"Legal" Approach to Lower Dream Canyon not legal?

A few buddies and I decided to go climb at Plotinus wall in Lower Dream Canyon. We tried to be "legal" and approached from the Upper Parking Lot. We made sure to skirt the line of private property signs. We followed the map in the new Boulder Canyon guide by Bod D'Antonio, and we are confident we followed the map very closely. After a great day of climbing it was time for the hike out.

When we got about half way up the gully, we saw 3 guys sitting at the top. As soon as they saw us, they started yelling. Once we were close enough to understand them, it became clear that they were telling us to F*&K off and get off "their" property. They were not willing to let us come to them to have a civil conversation. Apparently their property extends all the way down to the creek. The private property signs at the top edge of the gully were there because when they put them farther down the gully, they get ripped off. They were drinking, and were above us with some very loose rock between us and them. We decided it was safer to avoid conflict and turn around. We had to hike up the creek, climb a small waterfall, and find another gully to get out.

How do I find out where the property line extends to. Is this not a legal approach? How would you guys have dealt with that situation? Did we simply get "punked?" Is there no legal way to get to Lower Dream Canyon? How do I contact Bob D'Antonio?
Thanks
Nikolai

Try this website to locate the property lines based on your location. As far as contacting Bob, I'd say there's probably an email address in that new guide you've got. He doesn't participate in this website anymore.
map.bouldercounty.org/basem…

Sho'nuff there’s no way to access Dream Canyon from the north without crossing private property.

Dave Cummings wrote:I have wondered about this for a while, sucks that you had such a bad experience. You would think that the access fund would do something about it.

Dave (and others) - it's not actually the Access Fund's job to deal with local climbing issues. We tend to take them for granted because they are right here, but they are representing a much broader range of climbers. They have very limited resources and we need them to save those for the big stuff and support hundred's of local organizations across the country.

The Denver Climbers Coalition (DCC) might be a venue for something to happen if people who were interested got involved, did the property research, and wanted to work with landowners. We would love to have anyone else who wants to get involved and make positive changes.

denverclimberscoalition.blo…

When in doubt walk in the creek. It is not private property. All sorts of laws involved with transportation have guaranteed the free access of rivers and riverbeds. A private land owner may own 'LAND' on both sides of a river but not the riverbed.

phil broscovak wrote:When in doubt walk in the creek. It is not private property. All sorts of laws involved with transportation have guaranteed the free access of rivers and riverbeds. A private land owner may own 'LAND' on both sides of a river but not the riverbed.

Actually this isn't very clear in Colorado law, unless something has changed in the last few years. I researched this a while ago w/r/t accessing canyons for canyoneering in CO where approaches or exits cross private land. For the last 30 years (or so) the standard in Colorado is that the banks and stream bed of a waterway can be private... but the water itself is not. So if you float across private property you are not trespassing... but if you or your boat touches the bank or stream bed you are technically trespassing. There is a good argument that federal waterway laws trump this and allow you to walk below the high water line without trespassing... but it would probably take a court case to clarify if this argument holds water (so to speak).

For some history and the various arguments, see this page.

I haven't kept up on this in the last 2-3 years, so if a court case or law change clarified the situation I would love to hear about it as it could affect (add!) access to a whole bunch of canyoneering routes.

M

It looks as if one could approach plotinus wall and some other LDC walls legally via hiking up the drainage to the left of what I believe to be boulder slips on the maps above. Then you'd just have to cross over the ridge and drop into LDC. All Federal land. Has anyone done this? Is it reasonable or is the terrain worse than it looks?

Has anyone figured out a way to get to Plotinus wall?

I live around a lot of Forrest Service land and my understanding is that all public Land must have public access. Thus, if federal land is locked by private land there will be an easement across someone's private property to grant this. Are these cliffs 100% surrounded by private land? Sorry I can't open the map to look for myself (dam firewall at work!) I don't think walking up a riverbed constitutes public access.

There are two reasons for this law. One is to allow the public who pay taxes for this land the opportunity to use it. The bigger reason is to allow forest service employees a route to access the land for surveying, plant/animal research, fire mitigation, etc. Maybe the best idea is to ask the local forest service how they would access this land. Whatever route they would go, we should be allowed to go the same route. Keep in mind, they are not going to climb or rap into their land. I’m also certain they would not walk up a riverbed.

