, Mineral Collecting and Treasure Hunting Forums > Prospectors and Rockhounding Field Work
Well after reading through the article and some of the posts in that thread ......in my honest opinion this miner DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CLOSE THE FS ROAD!
First of all........FS roads are not privately owned........or private roads are not named/maintained by FS......so this is a public fs road for use by ALL CITIZENS.....INCLUDING HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS AND OTHER MINERS/PROSPECTORS!
As for the 4WD folks........I really doubt if they are they ones who shot holes in anything....those folks are out to do some off roadin and not blow stuff up. Frankly the holes more than likely came from young teens with too much time on their hands or hunters?
Has anyone been tried and convicted of the vandalism yet?
At any rate attempting to close off OUR FOREST is not the answer.
Seems to me the miners and citizens are gettin the shaft! FS land is OURS not the district ranger and a few local influences!
Fences and or gates don't keep out bullets either.
Is this an active mine......oh no that's right....been inactive for how long?
The way it was first presented almost would lead someone to think it was active......which if it was, the mine/buildings would probably not have been vandalized so......right?
Sorry I just really can't see that this gate is legal, granted I have not visited this mine. But from what I've seen so far..........bad deal
CP
First of all........FS roads are not privately owned........or private roads are not named/maintained by FS......so this is a public fs road for use by ALL CITIZENS.....INCLUDING HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS AND OTHER MINERS/PROSPECTORS!
As for the 4WD folks........I really doubt if they are they ones who shot holes in anything....those folks are out to do some off roadin and not blow stuff up. Frankly the holes more than likely came from young teens with too much time on their hands or hunters?
Has anyone been tried and convicted of the vandalism yet?
At any rate attempting to close off OUR FOREST is not the answer.
Seems to me the miners and citizens are gettin the shaft! FS land is OURS not the district ranger and a few local influences!
Fences and or gates don't keep out bullets either.
Is this an active mine......oh no that's right....been inactive for how long?
The way it was first presented almost would lead someone to think it was active......which if it was, the mine/buildings would probably not have been vandalized so......right?
Sorry I just really can't see that this gate is legal, granted I have not visited this mine. But from what I've seen so far..........bad deal
CP
CP, the problem is that the FS does not own the right of way through the miner's property. The FS has a history of taking roads that were built by mining companies on private property and claiming them as FS roads without any sort of due process. If you look at the history of the FS, it wasn't even created until well after most of the mining land in the Front Range was patented. So how can private property become public property without just compensation to the miners? If it's actually public property, then why are the owners getting tax bills for it (and who maintains it, and who gets sued if somebody gets hurt there)? If there is a legitimate need to cross private property, then the FS can lease or buy an easement. What they can't do is declare a mining road to be a publiic road just by drawing it on a map. The ranger does not have any power whatsoever over private land.
I don't see how it matters whether a mine is active or not. Remember this is patented land not just a claim, so the owner has the right to defend his land, regardless of what he is doing with it. As for 4-wheelers vs. teenagers with too much time: not much difference when you are talking about Boulder County.
They also don't even stay on the roads, and people in vehicles tend to haul away everything from old equipment to ore.
There are many ways to get to public land without having to cut across private property without permission. The bottom line: if it aint FS land, it ain't YOUR forest.
I don't see how it matters whether a mine is active or not. Remember this is patented land not just a claim, so the owner has the right to defend his land, regardless of what he is doing with it. As for 4-wheelers vs. teenagers with too much time: not much difference when you are talking about Boulder County.
They also don't even stay on the roads, and people in vehicles tend to haul away everything from old equipment to ore.There are many ways to get to public land without having to cut across private property without permission. The bottom line: if it aint FS land, it ain't YOUR forest.
Thanks for posting this info 59er and I'm still feeling like I don't have enough info yet. 
Does anyone have the factual history of the roads creation, date, and agreements made then, if any?
You are right about the FS being created later than many claims were dated but the land which became FS land was then already public land goverened by the BLM. (I believe) During the creation of the FS, congress delegated authority to the FS over these lands to regulate surface resources and occupancy. As it was when the FS was created and is still today, the BLM regulates all minerals ..... including FS lands.
Another question I've had is .....Does this road end on this patented claim? If so then I can see a gate being put up at the claim boundry.
But if not ......I think the road should still be open to the public for access of the land past this claim.
