Peak Bagging: The Land Acquisition History and Public Access Rights that Make it Mostly Possible

So much more than just a fun pastime, outdoor recreation contributes vastly to the U.S. economy. In 2023, outdoor recreation added $639.5 billion to the economy, comprising 2.3% of gross domestic product (“GDP”) and generating 4.9 million jobs.^[1] Hiking, a classic form of outdoor recreation, adds to these numbers while remaining relatively affordable, since most popular trails, especially in the eastern half of the United States, do not require extremely technical mountaineering equipment or training.^[2] The economic impact of hiking, therefore, often materializes in trip-related spending: food, gasoline, lodging, gear, and related purchases people make before or after their hike.^[3]

“Peak bagging” describes a particular way recreators engage in hiking. Peak bagging involves reaching the top of every mountain on a predetermined list of summits.^[4] These lists include mountains that generally meet three criteria. First, each mountain must reach a certain elevation, which is often an even number like eight thousand meters or four thousand feet.^[5] Second, each mountain must have a certain level of “prominence” from other mountains, meaning a minimum amount of elevational drop must exist between two peaks to classify both as their own independent mountains rather than mere subpeaks.^[6] Third, each mountain must exist in a certain regional area—for example, within a certain country, a state, or administrative region.^[7] While creation of a peak bagging list requires only these criteria, completion of a peak bagging list requires an additional, vital factor—public access.

This Note will explore contemporary public access issues peak baggers face by examining three popular peak bagging challenges in the United States: the Adirondack 46ers, the New Hampshire 48, and the Colorado 14ers. These challenges have thousands of finishers apiece and Facebook pages with tens of thousands of members.^[8] The Adirondack 46ers challenge requires summiting all forty-six peaks over 4,000 feet^[9] in elevation with a prominence of 300 feet (and a distance of 0.75 of a mile from neighboring peaks) in the Adirondack Park of New York State.^[10] The New Hampshire 48 challenge, like the Adirondack 46ers, sets the minimum height for inclusion at 4,000 feet.^[11] However, minimum prominence lies lower at 200 feet, and this is a state-wide list rather than a regional list.^[12] The Colorado 14ers, the most technical list to complete, includes all mountains above 14,000 feet (“14ers”) with a prominence of 300 feet in the state of Colorado.^[13] While applying the prominence rule produces a list of fifty-three 14ers, some climbers opt to ignore the prominence rule, bringing the list to fifty-eight 14ers.^[14]

The states and the federal government have succeeded at providing public access to the vast majority of the summits in these lists, allowing individuals to complete these challenges.^[15] Given the large number of peaks and geographic distribution of these lists, it is impressive that states and the federal government acquired all of the private lands or public access necessary to allow these lists to be completed. However, there are notable exceptions in Colorado, which this Note discusses. Using these peak bagging lists as a framing tool, this Note will explore the history and current status of public access to the mountains in these peak bagging lists.

First, this Note will trace the history of peak bagging from Scotland to the United States and the proliferation of these challenges in New York, New Hampshire, and Colorado. This Section will also expand on the history and importance of public access in U.S. society. Then, this Note will examine the chain of land ownership and the legal landscape that has produced the current management regimes of the peaks, which vary dramatically between these three regions. Next, this Note will discuss contemporary management challenges, focusing on the few privately owned mountains in Colorado and current barriers to public access. Finally, this Note will discuss the future of public access, how these different management regimes promote long-term public access, and potential avenues for expanding public access, particularly in Colorado.

Throughout these analyses, this Note will compare the three different management structures of the peak bagging lists to draw out the most useful lessons from each. Each system has benefits, which means each region can learn by looking at the others. While federal management is often the most flexible, New York State’s management is the most stable for assuring continued public access rights due to constitutional protections. While creative solutions, like conservation easements and employing the public trust doctrine, face an uphill battle, ensuring and expanding public access for hikers hoping to complete these challenges will likely require the public to pressure federal or state governments to wield their purchase or other legislative powers.

II. Background: Peak Bagging and Public Access Rights in the Adirondacks, New Hampshire, and Colorado

This Section will trace the Scottish roots of peak bagging to the important role peak bagging plays in contemporary U.S. society. It will then delve into the land acquisition history of the summits on the peak bagging lists in the Adirondacks, New Hampshire, and Colorado while highlighting key legislation and landscape-scale differences that culminated in three very different ownership structures.