As a side note, the US government is trying to sell all small piece of forest service land that are locked by private property. It is called the small tract act. The catch is that all private landowners around the piece of forestland have first right of purchase. If they choose not to buy it then it is auctioned. I bought 3 acres next to my house from this act. I bring this up because maybe the Access Fund could look into buying it one day.

I live above Boulder Falls off of Ridge road and the private property issues are hell. Private property signs everywhere for no real reason for it. It is really not an "active" type environment and type-2 diabetis people just want to yell at you .....

Seriously, if I saw a hiker walk through my yard who really give a shit.

Kevin

phil broscovak wrote:When in doubt walk in the creek. It is not private property. All sorts of laws involved with transportation have guaranteed the free access of rivers and riverbeds. A private land owner may own 'LAND' on both sides of a river but not the riverbed.

Every heard of a place called "Sportsman's Paradise", on the South Platte?

Please keep "US" updated on any new info regarding access to Lower DC. My first time up Wall of Winter Warmth was on "Left Side" and we had a blast. I'm looking forward to many more exciting adventures out there.

phil broscovak wrote:When in doubt walk in the creek. It is not private property. All sorts of laws involved with transportation have guaranteed the free access of rivers and riverbeds. A private land owner may own 'LAND' on both sides of a river but not the riverbed.

That's the kind of "outside the box" thinking that made America great man.

Hank Caylor wrote: That's the kind of "outside the box" thinking that made America great man.

Unfortunately, Mike D's post above is correct. The riverbed is private land. Anglers and rafters have argued that they can float over the riverbed without trespassing, but walking on the riverbed is trespassing.

See americanwhitewater.org/cont… for a discussion, or the page cited in Mike D's post above.

Can we build a system of suspended wires and walkways over the private land? Do you own the airspace above your property?

What happened to being able to access Plotinus wall to the left of Boulder Falls? I know its always said not to walk up that way, but I've done so many times and always see others going that way as well. Is the falls trail still closed?

Dave Cummings wrote:I have wondered about this for a while, sucks that you had such a bad experience. You would think that the access fund would do something about it.

ha...the AF can't just "do" something about it. You act like they are some superpower capable of turning private property into public. If it's private, it's private...the discussion ends there.

With that being said however...what IS the right approach? I always went to the left of the falls, through the little tunnel in the rock. Is that not the right way to go?

tell them you work for CTU and are on a recon patrol looking for insurgents

Buff Johnson wrote:tell them you work for CTU and are on a recon patrol looking for insurgents

Reminds me of the bottle diggers I ran with that used to dress up like gas guys, so passer-bys wouldn't call the cops when they were digging on private property.

Kevin Coopman wrote:I live above Boulder Falls off of Ridge road and the private property issues are hell. Private property signs everywhere for no real reason for it. It is really not an "active" type environment and type-2 diabetis people just want to yell at you ..... Seriously, if I saw a hiker walk through my yard who really give a shit. Kevin

I highly doubt the road is private. Most of the roads in that area are old forest service roads created by miners over 100 years ago. With that said, I live around forest service land and my HOA recently bought the road to my house. However, I know that cases like mine are rare.

As for the signs that say private property keep out. It is common that a road might run through or next to private property. The owner my put private property signs on their land, but they still do not own the road or can block access. Thus, you should be able to drive the road and park on forest service parcels that border the road. If they really wanted to block access and they owned the road they would put up a gate. Although I've seen many illegally placed gates as well.

As I said earlier. If the crag is on forest service land (looks like it is on the map) someone needs to go to the forest service and ask them how the public should access that land.

Saw this in today's Daily Camera. Boulder Falls trail is closed indefinitely.

dailycamera.com/news/ci_137…

Interesting news from a Lower Dream Canyon climbing perspective:

"Aside from attracting visitors who were interested in viewing the waterfalls from up close, the trail was also frequently used by rock climbers headed to the cliffs that sit above the falls. Tom Isaacson, president of the Flatirons Climbing Council, said his group is working with the open space department to find new ways for climbers to access the rock walls from Colo. 119."