As far as private property having roads through them........there are hundreds if not thousands of those situations in each county....... without having all the history of the road like I said.....hard to make this call.
But if the criteria was only that you own land on either side of the road and you could close it........we sure would have a hard time gettin anywhere.
Did the miner that created the road agree to leave it open for public use as a condition of the POO when the mine was operating in the old days?
Would the government make such a stipulation? .... very possible I bet.
Another thought that comes to mind........Were these old mining roads created by one miner/company usually or did the collective "group" of local miners all contribute to the road construction over a period of time?
You are right that the FS has no jurisdiction on private land.
It does not matter whether active or not.......that claim owner does indeed have a right to protect their property. I was just making a point about vandalism. Active workings usually aren't troubled with vandalism when manned all the time.
Post more info when ya can and thanks again.
CP
Does anyone have the factual history of the roads creation, date, and agreements made then, if any?
You are right about the FS being created later than many claims were dated but the land which became FS land was then already public land goverened by the BLM. (I believe) During the creation of the FS, congress delegated authority to the FS over these lands to regulate surface resources and occupancy. As it was when the FS was created and is still today, the BLM regulates all minerals ..... including FS lands.
Another question I've had is .....Does this road end on this patented claim? If so then I can see a gate being put up at the claim boundry.
But if not ......I think the road should still be open to the public for access of the land past this claim.
As far as private property having roads through them........there are hundreds if not thousands of those situations in each county....... without having all the history of the road like I said.....hard to make this call.
But if the criteria was only that you own land on either side of the road and you could close it........we sure would have a hard time gettin anywhere.
Did the miner that created the road agree to leave it open for public use as a condition of the POO when the mine was operating in the old days?
Would the government make such a stipulation? .... very possible I bet.
Another thought that comes to mind........Were these old mining roads created by one miner/company usually or did the collective "group" of local miners all contribute to the road construction over a period of time?
You are right that the FS has no jurisdiction on private land.
It does not matter whether active or not.......that claim owner does indeed have a right to protect their property. I was just making a point about vandalism. Active workings usually aren't troubled with vandalism when manned all the time.
Post more info when ya can and thanks again.
CP
Hey CP, thanks for keeping an open mind.
I think this is a growing problem all over the West, but especially places that have experienced a population explosion and fast growth in extreme sports like rock-crawling. It's a classic "user conflict". When I was growing up in CO, the use of these old roads was very light, and those of us that owned jeeps were usually just using them to try to get places other people couldn't go, on the roads that were already there. Nowadays the fashion is to put huge tires and suspensions on these things and complete by crawling up hills and over boulders. Do a web search on "rock-crawlers" and you will see what I'm talking about. I was really shocked to see what jeeping has turned into over the years.
The modern four wheelers have a different approach than we did back in the '60s and '70s. Have you heard of "rock-stacking"? When we went out in the old Willys with stock parts, we couldn't get over the wash-outs and deep ruts, so we would do little local repairs that would allow us to get through. Apparently, nowadays, this is a real no no. The four wheelers say that if your rig can't get up a road you shouldn't be there, and they've take to putting up "gate keeper obstacles" to keep guys like me out. The way it's ended up in a lot of places around Gold Hill, Ward, Jamestown, etc. is that the hard-core four wheelers basically "own the road" and the rest of us are not welcome any more.
Then there's the looting. One old boy I know has owned claims up there all his life, and had some old antique ore cars on his property. He started losing his gear, and one day caught some people loading a car into the back of their pickup becuse they wanted to put it in their yard in the burbs and plant flowers in it. They didn't even know they were doing anything wrong, it was just sort of a "finders-keepers" attitude because the road they were on was not gated.
You questions about the specifics of Gillespie Gulch I can't answer. but you are right. Every situation is going ot be different because of the different history. My main point is that just because a road has been used for a long time by the public doesn't make it a public road, and there are good and legitimate reasons to close roads where there are problems like the ones I describe. Legally, if the land was patented before the road was built, the road belongs to the owner of the land unless the title of the property says otherwise. Even the FS must get permission to use it, whether or not there's a FS number on it. In th old days most people where neighborly about sharing the roads, but that was before rock-crawling.
I'll see if I can find out more specifics about Gillespie Gulch for you.