A. The History and Importance of Peak Bagging

The origins of peak bagging lists trace back to Scotland, where Sir Hugh Munro published “Munro’s Tables” in 1891.^[16] Munro identified 283 main peaks, or “Munros,” and 305 subsidiary peaks, or “Tops,” that reached 3,000 feet in elevation.^[17] The popularity of Munro’s Tables spread across the Atlantic, where the Colorado 14ers and Adirondack 46ers sprung up as the two oldest, enduring U.S. peak bagging lists.^[18] The Colorado Mountain Club published an initial 14ers list in 1912, and its first finishers, Carl A. Blaurock and William Ervin, completed it in 1923.^[19] Meanwhile in New York, brothers George and Bob Marshall compiled the original 46ers list in 1922 after completing the list with Herbert Clark in 1921.^[20] A decade later, Nathaniel L. Goodrich published the list of New Hampshire summits over 4,000 feet in Appalachia—the journal of the Appalachian Mountain Club.^[21] Despite relatively low numbers of finishers in the early decades, the popularity of peak bagging skyrocketed in the 1950s and 60s, as post-World War II economic growth fueled a rise in leisure time, money, transportation, and better outdoor gear.^[22]

While creating a peak bagging list involves detailed inquiries into topography, developing the list is only half the battle. The much more complicated task, to ensure peak baggers can actually finish the list, is to establish public access rights to both the summits and the trails that provide entry to them. While the idea of a privately owned mountain feels “weird” in modern-day society, likely due to the ubiquity of National Parks, National Forests, and other public recreation lands, widespread federal ownership of mountainous landscapes has not always been the dominant norm for ensuring public access.

Along with peak bagging, another idea that emerged from Scotland is a recognition of the “right to roam.”^[23] Recreational hiking in the Highlands grew in popularity around the 1880s as railways improved access opportunities.^[24] Hill walkers and sportsmen began advocating for rights of way and started to secure firmly established public access across private lands.^[25] A series of bills, introduced into Parliament in the 1880s and 1890s, attempted to establish such a right to roam,^[26] but it was not until 2003 that the Land Reform Act finally granted the public the right to be on and cross almost all lands in Scotland for purposes that included recreation.^[27] It is certainly hard to imagine completing Munro’s list of 588 peaks without such an expansive public access right. Other countries, especially Scandinavian ones, have even more generous rights to roam. Sweden’s common law allemansrätten allows people to pitch tents, build campfires, pick flowers, eat berries, Nordic ski, and even ride horses on private property.^[28]

While the United States has not established a right to roam across mountainous terrain in the common law or positive law, at least one state has recognized public access rights to large bodies of water and their beaches.^[29] In Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized a public right to access privately owned beaches for the purposes of oceanfront recreation—when the “use of dry sand is essential or reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the ocean.”^[30] Access to both of these spaces—mountains in Scotland and beaches in the United States—helps strengthen democratic values by providing citizens of all socioeconomic backgrounds, not just those who can pay for private beaches and mountains, access to outdoor recreation.^[31] This might help explain why so many people in the United States balk at the idea of a privately owned 14er. It seems anti-democratic that one wealthy landowner can exercise their right to exclude and close off treasured recreation lands to the rest of the American public.

In a country where over forty-three percent of the population qualifies as sedentary,^[32] encouraging outdoor recreation by expanding public access to hiking trails promotes not only democratic values but health and well-being values as well. Hiking brings innumerous mental and physical health benefits that can vary significantly from person to person.^[33] Mountaineer George Mallory famously opined that he sought to climb Mount Everest simply “[b]ecause it’s there,”^[34] while other individuals praise the social benefits of hiking.^[35] Pursuing a peak bagging list often requires a years-long or decades-long commitment, presumably bringing along an even more elevated sense of accomplishment when the hiker checks off their final peak.

B. Tracing Land Acquisition to Present-Day Ownership and Management

This Subsection will trace the history of land ownership of the peaks in each peak bagging list, from colonial settlements to, in most cases, government retention or acquisition. Starting with the Adirondack 46ers, this Subsection will then move to the New Hampshire 48, and finally, the Colorado 14ers. This Note, of course, acknowledges the fact that these lands in the Adirondacks, the White Mountains, and the Colorado Rockies are the ancestral lands of many Indigenous Tribes.^[36] The Adirondacks are the ancestral and traditional homelands of the Mohawk, Oneida, Mohican, Abenaki, and Haudenosaunee Tribes.^[37] The White Mountains are the ancestral and traditional homelands of the Abenaki, Pequawket, and Wabanaki Tribes.^[38] The Colorado Rockies are the ancestral and traditional homelands of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Shoshone, and Ute Tribes.^[39] Colonial acquisition of these lands only became possible after the forced removal of these peoples.

1. The Adirondack 46ers

In contrast to widespread federal ownership of the peaks on the Colorado and New Hampshire peak bagging lists, New York State owns the summit of every single Adirondack 46er.^[40] The Adirondack Park is the largest park, and the largest area protected at the state level in the contiguous United States.^[41] While the full area of the park comprises nearly six million acres, only about half is state-owned, while the other half is privately-owned, making the Adirondacks an oddity in U.S. land conservation.^[42]

