Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Garfield County sues High Lonesome Ranch over road access

Matty B

Matty B

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2018
Messages
100
Location
Battlement Mesa, Colorado
Garfield County in western Colorado is suing The High Lonesome Ranch over a locked gate on a public road near Debeque, CO. Here is a link to the article from the Grand Junction newpaper:

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/garfield-raises-ante-in-public-access-lawsuit/article_9f5bb426-5cb6-11e8-bca5-10604b9f6eda.html

In 2016 High Lonesome Ranch sued after the county commissioners told the ranch to open the gate, and now the county has sued the ranch.

From what I understand, the only argument High Lonesome Ranch has for the gate is that the gate has been there since 1976 and they are concerned with trespassing. Does that make it ok to take this once public road, put a gate up, and make it a private use road only?

Just wondering if there is more facts and what others know.
 
Just a question. If the gate is blocking public access could a individual open the gate by whatever means necessary? I would like to think that if the object is blocking an open public road it would be considered a hazard and therefore be able to be removed.

Second question. Could a guy go over or under the gate to continue his use of the public road?
 
Unfortunately until the public access issue is resolved between the county and the ranch, the game warden or the sheriff would have no choice but to issue a trespassing citation. Therefore it's best to be patient (while supporting the efforts of the county) and not create yet another legal issue which may muddy the water.
 
I have hunted down that road before. There are small strips of public land along that road that open up to larger parcels. These public lands are sandwiched between the ranches land. Curiously the public access signs have disappeared making it look all private. The private property signs are all over. There a literally strips of public land only a few hundred yards long but open up to lots and lots of public land behind it. Anytime an animal , especially quality animal is harvested that is on public the ranch claims its theirs. They continually drive the road like they own it. Very intimidating to those who don't know better.
 
Perhaps the HLR could use some reviews on their social media page encouraging them to do the right thing.
 
As a supporter and donor to the TRCP, I’m sending them an email right now to inquire about this.
 
Upon first glance, If I was a TRCP member, I'd be pissed.
 
Last edited:
There is a lot more to it than OP portrays. Starting with... contrary to the thread title ..the county did not sue. Even the article gets that right.

It will be interesting to see how the issue of whether it is or is not public right away plays out in court.

I work for the county but have no role in the proceedings nor special insights.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe the owner of the ranch is the same as the gent on TRCP's Board of Directors. With a last name as unique as Vahldiek, it's possible it may be the son of the owner(?).
As a frequent donor I've sent an email to Nick Payne (CO Representative) and their National general email inquiring of the relation and a link the articles related to the concerns over privatization of a public road accessing public lands.

My main financial contribution interests with TRCP is due to these three primary areas: A major ally in the public land corner, LWCF advocate and highlighting budget issues of the Forest Service loss of funds to properly focus on conservation, forest Stewardship and wildfire prevention due primarily to costs to fight fires annually. They support thinning among other means to take a proactive stance vs reactionary - fight fires each year, over and over.

A great organization well worth the donations.

Anyhow, contact info: [email protected] or for the TRCP Colorado Rep, Nick Payne: [email protected] . National Office: 202-639-8727.

Also, a side note: Land Tawney of BHA and Mike Leahy of National Wildlife Federation are also on the TRCP Policy Council. I am surprised RMEF is not involved... These have been the four major groups I've contributed past and present.
 
As experienced in the past, TRCP is very quick to respond and I have to say, I was surprised to receive a response directly from the CEO, Mr. Fosburgh. I get the impression there may be more to this then initially considered. I hope it's just a matter of settlement discussions to enable public access while respecting the private property. it sounds as though they would like to see this resolved quickly as well. So take it for what it's worth.

xxxx:



Thanks for reaching out about the High Lonesome Ranch and access. Thanks also for your support and kind words.



As you know, loss of existing access is a major issue and it’s why we’ve championed the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Hunt Act, and the VPA-HIP program of the Farm Bill, among other federal programs. We do not, however, engage in local access disputes. Local or state groups are in a far better position to engage in such issues. Our mission focuses on federal policy involving habitat and access.



In terms of a conflict of interest with Paul Vahldiek, I can unequivocally state that he has never asked us to back off on any of our pro-access policies or rhetoric and he has been a good steward of the wildlife resources and habitat on his ranch. I hope the current issue is resolved quickly to everyone’s satisfaction.



Below is my full contact information if you want to discuss this further. I’m also copying Nick in case he has anything to add, or if you want to follow up with him directly.



Thanks again for reaching out and for the support.



Whit





Whit Fosburgh

President & CEO

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for reaching out about the High Lonesome Ranch and access. Loss of existing access is a major issue and it’s why we’ve championed the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Hunt Act, and the VPA-HIP program of the Farm Bill, among other federal programs. We do not, however, engage in local access disputes. Local or state groups are in a far better position to engage in such issues. Our mission focuses on federal policy involving habitat and access.

In terms of a conflict of interest with Paul Vahldiek, I can unequivocally state that he has never asked us to back off on any of our pro-access policies or rhetoric and he has been a good steward of the wildlife resources and habitat on his ranch.

Below is my full contact information if you want to discuss this further. Thanks again for reaching out.

Whit
Click to expand...

I got the same response as Sytes. I plan on letting this play out before I get my pitchfork out. I don’t know the details and won’t pretend to. I’d like to say I wouldn’t lock a gate if I owned the HLR, but I’ll also admit I don’t know the history here. TRCP will get an earful from me if this turns into a steaming pile of chit, but until then I’ll defer to those with more knowledge than myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
ND Section Line and Quiet Title Roads lawsuit in the Grasslands
Replies
11
Views
2K
brocksw
B
HighDesertSage
High Lonesome Ranch
Replies
8
Views
4K
elkduds
elkduds
K
Finally, Hughes Creek Road declared public
2 3
Replies
41
Views
8K
mtmuley
M
W
TU joins MT stream access Supreme Court case
Replies
6
Views
1K
ridge-runner
ridge-runner
L
Public land access - locked gates
Replies
1
Views
1K
shoots-straight
shoots-straight
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,035
Messages
1,944,469
Members
34,977
Latest member
Chughes

Share this page

Back
Top