I think this is a growing problem all over the West, but especially places that have experienced a population explosion and fast growth in extreme sports like rock-crawling. It's a classic "user conflict". When I was growing up in CO, the use of these old roads was very light, and those of us that owned jeeps were usually just using them to try to get places other people couldn't go, on the roads that were already there. Nowadays the fashion is to put huge tires and suspensions on these things and complete by crawling up hills and over boulders. Do a web search on "rock-crawlers" and you will see what I'm talking about. I was really shocked to see what jeeping has turned into over the years.
The modern four wheelers have a different approach than we did back in the '60s and '70s. Have you heard of "rock-stacking"? When we went out in the old Willys with stock parts, we couldn't get over the wash-outs and deep ruts, so we would do little local repairs that would allow us to get through. Apparently, nowadays, this is a real no no. The four wheelers say that if your rig can't get up a road you shouldn't be there, and they've take to putting up "gate keeper obstacles" to keep guys like me out. The way it's ended up in a lot of places around Gold Hill, Ward, Jamestown, etc. is that the hard-core four wheelers basically "own the road" and the rest of us are not welcome any more.
Then there's the looting. One old boy I know has owned claims up there all his life, and had some old antique ore cars on his property. He started losing his gear, and one day caught some people loading a car into the back of their pickup becuse they wanted to put it in their yard in the burbs and plant flowers in it. They didn't even know they were doing anything wrong, it was just sort of a "finders-keepers" attitude because the road they were on was not gated.
You questions about the specifics of Gillespie Gulch I can't answer. but you are right. Every situation is going ot be different because of the different history. My main point is that just because a road has been used for a long time by the public doesn't make it a public road, and there are good and legitimate reasons to close roads where there are problems like the ones I describe. Legally, if the land was patented before the road was built, the road belongs to the owner of the land unless the title of the property says otherwise. Even the FS must get permission to use it, whether or not there's a FS number on it. In th old days most people where neighborly about sharing the roads, but that was before rock-crawling.
I'll see if I can find out more specifics about Gillespie Gulch for you.
I think Dan is right, so far. Before any decisions are made the history of the road and claims should be disclosed.
I will play the devil's advocate here though. I have personally watched 4 wheeling clubs trespass and vandalize private property. Excellent example is some claims a group accessed 25+ years back in Utah. They were curious, they cut the lock off the door, and they got caught by the claim owner when they came out. Another time was private property a road went through. I saw that personally (property owner was my landlord). 4 wheelers wanted to go up a canyon, but had to cross private property. They didn't ask for permission (and the owner usually only asks a dollar or two for access), and they pulled the gate out of the ground. Last I knew he permanantly closed the road with a backhoe.
For every group you will have miscreants that have zero regard for other peoples rights. This is in both the off road community and mining as well. There are no perect off roaders such as there are no perfect miners.
Well, except for me, of course!
I will play the devil's advocate here though. I have personally watched 4 wheeling clubs trespass and vandalize private property. Excellent example is some claims a group accessed 25+ years back in Utah. They were curious, they cut the lock off the door, and they got caught by the claim owner when they came out. Another time was private property a road went through. I saw that personally (property owner was my landlord). 4 wheelers wanted to go up a canyon, but had to cross private property. They didn't ask for permission (and the owner usually only asks a dollar or two for access), and they pulled the gate out of the ground. Last I knew he permanantly closed the road with a backhoe.
For every group you will have miscreants that have zero regard for other peoples rights. This is in both the off road community and mining as well. There are no perect off roaders such as there are no perfect miners.
Well, except for me, of course!
The laws on rights of wqy can be found in the 1866 MINING lAW. Try looking
RS 2477 from the mining law.
Any Road built between 1866 and 1976 (FLPMA) is a public right of way.
Jerry
RS 2477 from the mining law.
Any Road built between 1866 and 1976 (FLPMA) is a public right of way.
Jerry
Of course if that ingress egress interferes with a mining operation the miner has all the right to gate the road.
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry,
Not any road built between 1866 and 1976 is public. RS 2477 onlly applies to roads built on public land not reserved for public uses. Roads build on private property are not covered by RS 2477, nor are roads build on National Forest land after the U.S. Forest Service was established.
One of the major points of confiict is the question of who has the burden of proof. It's real easy to say that a road is public because it was built, say, in 1876. But how do you prove when a road was built (or on the flip side, how do you prove a road WASN'T built on that date)?