The Adirondacks started to appear on detailed European maps in 1755, described as “entirely impassable by Reason of Ridges and Hills, not being yet broken, to drain the vast drowned Land and Swamps.”^[43] While Native American Tribes certainly occupied the Adirondacks seasonally as hunting grounds, the evidence suggests that year-round settlements were rare.^[44] The frigid climate, poor soils, short growing season, and steep topography both discouraged Native American settlements and delayed European ones.^[45] Downstate speculators, therefore, purchased huge tracts of land before they had even been settled.^[46] In 1772, via the Totten and Crossfield Purchase, four Mohawk men sold over a million acres of land to Joseph Totten and Stephen Crossfield.^[47] That tract contains the majority of the 46 High Peaks: the eight Great Range peaks, the five Dix Range peaks, the three Santanoni Range Peaks, Marshall, Redfield, Cliff, Gray, Skylight, Allen, Colvin, Blake, Dial, and Nippletop.^[48] Similar purchases allowed the rest of the 46ers to fall into private hands, including the Old Military Tract (the three McIntyre Range peaks)^[49] and Macomb’s purchase (the four Seward Range Peaks).^[50]

As logging dominated these large private tracts in the second half of the 19^th century, tourists and conservationists began to worry about the erosion, flooding, fire, and overall destruction these operations could wreak on Adirondack lands.^[51] Surveyor Verplanck Colvin published an account of his 1870 ascent up Mount Seward, ending his tale with a call for “the creation of an [A]dirondack park, or timber preserve.”^[52] Following decades of political pressure, the 1892 Annual Report of the Forest Commission of the State of New York established the Adirondacks in 1892, “for the free use of all the people for their health or pleasure, and as forest lands necessary to the preservation of the headwaters of the chief rivers of the state, and a future timber supply.”^[53] These original purposes for the park—recreation, watershed protection, and timber harvesting—largely served to fulfill the needs of New York City and other downstate residents.^[54] Though boating and field sports comprised the traditional forms of recreation in the Adirondacks, by the 1880s and 1890s, hiking the Adirondack 46ers had begun to compete as a sought-out form of recreation.^[55] Though at that time, the state high point of Mount Marcy, and much of today’s Forest Preserve,^[56] remained in private hands.^[57]

While private ownership dominated the original lands designated as the Adirondack Park, the “blue line” that the Forest Commission drew to establish the boundaries of the Park served as more of a visionary idea of the lands New York should focus on acquiring to add to the Forest Preserve.^[58] This goal of acquiring lands to be added to the Forest Preserve began before the birth of the Park itself, with the 1890 Annual Report of the Forest Commission indicating that the state hoped to consolidate its holdings through purchase to actively enlarge the Forest Preserve.^[59] This acquisition can largely be attributed to the decline of the timber industry, which peaked between 1890 and 1910.^[60] Timber companies would clear-cut large swaths of land, sell the lumber, and then stop paying taxes on the lands, allowing title to pass to the state.^[61]

Timber companies also sold lands to the state, and, only if necessary, the state could initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire public lands.^[62] State purchase became possible through legislative appropriation and bond acts in 1916 and 1924.^[63] For example, in 1919, the state added over 97,000 acres to the Forest Preserve, largely from selectively harvested lands, and largely in the high peaks region, where the 46ers are located.^[64] Among many other 46ers, this acquisition included Mount Marcy and Mount Seward.^[65] Supporters originally billed this acquisition as “Victory Mountain Park,” to commemorate the U.S. victory in World War I.^[66] In 1923, the New York Times reported that with the acquisition of this tract, the state now owned all or part of 40 peaks above 4,000 feet, with almost half of those owned entirely.^[67] In addition, the state was in the process of acquiring 46ers Skylight and Redfield in their entirety and portions of 46ers Allen, Macomb, Porter, Giant, and Big Slide.^[68] By 1977, with the purchase of eleven 46ers from the Ausable Club, New York State owned every single Adirondack 46er.^[69]

2. The New Hampshire 48

A hundred miles to the east, the federal government holds most of the credit for public lands acquisition and conservation efforts in New Hampshire. While the federal government owns only 0.8% of the acreage within New York State,^[70] it owns 14% of the acreage within New Hampshire, making it an anomaly among states in the northeast.^[71] The vast majority of New Hampshire’s federal lands, 753,921 acres out of 805,472 federal acres (93.6%), are managed by the United States Forest Service (“USFS”).^[72] And the vast majority of these USFS lands comprise the White Mountain National Forest (“WMNF”), which is made up of about 800,000 total acres, most of which are in New Hampshire and a tiny sliver of which are in western Maine.^[73] In contrast to the Adirondacks’ inclusion of public and private lands within the Park, the federal government carved out the WMNF exclusively from federal lands.^[74]

As in upstate New York and elsewhere throughout the northeast, large swaths of forest land in northern New Hampshire had long since passed into private ownership by the 1900s.^[75] In contrast to the Adirondacks, where negotiations with Native Tribes led to transfers of large tracts of land, like the Totten and Crossfield Purchase, there is more documentation of European settlers forcibly pushing Native populations out of the White Mountains while clearing the forest lands for agriculture.^[76] Though physical conflict certainly drove Native American Tribes north to Canada, by far the most devastating to Native Americans in the White Mountains was the “Great Dying”: epidemics of smallpox, measles, typhus, and other diseases to which Native populations held no immunity.^[77] Spreading up to the White Mountains from the Saco and Connecticut Rivers, by 1635, these diseases reduced Native American populations by up to 90%.^[78] By the Treaty of Paris in 1763, newfound peace allowed the growth of permanent English settlements in northern New Hampshire.^[79] Nonetheless, early European settlers traded with remaining Abenaki bands even after this time, who expressed repeatedly that they held a legal claim to the lands.^[80]

