Lion's Back closed for good?

[colonelmustard]

Saw a post on pirate today. Some sh#tbag from california bought the land at the entrance to lion's back and is starting to build condos there....moved a bunch of big rocks to block the entrance. just an FYI, for those of us that never got a chance to run it fawkin sucks!!!!:sick:

[deadandcompany]

Saw a post on pirate today. Some sh#tbag from california bought the land at the entrance to lion's back and is starting to build condos there....moved a bunch of big rocks to block the entrance. just an FYI, for those of us that never got a chance to run it fawkin sucks!!!!:sick:

That land was already owned by the campground right in front of it. They would charge you $10 to drive up it.

[Sierra Valley]

Saw a post on pirate today. Some sh#tbag from california bought the land at the entrance to lion's back and is starting to build condos there....moved a bunch of big rocks to block the entrance. just an FYI, for those of us that never got a chance to run it fawkin sucks!!!!:sick:

Probably another bay area sucker like yourself!

[Air Sierra]

how owns Lions Back? If its the BLM or Parks they can just block of a route to Lions Back can they??

[Jehu]

how owns Lions Back? If its the BLM or Parks they can just block of a route to Lions Back can they??

If it's public land then it's hard to cut off access. Most of what you call BLM land is actually PUBLIC land. Has this denial of access been challanged?

[Air Sierra]

If it's public land then it's hard to cut off access. Most of what you call BLM land is actually PUBLIC land. Has this denial of access been challanged?

I bet it's public land, because if it was private land I'm sure the land owner would have closed it years ago due to liability issues

[Jehu]

I bet it's public land, because if it was private land I'm sure the land owner would have closed it years ago due to liability issues

That's not as likely as you'd think. There are a lot of trails across private land around here that have been unposted for decades. Some of those trails may be prescriptive easements. Especially true if public land has been accessed by them. If a trail with prescriptive rights is blocked off and nobody contests it then it'll go away.

[NVScouter]

Lots of landowner just close roads despite the law. If the road is used regularly, established, and been in existance for years it is illegal to close it. But if its not contested it will stay closed. Gotta fight it.

[Jehu]

Lots of landowner just close roads despite the law. If the road is used regularly, established, and been in existance for years it is illegal to close it. But if its not contested it will stay closed. Gotta fight it.

There are a lot of variables in this issue. If a landowner keeps a trail blocked off for at least 24 hours straight in a one year period then there is no prescription. He still maintains a right to block it. You would have to prove that he didn't. Also, this is an access issue. If there's a reasonable alternative to access the same destination then it would be just a short cut. Either way, it all comes down to a judges decision. I can show you cases where judges contradict each other on this issue. That's the nature of case law.

Bottom line: respect property owners' rights but try to keep the trails open.

[mtnhi7]

Lion's Back was always private, not public land. Used to be you could simply drive up to it and climb it, but ever since that fool girl lost it on the way down several years ago, the owner decided to charge people to climb it. That way he had a record of each and every user, who had to sign an ironclad waiver of liability. The public land, which is BLM, begins further up the hill past Lion's Back, and you first have to go past a toll booth to pay for being on Moab city land before getting to BLM land.