Difficult and often something only a judge can decide.
Not any road built between 1866 and 1976 is public. RS 2477 onlly applies to roads built on public land not reserved for public uses. Roads build on private property are not covered by RS 2477, nor are roads build on National Forest land after the U.S. Forest Service was established.
One of the major points of confiict is the question of who has the burden of proof. It's real easy to say that a road is public because it was built, say, in 1876. But how do you prove when a road was built (or on the flip side, how do you prove a road WASN'T built on that date)?
Difficult and often something only a judge can decide.
59er
You don't have to prove thaqt the road was built in 1876 you only have to document that it existed prior to 1976, by the use of old maps or use and it does apply to FS land and BLM land.
An individual can assert that right of way but the real strength is the county assertion.
If that road goes across private property and is the only way to your mining claim it can be utilized either by agreement or a civil lawsuit. If that road has ever een a public road for 5 years or more, even if it is across private road, the property owner can not legaly close the road
Jerry
You don't have to prove thaqt the road was built in 1876 you only have to document that it existed prior to 1976, by the use of old maps or use and it does apply to FS land and BLM land.
An individual can assert that right of way but the real strength is the county assertion.
If that road goes across private property and is the only way to your mining claim it can be utilized either by agreement or a civil lawsuit. If that road has ever een a public road for 5 years or more, even if it is across private road, the property owner can not legaly close the road
Jerry
Also depends on the deals the claim owners had in the past with government officials. I remember back when I was a kid, we'd see Mesa County Road Department equipment grading, graveling and repairing dirt roads in the mountains north of town. What I never could figure out is how the road work would actually be in Garfield county on private land, until I found out one of the prominant ranchers gave the big dog hunting rights on the ranch. "Give me hunting rights and I'll do you roads for you at county expense".
Over the year it can be construed as a public road because this kind of deal has been going on between the big dog and the property owners for so long. Not saying it's wrong, because in some cases it's really not such a bad deal. If the county or state or feds want to get to point B from point A, and to do so economically means coming through your land, they might strike a deal there....
USFS: "We need to get to this spot on the map, and want to go through your ranch. What kind of deal do you want so we can have access?"
Rancher "A": "I don't know how you're gonna get up there, there ain't no roads. I've been wanting a road up that way for sometime, just never had the time to do it."
USFS: "You want a road? Not a problem. We have to put on in anyways, so howabout we put the road in, we take care of it, and do that in exchange for access?"
Rancher "A": Wellheck, that sounds like a plan. But I don't want no one coming up here going hunting though."
USFS: "No worries there, it'll be gated and you own the land so if anyone comes up here, you tell us and we'll take care of that."
Rancher "A": "Well heck, that sounds likie a dandy of a plan! Let's do it!"
Used to "happen all the time" when I was a kid. Mesa county and their cronies....
Over the year it can be construed as a public road because this kind of deal has been going on between the big dog and the property owners for so long. Not saying it's wrong, because in some cases it's really not such a bad deal. If the county or state or feds want to get to point B from point A, and to do so economically means coming through your land, they might strike a deal there....
USFS: "We need to get to this spot on the map, and want to go through your ranch. What kind of deal do you want so we can have access?"
Rancher "A": "I don't know how you're gonna get up there, there ain't no roads. I've been wanting a road up that way for sometime, just never had the time to do it."
USFS: "You want a road? Not a problem. We have to put on in anyways, so howabout we put the road in, we take care of it, and do that in exchange for access?"
Rancher "A": Wellheck, that sounds like a plan. But I don't want no one coming up here going hunting though."
USFS: "No worries there, it'll be gated and you own the land so if anyone comes up here, you tell us and we'll take care of that."
Rancher "A": "Well heck, that sounds likie a dandy of a plan! Let's do it!"
Used to "happen all the time" when I was a kid. Mesa county and their cronies....
Jerry, I think you are misreading RS 2477. It says “The right-of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.” Proving it was constructed before FLPMA (1976) only applies to roads on public land not reserved for public uses.
Congress has no authority to grant a right of way over private property, and the law expressly states that it is only granting the right of way over public land not reserved for public uses. National Forests are reserved for public uses, so the law does not apply to roads constructed on National Forest land.