By 1867, the New Hampshire legislature had largely transferred northern lands into large corporate holdings of the pulp and paper industry.^[81] Also, like in the Adirondacks, timber companies seized on New Hampshire’s bountiful forests, clear-cutting and leaving behind slashed, eroded landscapes highly susceptible to wildfire and flooding.^[82] Campaigns to preserve the White Mountains sprung up in the 1880s in response to these practices.^[83] Widespread support eventually led Congress to pass the Weeks Forest Purchase Act in March of 1911.^[84] The Act, passed under the interstate commerce power, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase lands “necessary to the regulation of the flow of navigable streams.”^[85] Just as New York cited protection of the Hudson River as the main purpose of preserving the Adirondacks, watershed conservation was the federal government’s stated goal.

Before the federal government could purchase such lands, however, the Weeks Act required the United States Geological Survey to conduct a report “showing that the control of such lands will promote or protect the navigation of streams on whose watersheds they lie.”^[86] By the summer of 1911, a skilled team of foresters, hydrologists, engineers, geologists, and topographers descended on New Hampshire as the first attempt to document changes in streamflow from cutting trees.^[87] The draft report of this study, released at the end of spring 1912, provided the vital link between clear-cutting and effects on streamflow, clearing the way for the June 1912 authorization of the first land purchase of what would become the WMNF.^[88]

On January 2, 1914, the purchase of the 7,000-acre Bertram Pike tract in Benton, New Hampshire, marked the birth of the first tract that would become WMNF.^[89] Throughout 1914, the federal government purchased several other large tracts, including an 85,000-acre tract that included parts of several Presidential Range peaks over 4,000 feet: Mounts Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.^[90] In 1918, the USFS merged several purchase units to officially form the WMNF.^[91] With sections added to it piecemeal throughout the decades, the WMNF now resembles a segmented, yet commanding, swath of land across northern New Hampshire.^[92] In other words, the federal government now holds large tracts of forested landscapes; however, towns, highways, state parks, and other fragments of land separate these tracts of the WMNF.

Today, the USFS owns and manages the vast majority of summits over 4,000 feet.^[93] Three exceptions are— Cannon Mountain, which the state of New Hampshire owns;^[94] Mount Moosilauke,^[95] which Dartmouth College currently owns; and Mount Washington, which Dartmouth College sold to the state of New Hampshire.^[96] Perched at 6,288 feet in elevation, Mount Washington State Park now falls under New Hampshire ownership and management.^[97] After Dartmouth obtained the summit from the will of alumnus Henry N. Teague,^[98] New Hampshire purchased the land from the college through a series of transactions: 67 acres changed hands in 1962, 59 acres transferred in 1964, and the remaining 8.2 acres followed in 2008.^[99] The State of New Hampshire and Dartmouth College welcome public access just as the USFS does.

3. The Colorado 14ers

While the USFS also lays claim to the majority of Colorado 14ers, the story of how it got here is dramatically different than the story of acquisition in New Hampshire and New York. While the federal government lays claim to 0.8% of the acreage within New York State and 14% in New Hampshire, the federal government owns a whopping 36.2% of the state of Colorado.^[100] Also, unlike New York and especially New Hampshire, Colorado’s federal land ownership is much more divided between government agencies. The USFS manages 14,487,064 acres of land, while the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) manages 8,352,437 acres, the National Park Service (“NPS”) manages 665,260 acres, the Department of Defense manages 420,503 acres, and the Fish and Wildlife Service manages 174,983 acres.^[101]

This broad distribution of ownership is also reflected in the current management of the Colorado 14ers.^[102] Though most 14ers lie on USFS land within six National Forests, one peak (Long’s) lies on NPS lands, three mountains (Handies, Sunshine, and Redcloud) lie on BLM land, and three summits (Culebra, Lindsey, and Bross) are privately-owned.^[103] This quantity and distribution of federal land, as this Section will discuss, has everything to do with the history of westward expansion and the suitability of Colorado’s mountainous terrain for homesteading.

