Colorado corner crossing bill proposed

[svivian]

It’s not apples and oranges here. If access is allowed by corner crossing which we all support then expecting safe passage isnt a stretch of the imagination. The first thing one of these Sliders is gonna do when the fall off there 6 ft ladder crossin cattle man joes cross tie is gonna do is get a lawyer and we all know it. Not to mention kost these sliders have no business climbing an ladder…

If this is gonna go down, land owners should not be liable for personal or property damage along with property tax from the square footage of lost land and should be reimbursed for wages and time to alter there fences.

I can't help but notice the fact you are from California and the first thing you are worried about is suing someone for getting injured for being clumsy.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Some one will have to clarify for me..

Is corner crossing or landlocked public land worse?

And how many occurrences ...occur...for each, legally speaking?

I mean, max, what are we talking for stepping over, waving a boot over a pin?

And What’s next- high-water mark/canoe trespass for the Supreme court?

This is actuarial in my book.

If corner crossing were explicitly legal, corner parcels would no longer be landlocked. Win/win.

The “intrusion” over private airspace is minimal, or maybe even comical.

High water mark/canoe ACCESS is awesome, and should be legal everywhere, as it is in MT.

 

[Matt Cashell]

It’s not apples and oranges here. If access is allowed by corner crossing which we all support then expecting safe passage isnt a stretch of the imagination.

It is a stretch. Nothing in the ADA in word or prior practice indicates that disabled persons are entitled to accommodations for every use, area, or scenario. Unfortunately, the reality is disabled persons can not do everything the able bodied can.

I do appreciate the accommodations they receive to live a more equitable life though, and I fully support the ADA in practice.

If this is gonna go down, land owners should not be liable for personal or property damage along with property tax from the square footage of lost land and should be reimbursed for wages and time to alter there fences.

Did you read the bill?

Landowners lose exactly zero land.

Landowners are not required to change any fencing.

Landowners would not be liable, because the statute doesn’t allow the public to use the land or the landowners fence to cross

I do see a business opportunity for ultralight backpacking ladders, though…

 

[Stikbrandon]

I can't help but notice the fact you are from California and the first thing you are worried about is suing someone for getting injured for being clumsy.

Ahhh the old California poker….

Born are raised brotha!! California is a outdoorsman’s paradise! Outside of politics what’s not to love?

Coming from a guy that lives with liability’s an understands litigation, hopin fences is not with out liability. I’d hate to see some of these land owners end up in court over some dip shit that thinks he’s 17 again….

 

[svivian]

Ahhh the old California poker….

Born are raised brotha!! California is a outdoorsman’s paradise! Outside of politics what’s not to love?

Coming from a guy that lives with liability’s an understands litigation, hopin fences is not with out liability. I’d hate to see some of these land owners end up in court over some dip shit that thinks he’s 17 again….

us Coloradoans...well caliradoan now? can't help ourselves sometimes.


Now I can agree I hope landowners aren't getting sued either, but then again common sense is a disappearing trait these days.

 

[Stikbrandon]

Did you read the bill?

I DID

Landowners lose exactly zero land.

AGREED

Landowners are not required to change any fencing.

UNTIL THEY ARE SUED FOR 2 MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE SOME DIDP SHIT BROKE THERE LEG.

Landowners would not be liable, because the statute doesn’t allow the public to use the land or the landowners fence to cross

ON THE CURRENT BILL, CORRECT.

I do see a business opportunity for ultralight backpacking ladders, though…

AGREED

[/QUOTE]

 

[Matt Cashell]

Whoa man … no need to raise your voice …



If you agree with all of those points, what are you arguing, exactly?

If the landowner’s can’t be liable by the law as written, why would they worry about being successfully sued?

 

[Stikbrandon]

Whoa man … no need to raise your voice …



If you agree with all of those points, what are you arguing, exactly?

If the landowner’s can’t be liable by the law as written, why would they worry about being successfully sued?

You and I both know all it’s gonna take is gonna be some dude with a little bit of cash to drag a land owner through the mud after they break their leg for them to be SUCCESSFULLY SUED.

The statue does indeed state they can’t use the land or the fence to cross. When said fence catches a piece of clothing and they fall or get cut because they get tangled up, any lawyer worth there lic. Would take that land owner to the cleaner.

The fact that the fence is in the way and makes it a liability and open to litigation regardless of litigation.

Also to touch on one of your Ada comments about not needing to give access to wheelchairs. all it will take is a person in a tracked chair to show a court that they can safely move through pastures and they will win.

Edited to fix quote -MC

 

[Stikbrandon]

Great debate though, wish all the threads were like this.

 

[svivian]

Ive snagged many clothes as well as cut myself crossing fences in BLM land that was put up by the BLM. Are you stating im entitled to a settlement?! if so sign me up!

Second in regard to your tracked wheelchair point, again look at a wilderness area. That type of wheelchair would not be allowed as it is motorized. However, you could take a normal human powered one. I would suggest reading up on ADA requirements.