So you have to document one of the following. Either the road was constructed before the land became National Forest (if it is now National Forest) or before it was patented as private land (if it is now private land) or before 1976 (if it is public land not reserved for public uses).
By Colorado statute, a road across private land must be used adversely for 20 years (not 5 years) before it can be claimed as a public road. That's not RS 2477 (which was a federal law).
Congress has no authority to grant a right of way over private property, and the law expressly states that it is only granting the right of way over public land not reserved for public uses. National Forests are reserved for public uses, so the law does not apply to roads constructed on National Forest land.
So you have to document one of the following. Either the road was constructed before the land became National Forest (if it is now National Forest) or before it was patented as private land (if it is now private land) or before 1976 (if it is public land not reserved for public uses).
By Colorado statute, a road across private land must be used adversely for 20 years (not 5 years) before it can be claimed as a public road. That's not RS 2477 (which was a federal law).
Coalbunny. I think this sorta thing happened all over Colorado (at least in the mountains) and probably other states.
If the county was smart that would have documented the deal. But counties have a lot of power, and can always get a right of way by eminent domain. They just have to use due process and pay fair market value. This is actually required by the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution, which says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think a lot of the problem with RS 2477 is counties that are too stingy to pay fair market value. If they really need the roads, they can buy them. As it turns out they are losing lawsuits and it would probably be cheaper to just buy the roads than sue for them. Eventually they will figure that out, I hope!
If the county was smart that would have documented the deal. But counties have a lot of power, and can always get a right of way by eminent domain. They just have to use due process and pay fair market value. This is actually required by the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution, which says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think a lot of the problem with RS 2477 is counties that are too stingy to pay fair market value. If they really need the roads, they can buy them. As it turns out they are losing lawsuits and it would probably be cheaper to just buy the roads than sue for them. Eventually they will figure that out, I hope!
I did a little research.
A couple weeks ago a judge in Idaho ruled on appeal that it is not sufficient to prove that a road existed prior to land being withdrawn from the public by a patent or reserved for public use. In addition, the road must be shown to have been accepted by the public, and the test for accpetance is 5 years of regular use (occasional use is not enough, according to this judge). The burden of proof is on the party claiming a public road. This ruling overturned a decision last year by the Idaho County Board of Commissioners. This might be the five years that Jerry referred to.
It's a lot harder to create an RS 2477 right of way than many people think, and like I said earlier, counties are learning that it might be easier and cheaper just to negotiate purchases of rights of way if they serve a public need.
The case was heard by the District Court of the 2nd Judicial District of the State of Idaho. It was called Galli v. Idaho County. It was filed June 2, 2006.
A couple weeks ago a judge in Idaho ruled on appeal that it is not sufficient to prove that a road existed prior to land being withdrawn from the public by a patent or reserved for public use. In addition, the road must be shown to have been accepted by the public, and the test for accpetance is 5 years of regular use (occasional use is not enough, according to this judge). The burden of proof is on the party claiming a public road. This ruling overturned a decision last year by the Idaho County Board of Commissioners. This might be the five years that Jerry referred to.
It's a lot harder to create an RS 2477 right of way than many people think, and like I said earlier, counties are learning that it might be easier and cheaper just to negotiate purchases of rights of way if they serve a public need.
The case was heard by the District Court of the 2nd Judicial District of the State of Idaho. It was called Galli v. Idaho County. It was filed June 2, 2006.
59er
The courts have found both ways for and against RS 2477. I guess it may just be which way a person wish's tho choose to fight. The bottom line is that is much easier for the counties to assert RS 3577 rights than an individuals.
Jerry
The courts have found both ways for and against RS 2477. I guess it may just be which way a person wish's tho choose to fight. The bottom line is that is much easier for the counties to assert RS 3577 rights than an individuals.
Jerry
Exactly 59er. They should have had it documented better. Those things happen even today and they don't document it. Sometimes because even they question the validity of the agreement. Others because it seems so incrimental to just not be worth it.
Jerry, I will have to get some stuff copied and send to you. It tells of a county's fight regarding the RS2477. Even if it's a paved county road, the feds can and have stolen it and closed it off with ZERO justification.
Jerry, I will have to get some stuff copied and send to you. It tells of a county's fight regarding the RS2477. Even if it's a paved county road, the feds can and have stolen it and closed it off with ZERO justification.