While privatization of New Hampshire forests, for example, largely ended by the late 1860s,^[104] permanent European settlements in Colorado only began appearing in the mid-1800s.^[105] Before such settlements, the Ute, Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Navajo peoples lived throughout the territory.^[106] With the discovery of gold in the Colorado Rockies in 1858, prospectors rushed to the territory to establish mining operations.^[107] Settlement deep in the Rocky Mountains was difficult, however, due to the extreme climate and terrain of the western part of the present-day state.^[108]

Nonetheless, the gold rush represented the beginning of the widespread removal and assimilation of Native peoples in the Colorado Rockies.^[109] In December 1864, Union Soldier Colonel John Chivington led his militia into a camp of Plains Indians, killing, scalping, and mutilating hundreds of Indigenous People, and displaying the bodies in Denver.^[110] This horrific event, which became known as the Sand Creek Massacre, culminated in the violent removal of the Cheyenne and Arapahoe from the Colorado territory, while the Utes began to hastily assimilate.^[111] While the Utes initially refused to relocate to western Colorado, the discovery of more gold in the San Juan mountains prompted the federal government to renegotiate the size of the Ute reservation, resulting in the 1873 Brunot Treaty.^[112] Now, only two reservations formed from portions of this early Ute reservation—the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute Reservations—remain in Colorado, home to the only two federally recognized Indian tribes in the state.^[113]

The Homestead Act stimulated privatization of such western lands by providing settlers with 160 acres of surveyed government land for a small fee, so long as the landowner agreed to live on and cultivate the lands for at least five years.^[114] Despite this incentive, the harsh climate and terrain of the Rocky Mountains meant large swaths of land went unclaimed, including up to 80% of some mountainous communities.^[115] Federal disposition of lands in this manner ended with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (“FLPMA”), meaning that settlers could no longer claim unclaimed federal lands.^[116] Thus, unlike the 4,000-foot peaks in the northeast, which state and federal governments mostly bought back from private owners, the federal government has owned many 14ers since settlers forced Indigenous communities out.

The federal government, however, did dispose of some 14er summits during the homesteading era, often through the General Mining Law of 1872.^[117] While land high atop the Rockies was not prime real estate for homesteading, it certainly caught the attention of miners. The General Mining Law allowed U.S. citizens to prospect public lands for valuable mineral deposits and then lay claim to those minerals.^[118] Miners who performed at least $500 of development work over an economically viable mineral deposit could also file a patent application to acquire title to the surface lands above the mineral claim in fee simple.^[119] The General Mining Law and its predecessors led miners to patent 3.3 million acres across the United States.^[120] In 1994, the federal government placed a moratorium on allowing miners to obtain title to land through this mechanism.^[121] With the passage of FLPMA and this moratorium, public lands are now protected from privatization through the Homestead Act or The General Mining Law. The federal government can also purchase these lands back, as it did in 2023, when the owner of a patented mining claim atop Mount Democrat sold the land back to the USFS.^[122]

In addition to mining claims, some private owners of 14ers trace back their title to land grants from Mexico. The Sangre de Cristo Land Grant led to the privatization of large swaths of land in the Sangre de Cristo Range of south-central Colorado. In 1844, the Mexican government granted entrepreneurs Stephen Luis Lee and Narcisco Beaubien about one million acres of land in present-day southern Colorado.^[123] The end of the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred the Sangre de Cristo land grant to the United States.^[124] Despite this transfer, Mexican settlers retained in the Treaty the right to communally use the land in the grant for purposes of pasture, water, firewood, and timber.^[125]

The United States also agreed to respect the ownership of lands that Mexico had previously recognized.^[126] Carlos Beaubien, who had come into sole possession of the Sangre de Cristo grant following the deaths of original grantees, vested title to a one-sixth interest in Joseph Pley, who sold his interest to Ceran St. Vrain, who sold his interest to the first territorial Governor of Colorado, William Gilpin.^[127] Thus, in stark contrast to the federal lands where the majority of 14ers are located, the lands comprising several 14ers did not pass through federal hands first. After Jack Taylor acquired title to a large tract in 1960, he sought to end the use rights held by community members.^[128] In Lobato v. Taylor, the Colorado Supreme Court held that under the terms of the land grant, landowners who could trace their titles to at least the time of Gilpin’s ownership would be granted access for purposes of pasture, firewood, and timber.^[129] Nonetheless, as the following Section discusses, access rights have not been granted to the public at large, allowing the present-day landowners of these tracts to restrict access to the 14ers on their land.

III. Analysis: Contemporary Public Access Issues

This Section will connect the land acquisition history of peak bagging summits in the three regions to contemporary public access issues and potential solutions. First, it will use this acquisition history to explain why the Colorado 14ers have so many public access issues as compared to the Adirondack 46ers and the New Hampshire 48. Next, this Section will delve into the fiercest barriers to public access to peak bagging summits. Largely, it will focus on Colorado, where such rights are most in limbo due to private ownership of three 14ers. It will also discuss the Adirondack Mountain Reserve (“AMR”), where an agreement limiting access to many 46ers continues to face widespread backlash. Finally, this Section will discuss the future of these peaks by discussing potential methods for broadening public access and explaining how preserving permanent public access on federal lands could benefit from New York’s approach.