 

[Matt Cashell]

You and I both know all it’s gonna take is gonna be some dude with a little bit of cash to drag a land owner through the mud after they break their leg for them to be SUCCESSFULLY SUED.

I disagree on the successfully part, but as they say: you can sue a ham sandwich.

The fact that the fence is in the way and makes it a liability and open to litigation regardless of litigation.

Disagree. Lots of private lease fences on public land that the public crosses. Not a plethora of lawsuits that I’m aware of.

 

[EJFS]

You really hate private landowner ship eh? Do you think "millions of dollars of lands" equals that landowner being wealthy? I'm guessing you are one of the people that with prices going up out west just think landowners getting priced out should just sell and buy a cheaper ranch somewhere else if they want to keep ranching.

Some people open their mouth and prove how clueless they are.

It's clear from my post that I am a total communist against all private property ownership (one word btw). I'm glad you picked up on that. Not sure how much you understand about economics, but yes, owning hard assets that appreciate in value is pretty much the definition of wealth. If you own large tracts of land bordering public in Colorado, you're doing just fine. As to the rising cost of land pricing land owners out, well that's just backwards. Land owners benefit from the value of their assets sky rocketing. The idea that these land holders should have exclusive access to our public land and that crossing a foot of air space on the back corner of their ranch is a hardship is just a complete joke. Boomer entitlement at its finest.

 

[cnelk]

There are sooo many places that fences arent part of the 'corner crossing'.

 

[EJFS]

They really just need to make simple clarification that you cannot be sued for corner crossing. No big celebration, no easements, no vehicle access, and for God's sake no promoting these pockets as the next spot to put in another damn mountain biking trail!

 

[Matt Cashell]

They really just need to make simple clarification that you cannot be sued for corner crossing. No big celebration, no easements, no vehicle access, and for God's sake no promoting these pockets as the next spot to put in another damn mountain biking trail!

That clarification preventing suing corner crossers is also in the bill that is the subject of this thread…

 

[Matt Cashell]

4 13-21-133. Public land corners - exception in civil actions for
5 trespass. A COURT SHALL DISMISS A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE TORT OF
6 TRESPASS BASED ON ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 18-4-517 IF THE
7 DEFENDANT COMPLIED WITH SECTION 18-4-517. IF A CIVIL ACTION IS
8 DISMISSED BASED ON THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE
9 PLAINTIFF TO REIMBURSE THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS, INCLUDING
10 REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED IN DEFENDING THE CIVIL ACTION.

 

[dirtytough]

Regardless what the dollar amount is, they are actually paying more then any other individual using that land. Im not saying it gives them exclusivity, but Bob the hunter or hiker pays less to use that land then a leaser. Federal Government entities are using his lease fees to offset costs incurred due to your use.

thats only point I’m making. they pay to use, we dont to any where close to same degree

My understanding is that the rates for federal grazing in 2023 is like $1.35/AUM. That is $1.35 per cow calf pair per month. It costs about $8 for the admin fees per AUM.

If they are -$6.65 per month I doubt any of the $1.35 is going to offset anyone’s recreational use.

 

[commandoNate]

So you are in favor of taking land away from a land owner? Cause that is what you are doing. Also what about the fences that are already established. Going to pay for the land owner to move them back 5ft? As long as the fence is on the landowners property there should be ZERO limit as to distance from adjoining properties.

Not distance from the property line on the entire property, just 5' from the corner. If someone were to own one section that is 640 acres, or 27,936,000 square feet. That would restrict them from fencing in 12.5 square feet in the corner of the property. Which is 0.00000045% of their land.

 

[cuerro viejo]

My understanding is that the rates for federal grazing in 2023 is like $1.35/AUM. That is $1.35 per cow calf pair per month. It costs about $8 for the admin fees per AUM.

If they are -$6.65 per month I doubt any of the $1.35 is going to offset anyone’s recreational use.

they are not running at a cost incurred negative number due to leasing costs of the program.

They may be running at a negative budget meaning the leasing money is not enough to offset entire NF or BLM budgets so they have to be supplemented with Congressional appointments. The deficit isn’t caused by leasing costs in conjunction with leasing out, it comes from stupid programs like 25 million to PROMOTE solar and wind on public land, not telling how much inclusion programs have cost.

If they didnt have leasing money they would need substainally more money allocated from congress.

so yes those ranchers with leases are paying substantially more then you and I to use those lands.

Your definition of AUM is not wrong but alittle misleading 1 cow and calf(under 6months). At 6 months it is its own AUM.

 

[cnelk]

An update on this bill. It has a committee meeting on Monday. This will give you an opportunity to speak if you are signed up Or your written testimony will be submitted. The bill will not get voted on because it's going to get laid over. A laid over bill is not a killed bill and allows for more discussions to take place. It will not be receiving a vote by the committee on Monday. Instead it will be voted on in a future session. So if you want to have a skin in the game I suggest you continue to submit your thoughts and speak up on Monday.