I know that San Bernardino County and several other So. Cslif have asseted their RS 2477 rights in the last 3 years. and I believe that Utah and Colorado have recently asserted their right as well.
Jerry
Jerry
I'd be interested in knowing if any of these assertions cross private property. If they do, I wonder if the county just records a road on the deed or if they notify (or negotiate) with the owner. It would be a shock to pull your deed and find a 60-foot exception where you thought you had a private drive.
I wonder what happens when some college kid kills himself flipping his rock crawler while trying to hill-climb up your mine tailings. Who is held liable when his parent's try to sue? Does the county turn around and say "we own the right of way but you are liable for maintenence and accidents by stupid people"?
Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I worry about these sorts of things in these modern times when there's no common sense or responsibility.
I wonder what happens when some college kid kills himself flipping his rock crawler while trying to hill-climb up your mine tailings. Who is held liable when his parent's try to sue? Does the county turn around and say "we own the right of way but you are liable for maintenence and accidents by stupid people"?
Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I worry about these sorts of things in these modern times when there's no common sense or responsibility.
Hi 59er
On many patented properties for mining there will be a clause in them which allows for a right away to access to rivers on the property (other than for mining) and right away for passage through. This would be in the original signed patent. In the case of a patented property the route may be up to the owner if it is a reasonable route.
On many patented properties for mining there will be a clause in them which allows for a right away to access to rivers on the property (other than for mining) and right away for passage through. This would be in the original signed patent. In the case of a patented property the route may be up to the owner if it is a reasonable route.
my x-father-in-law had two acres of property(2 side-by-side lots) with a house in the middle. he built a two car garge on it and was getting ready to pour the concret floor when the county called him at home and said that he cant have his garge there "cause someone was going to drive into it and get hurt" they told him that there was a 1800s propsed road that was listed there and that he had 1 month to remove the garage or be in court! he tried to explain that there isnt a road there and that he owns both lots. but they said no-no!! he even offered the land on the othere side of the lot and they said no, they didnt want a turn in the road. he said there isnt a road there! they wouldnt even come out and look at it! he tore down the garage! this was before the missouri disclosure law where the seller needs to show all known defects or property problems. what a hard way to learn.
Russ and all
RS 2477 Rights of way do not have to be maintained and often, after no use they become overgrown and are not visible but they still remain
Jerry
RS 2477 Rights of way do not have to be maintained and often, after no use they become overgrown and are not visible but they still remain
Jerry
I don't think that this is an RS 2477 right of way. I have never heard of successful lawsuit that took an RS 2477 right of way out of private property. I am aware of several attempts, but they are always fail.
Looks like this is a done deal. I guess there wasn't any real evidence that this was a public road after all.
Publish Date: 7/16/2006
Forest access limited
Gates lead officials to cancel thinning plans
By Brad Turner
The Daily Times-Call
JAMESTOWN — U.S. Forest Service officials have canceled plans to thin 350 acres of trees south of town after a mining company and a resident installed three gates to block access to the area.
Hikers, mountain bikers and snowshoers will still have access to the area, known as Gillespie Gulch, but motorized traffic can’t access Forest Service Road 331, which links Jamestown to thousands of acres of national forest.
After spending $30,000 to grade the road in preparation for the forest-thinning project, Forest Service administrators canceled the plans in late June after a resident built a gate on a spot where the road crosses private property, Boulder District ranger Christine Walsh said.
“This is very disappointing,” Walsh said. “We’re just not going up there.”
The Forest Service, along with the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office and several area fire districts, will have keys to unlock the gates on Gillespie Gulch during emergencies. But the thinning project cannot move forward because the Forest Service cannot order contractors to pass through barricades onto private property, even if they have a key to the gate, Walsh said.
The 3,800-acre Overland Fire torched a dozen homes on the north side of Jamestown in 2003.
In May, a representative for Merendon Mining said the company planned to build two gates across the road near the Black Rose Mine. Vandals have caused thousands of dollars in damage to equipment at the gold mine over the past two decades, mining geologist Harald Hoegberg said.
The barricades at the mine would have left about a mile of the popular off-roading route open to vehicles. But a private property owner built a third gate at the bottom of the hill, blocking the road entirely, Walsh said.