A. Connecting Land Acquisition to Public Access Issues in Colorado

Colorado’s geography and disjointed history of westward expansion and federal disposition of lands set the stage for present-day public access barriers. First, geographically, the Colorado 14ers are much more spread out than the 46ers or the New Hampshire 48. While the New Hampshire 48 occupy a narrow band of the Appalachian Mountain chain and the 46ers cover just a small cluster of northern New York, the 14ers spread across almost the entire western half of a state that is much larger than New York and New Hampshire combined.^[130] When summits are more spread out, cohesive acquisition and management under one National Forest or Park becomes more difficult.

The small geographic extent of the Adirondack 46ers means the protection of one watershed in particular became a driving force for Adirondack conservation efforts.^[131] Since the Adirondacks contain the headwaters of the Hudson River, a diverse group of New Yorkers sought conservation of this discrete region.^[132] Similarly, the federal government authorized the creation of the WMNF after scientists proved it would enhance protection of the Pemigewasset watershed and the Merrimack River, as required by the Weeks Act.^[133] By contrast, the Colorado 14ers drain into several different watersheds on two sides of the Continental Divide, including the Arkansas, the South Platte, the Rio Grande, and the Colorado Rivers.^[134] Although watershed protection remains a key goal on Colorado’s USFS lands,^[135] with how spread out the 14ers are, it is more difficult to argue that government acquisition of one 14er will have a measurable impact on a diffuse group of downstream users.

The history of westward expansion also helps explain how 14ers more easily fell into and remained in private hands. Since parts of Colorado remained under Mexican jurisdiction until 1848, some lands never passed through federal government ownership.^[136] Around the turn of the century, as residents of the northeast balked at the destruction left behind by timber clear-cuts and Congress responded with the Weeks Act,^[137] the United States did everything it could to dispose of land in the west through the Homestead Act and the General Mining Law. Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Theodore Roosevelt, through their General Revision Act power to create forest reserves, set aside large swaths of Colorado to be managed by the USFS.^[138] However, those Presidents had a much wider area to work with and presumably did not target treeless 14er summits for timber preservation.^[139] While New York did not necessarily target 4,000-foot peaks for conservation either, it bought back the vast majority of 46ers by 1923 by virtue of their character as timber lands and location at the headwaters of the Hudson.^[140]

By transferring much of these lands into public hands earlier in the twentieth century for conservation purposes, before peak bagging and the outdoor recreation economy really took off, these governments certainly paid a lot less than they would have to today. New York State bought the final eleven privately-owned 46ers from the Ausable Club in 1977 at a price of $80 an acre;^[141] meanwhile the most recent purchaser of the Culebra Peak tract bought it for about $1,250 per acre in 2017.^[142] While this is not a perfect comparison, it nonetheless illustrates that mountainous landscapes in the northeast were able to fall into public ownership much more easily earlier in the twentieth century than they would today. Therefore, Adirondack 46er and New Hampshire 48 peak baggers largely benefited from watershed conservation efforts and cheaper land prices in the early twentieth century, while the challenges of a wider geographic distribution and federal land disposition policies meant the USFS did not scoop up the 14ers at a more favorable price.

B. Present Barriers to Public Access

1. The Decalibron Loop and Mount Bross

The 2023 closure of the Decalibron Loop, a popular hiking trail that provides public access to the 14ers Mount Democrat, Mount Cameron, Mount Lincoln, and Mount Bross,^[143] shocked Colorado recreationists. While the USFS managed about half the land surrounding the Decalibron Loop at the start of 2023,^[144] certain tracts atop these peaks have been owned for a long time as mining claims.^[145] In March 2023, landowner John Reiber shuttered access to his lands that provide access to Mount Lincoln and Mount Democrat over liability concerns.^[146] These concerns arose after the Colorado Legislature failed to update the 1977 Colorado Recreational Use Statute (“CRUS”),^[147] which provides protections for landowners who allow the public to recreate on their lands.^[148]

Questions about the strength of protections provided by the 1977 CRUS arose after a Tenth Circuit ruling awarded a biker millions of dollars in damages following a crash on United States Air Force Academy land.^[149] In Nelson v. United States, the biker became seriously injured after riding into a sinkhole on an unofficial, non-public path.^[150] Though the 1977 CRUS provided a liability shield for landowners who let the public recreate on their lands, it created an exception for “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition, use structure, or activity likely to cause harm.”^[151] The court reasoned that because one employee knew about the sinkhole and failed to alert the Academy, the exception to the CRUS had been satisfied, so the Nelsons could recover against the Academy.^[152]

In response to this ruling, Reiber first closed his lands off completely, then required hikers to sign a liability waiver via a QR code posted at the trailhead before hiking.^[153] In 2023, Reiber sold 300 acres atop Mount Democrat to the Conservation Fund, though private claims on Mount Lincoln and Bross still remained.^[154] The owners of Bross cited liability concerns, particularly due to old mining equipment and open pits scattered across the summit.^[155] Finally, in February of 2024, Senate Bill 58 passed the Colorado legislature, amending the CRUS.^[156] Now, if landowners erect eight-inch-by-ten-inch signs warning of potential danger, they can no longer be sued for such “willful or malicious failure to guard against a known dangerous condition.”^[157] Despite this amendment, however, the summit of Mount Bross remained off-limits to the public during the 2025 hiking season.^[158]

