The county’s action comes in response to efforts by the GHDC, which owns patented mining claims in Bear Creek, to close the trails.
The April 4 letter signed by Board Chair Elaine Fischer states that more than a year of research regarding the two trails’ legal status has determined that GHDC claims of trespass and its posting of armed guards to guarantee closure are invalid.
In its research, San Miguel County found that the Ouray County Commissioners had made a “concerted effort” to create a public network of trails in the Bear Creek Basin, and to appropriate funds for the maintenance of those trails, in 1879. San Miguel County, carved out of Ouray County in 1883, inherited established trails in Bear Creek.
According to its letter, San Miguel County concluded that “the Wasatch and East Fork Trails are the trails referenced in Ouray County’s 1879 declaration, and they have remained public trails on essentially the same alignment ever since.”
Furthermore, the county said it has compiled substantial evidence proving that both trails on their entirety “are public trails by virtue of 20 years of adverse use by the public, as well as the provisions of [Revised Statute 2477],” which grants counties and states right-of-way across federal lands.
Last summer there was some question as to whether the portions of the trails that crossed GHDC claims were open for public use. GHDC partner Tom Chapman and Principal Ron Curry contended the trails were closed to the public, threatening to post guards on GHDC claims to stop hikers from what they believed was trespassing.
On the other hand, organizations like the Telluride Mountain Club contended that the public use of the trails preceded the private property owners’ claims. TMC President Tor Anderson said Thursday that the county’s finding is not surprising.
“We are really, really happy about this and we are glad San Miguel County is staying involved,” Anderson said. “This is what we have been saying all along. This is really good for the public and it sounds like they have a very strong case. We are glad the county has taken this on and we will see where it goes.”
When reached by phone, Chapman offered no comment, while GHDC legal council reviews the finding.
gjarvis@watchnewspapers.com
RS2477 cuts both ways. It looks like the historical use has been established for our trail.
Unlike your claim under RS2477, our trail has a continuous and regular use that I personally have used for the 25 years I have lived here
So please drop the grandstanding and the intimidating guards blocking our trail.
I mean really are you going to shoot an unarmed middle age man who is just out for a walk with his dogs.
Having guns and guards will only raise the level of confrontation especially since you don't have any legal status to do so.
Do you really want a Trevor Martin-Zimmerman Incident?
Nice analysis. Puts it all in context
Schutza has been all over the map...private permits for guiding, close the gate, open the gate, etc. She works for the Forest Service...using work generically.
Lots of big egos here and no working together...
I heard an estimate of 200k in attorney fees. I use the largest Denver firm and this seems reasonable...they bill hot and heavy and hot and heavy..
Will be great to watch this play out. Gonna heat up some popcorn and watch..
Chutzpah!
Wouldnt it be great if TSG had to allow Chapman and Chapman had to allow us, the unwashed, to travel over the land?
Karma!