A Jamestown resident who lives near the new gate, speaking anonymously, said residents have endured years of off-roaders driving and riding by their homes. While most of them were respectful, a handful revved their engines and even urinated on private property, the resident said.
Boulder resident Jason Sweger said he was disappointed to find the road blocked off recently after camping in the area for the past 13 years.
Sweger said he and his friends always tried to do minimal harm when camping in the forest, but acknowledged he had seen a few cases of destructive off-roading and reckless shooting over the years.
“I know it only takes a few people to ruin it for everybody,” he said. “I guess that’s what happened here.”
The gate at Black Rose will dramatically reduce the number of motorists in the forest between Jamestown and Left Hand Canyon Drive, Walsh said recently.
Boulder County commissioners shut down County Road 102J, which linked Jamestown to Gold Lake, in 1999, after town residents complained that erosion from the dirt road contaminated their drinking water.
With Gillespie Gulch blocked, the only remaining access point to the forest south of Jamestown is a trail off Left Hand Canyon Drive that is too steep and difficult for most vehicles.
Brad Turner can be reached at 720-494-5420, or by e-mail at bturner@times-call.com.
Publish Date: 7/16/2006
Forest access limited
Gates lead officials to cancel thinning plans
By Brad Turner
The Daily Times-Call
JAMESTOWN — U.S. Forest Service officials have canceled plans to thin 350 acres of trees south of town after a mining company and a resident installed three gates to block access to the area.
Hikers, mountain bikers and snowshoers will still have access to the area, known as Gillespie Gulch, but motorized traffic can’t access Forest Service Road 331, which links Jamestown to thousands of acres of national forest.
After spending $30,000 to grade the road in preparation for the forest-thinning project, Forest Service administrators canceled the plans in late June after a resident built a gate on a spot where the road crosses private property, Boulder District ranger Christine Walsh said.
“This is very disappointing,” Walsh said. “We’re just not going up there.”
The Forest Service, along with the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office and several area fire districts, will have keys to unlock the gates on Gillespie Gulch during emergencies. But the thinning project cannot move forward because the Forest Service cannot order contractors to pass through barricades onto private property, even if they have a key to the gate, Walsh said.
The 3,800-acre Overland Fire torched a dozen homes on the north side of Jamestown in 2003.
In May, a representative for Merendon Mining said the company planned to build two gates across the road near the Black Rose Mine. Vandals have caused thousands of dollars in damage to equipment at the gold mine over the past two decades, mining geologist Harald Hoegberg said.
The barricades at the mine would have left about a mile of the popular off-roading route open to vehicles. But a private property owner built a third gate at the bottom of the hill, blocking the road entirely, Walsh said.
A Jamestown resident who lives near the new gate, speaking anonymously, said residents have endured years of off-roaders driving and riding by their homes. While most of them were respectful, a handful revved their engines and even urinated on private property, the resident said.
Boulder resident Jason Sweger said he was disappointed to find the road blocked off recently after camping in the area for the past 13 years.
Sweger said he and his friends always tried to do minimal harm when camping in the forest, but acknowledged he had seen a few cases of destructive off-roading and reckless shooting over the years.
“I know it only takes a few people to ruin it for everybody,” he said. “I guess that’s what happened here.”
The gate at Black Rose will dramatically reduce the number of motorists in the forest between Jamestown and Left Hand Canyon Drive, Walsh said recently.
Boulder County commissioners shut down County Road 102J, which linked Jamestown to Gold Lake, in 1999, after town residents complained that erosion from the dirt road contaminated their drinking water.
With Gillespie Gulch blocked, the only remaining access point to the forest south of Jamestown is a trail off Left Hand Canyon Drive that is too steep and difficult for most vehicles.
Brad Turner can be reached at 720-494-5420, or by e-mail at bturner@times-call.com.
I joined the forum this morning, this topic regarding 'access', is an ever-present issue/topic not only here but on other forums as well.
I've been lurking in the backround for way to long. How does that old saying go, try it before ya buy it.
I posted to a thread on NuggerShooter regarding this access issue this morning, it gets pretty passionate in many ways, and a lot of very different opinions are stated depending on circumstance, ....I'll just say, it's still open for discussion.
Here's a link back to what these people were talking about with respect to 'Public Land Access'.
http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/index...?showtopic=7242
I'm not pushing someone elses forum, I'm just pointing out that others share the same interest!