2. Culebra Peak

Located on the former Taylor Ranch, currently under the ownership of the Cielo Vista Ranch, Culebra Peak remains at the center of the battle for access rights on this tract.^[159] On its website, the Cielo Vista Ranch describes hiking Culebra Peak, the highest privately-owned peak in the world, as “an experience that no public land can offer.”^[160] Perhaps the most surprising restriction placed on hikers seeking to climb this 14er is the price: the Cielo Vista Ranch charges $150 per person to hike Culebra Peak.^[161] Not surprisingly, many aspiring 14ers balk at the enormous price tag. With a scroll through just about any 14ers hiking forum, you will find a broad mix of viewpoints, from those who think the high price is worth it to keep the land pristine, to those who grumble at the price but pay it anyway to check the box on their 14er list, to those who refuse to include Culebra on their 14er list at all.^[162] Because the Ranch charges a fee, this also means that Culebra’s hikers are not covered under the updated CRUS.^[163]

The barrier to accessing Culebra Peak, therefore, has more to do with the cost and the process of acquiring a permit rather than the simple fact that the peak is privately owned. A 2006 study found that an estimated 50% of hikers would be willing to pay a $246 entrance fee to hike a 14er.^[164] While this study did not examine willingness to pay to hike all 58 14ers, it nonetheless illustrates that hikers place a high value on hiking 14ers, even more than other mountain recreation activities like rock climbing.^[165] While a $150 entry fee may price out some potential hikers, it is worth noting that gearing up to hike 14ers costs more than that, considering the price of hiking boots, a daypack, transportation, lodging, specialized clothing, and other miscellaneous equipment.^[166] Under this context, perhaps Culebra’s $150 price tag is not as injurious to public access as many believe. Nonetheless, the fact that this Culebra is privately owned and not under any sort of public access easement means that there is no guarantee that public access will continue into the future.

3. Mount Lindsey

Located just south of the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness Area, the summit of Mount Lindsey falls under the ownership of the 180,000-acre Trinchera Blanca Ranch.^[167] Also transferred into private hands via the Sangre de Cristo land grant, the ranch’s lands include the 14ers Little Bear Peak, Blanca Peak, and Mount Lindsey.^[168] While the public can access the summits of Little Bear and Blanca from the north because they are on the boundary line between private and USFS land, everything above about 13,100 feet atop Mount Linsdey falls outside the Sangre de Cristo Wilderness boundary.^[169] Despite a long history of public access, the Trinchera Blanca Ranch posted “No Trespassing” signs along the Mount Linsdey trail at this boundary in 2021, closing off the land in reaction to the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Nelson.^[170]

For nearly four years, the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative (“CFI”) attempted to restore public access through negotiations with the Trinchera Blanca Ranch and its billionaire owner Louis Bacon.^[171] Finally, on March 4, 2025, the CFI announced on Facebook that the public might once again hike Mount Linsdey.^[172] By signing an electronic waiver, hikers may access the two standard routes via the primary trailhead.^[173] The CFI noted that the landowner would be installing the sign described in the updated CRUS, and that the liability protections in that updated statute were to thank for encouraging the Trinchera Blanca Ranch to reopen Mount Lindsey to the public.^[174] Unlike Culebra, signing the waiver and accessing the route will be free, allowing the CRUS to provide its protections to Bacon and the Ranch.^[175]

Like Mount Bross, landowner liability concerns drove the removal of public access to this 14er. While the reopening of Mount Lindsey is certainly a step in the right direction, this grant of public access stands on very shaky ground. As the CFI cautions at the end of its Facebook post, “the restored climbing access to Mount Lindsey is a privilege that can be withdrawn if people do not follow the rules. . . . Violating the rules certainly will send a poor signal and may result in the peak being closed again.”^[176] Absent a contractual agreement with the state or federal government to preserve public access indefinitely, Trinchera Blanca Ranch could shutter access at any time.

4. The Adirondack Mountain Reserve

Though New York State owns the summits of all Adirondack 46ers, public access to these peaks is not free from controversy. The AMR, which sold the summits of the final eleven privately-held 46ers to New York State in 1977,^[177] retains ownership of 7,000 acres of crucial forested land between two sections of the High Peaks Wilderness.^[178] These lands provide the primary access to several 46ers, including Dial, Nippletop, Blake, Colvin, and several peaks in the Lower Great Range.^[179] A conservation easement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) allows the public to hike on AMR trails.^[180] However, in 2021, the DEC and the AMR launched a parking reservation system aimed at better regulating hiker traffic through the AMR.^[181]