Gary
I've been lurking in the backround for way to long. How does that old saying go, try it before ya buy it.
I posted to a thread on NuggerShooter regarding this access issue this morning, it gets pretty passionate in many ways, and a lot of very different opinions are stated depending on circumstance, ....I'll just say, it's still open for discussion.
Here's a link back to what these people were talking about with respect to 'Public Land Access'.
http://www.nuggetshooter.ipbhost.com/index...?showtopic=7242
I'm not pushing someone elses forum, I'm just pointing out that others share the same interest!
Gary
if the man owns the property (as in patented mining claim, w/parcel number, and pays taxes, he has the right to close any roads on his property, PROVIDED he solicits the local county commission for approval and obtains it first.
He may have to build an easement on his property lines to allow access to areas beyond his property.
If his deal is just a mining claim on fed land, he has no rights whatsoever to control or close access roads on his claim, nor even to place a cable across the road to protect his equipment (blm code).
He may have to build an easement on his property lines to allow access to areas beyond his property.
If his deal is just a mining claim on fed land, he has no rights whatsoever to control or close access roads on his claim, nor even to place a cable across the road to protect his equipment (blm code).
with the 59er story, I think the guy would have to ponder how much he would lose should someone's house up the hill, and past his gate, were to burn down and he end up in civil court with a liability lawsuit or more.
The fact the forest service would be up there using tax money for the public good would relieve them of any civil or criminal liability were they blocked access.
The way I see it, the gate owners' best bet would be to allow access to proeprty owners and the feds, and screen all others, perhaps with a fee for use and access, on a yearly basis. Certainly all the residents up the hill would have a key
The fact the forest service would be up there using tax money for the public good would relieve them of any civil or criminal liability were they blocked access.
The way I see it, the gate owners' best bet would be to allow access to proeprty owners and the feds, and screen all others, perhaps with a fee for use and access, on a yearly basis. Certainly all the residents up the hill would have a key
When patented mining claims transfer from public to private ownership, they are granted with reservations. These reservations usually state what does , and does not come with the transfer. One of the biggest is the one stating that each State shall have the ability to dictate the rules pertaining to it's conduct. The rules as applied from the State, in this instance Colorado, can be found in the Colorado Revised Statutes, section 34, titled MINERALS. Under CRS 34-48-104, it states "Every miner has the right of way across any and all claims, for the purpose of hauling Quartz". This was adopted by law after a case based in Leadville. If this was not a law, a mining claim staked perpendicular to a valley length, would effectively give that claim owner complete control over the entire valley access. In mining law, you do not need to pay to cross ANY patented or unpatented claim, if it pertains to mining. Can you imagine what would happen if during the war, everybody was involved in court cases, hampering our ability to mine for any metal, because some claim owner said that you can't cross his property. They definitely do not know the laws.
If you want access to a residence, that is a whole different process, usually involving a surveyed easement. The reason for a right of way vs an easement, is that a right of way can be moved, an easement is a surveyed designated alignment, which cannot be relocated, unless a lot of work is done to change it. An ROW can simply be moved a little or a lot, but cannot be denied, This is so that if mineral is found under the existing ROW, it can be mined in a way as to not incur a huge burden on the claim owner, and still provide access to other mines. I know of one instance where a belligerent claim owner is doing everything in his power to contest the ROW. Mainly because the ground beyond is very good, and his simple greed is causing a huge rift amongst him and the property owners beyond. It is really sad that some people are never content with a very good life, just wanting more, more, more. Anyway, it is people like that, that made our legislature conjure laws to combat his kind.
If you want access to a residence, that is a whole different process, usually involving a surveyed easement. The reason for a right of way vs an easement, is that a right of way can be moved, an easement is a surveyed designated alignment, which cannot be relocated, unless a lot of work is done to change it. An ROW can simply be moved a little or a lot, but cannot be denied, This is so that if mineral is found under the existing ROW, it can be mined in a way as to not incur a huge burden on the claim owner, and still provide access to other mines. I know of one instance where a belligerent claim owner is doing everything in his power to contest the ROW. Mainly because the ground beyond is very good, and his simple greed is causing a huge rift amongst him and the property owners beyond. It is really sad that some people are never content with a very good life, just wanting more, more, more. Anyway, it is people like that, that made our legislature conjure laws to combat his kind.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.