Unlike on federal lands in the West, where permit systems on popular trails are more commonplace, this reservation system was the first of its kind in New York, and it has received a tumultuous wave of criticism.^[182] Hikers complain that drop-offs to the trails should be allowed, since it is a parking reservation system rather than an access permit.^[183] In addition, the system does not allow same-day reservations to account for the risk of cancellations and no-shows.^[184] Furthermore, hikers argue that due to the existence of the conservation easement that requires Ausable Club to provide public access to its lands, this is an unlawful restriction on public access to the Forest Preserve.^[185] Finally, they fear that this reservation system, rather than encouraging conservation of the trails, will just push hikers to more fragile trail networks in the Park.^[186]

Though the DEC pitched it as a three-year pilot program, the permit system entered its fourth season in the summer of 2024.^[187] In April of 2025, the DEC announced that the parking reservation system “is no longer considered a pilot” and would continue into the 2025 hiking season.^[188] The DEC also outlined two key changes to the reservation system: first, the AMR’s website now allows same day reservations, though only until 4 a.m.^[189] Second, the AMR now accepts reservations slightly beyond lot capacity, with the goal of offsetting no-shows.^[190]

Despite the backlash, maybe this reservation system may not be harming public access rights as much as the critics suggest. One hiker, who made his reservation the day before his hike, noted that “[t]here were plenty of spots open for the weekend” when he reserved his Saturday, July 9th, slot.^[191] He also praised the certainty of knowing he had a parking spot waiting for him, avoiding an earlier wakeup call and having to jockey for limited spots at popular trailheads.^[192] At the very least, the AMR’s status as private land has allowed the DEC to experiment with a new method of visitor management in the Adirondacks—one that balances conservation, private property rights, and public access rights. The results of this pilot program will provide useful information to the DEC going forward, especially as climate change threatens the delicate balance between conservation and public access.

C. The Future of Access

1. The Revised CRUS and the Privately-Owned 14ers

The revised CRUS has directly resulted in the expansion of public access to 14er Mount Lindsey.^[193] However, there has been no public indication that the Mount Bross landowners will reopen their lands to the public anytime soon. While the landowners could certainly follow in the footsteps of the Mount Lindsey owner, Mount Bross has the added complications of (1) multiple owners and (2) the presence of abandoned mining equipment that remains on the summit. While protections from liability due to an incident with mining equipment appeared to fall outside of the scope of the old CRUS,^[194] under the revised CRUS, the language on the warning sign notifies hikers that there may be “dangers and risks” on the land, including “mining or agricultural activities, structures, remnants, equipment, or operations.”^[195] This appears to directly address the liability concerns that the owners of Mount Bross hold.^[196] If this protection does not ease the landowners’ liability concerns about old mining equipment, then the Colorado legislature or federal government may have to resort to other methods of establishing public access rights.

The closure of private 14ers has had devastating economic effects on local communities. A report released in September 2024 revealed that hiker traffic fell to a nine-year low in 2023.^[197] That study cited the Decalibron Loop closure as the most significant factor in this decline.^[198] Hiking Colorado 14ers in 2023 nonetheless had an estimated economic impact of $70.5 million.^[199] However, with such a stark decline in Decalibron Loop hikers, the town of Alma bore severe economic impacts from the loss of thousands of hikers paying trailhead parking fees and stopping for food, gas, and lodging.^[200] Should one landowner’s decisions be able to impact the regional tourism economy in such a way? The effects of the Decalibron Loop closure could certainly be interpreted as a cautionary tale against private ownership of popular peaks.

The most obvious route for preventing such a closure again, on Mount Bross or Mount Lindsey, would be purchase by the federal government. The federal government has a history of purchasing 14ers—often through a land trust organization that then transfers the land to the USFS.^[201] For example, the Conservation Fund recently purchased Reiber’s Decalibron Loop lands with the intent of transferring the land to the USFS.^[202] For another example, the CFI purchased the summit of 14er Mount Shavano in 2016 with plans to improve the trail and then donate it to the USFS.^[203] Perhaps a negotiated sale of Mount Lindsey or Mount Bross would work—though such negotiations would be far from simple atop Mount Bross, where multiple owners have mining claims that would need to be sold.^[204] In addition, the price is likely to be astronomical. The current owner of Culebra Peak spent $105 million dollars to purchase the 83,000-acre tract comprising the 14er and its surrounding lands.^[205] With the USFS in a “potentially budget-limited future,”^[206] the federal government would likely need to rely on conservation organizations to accomplish the difficult task of raising millions of dollars to purchase these mountains.

Easements, which provide a nonpossessory right to use someone else’s private land, could also serve as a potential solution to private ownership of 14ers.^[207] However, easements may not provide the liability protections landowners are looking for nor the permanence that outdoor recreators are looking for. State and federal governments may not possess the ability to provide the indemnification sought by landowners concerned about liability in the terms of the easement.^[208] In addition, Colorado courts have not yet had to decide whether conservation easements are charitable gifts, which would allow parties to freely amend or terminate easements as they deem fit, or charitable trusts, which would require court approval to terminate or end the easement.^[209] In Colorado, easements can already be terminated, released, extinguished, or abandoned via a contract, merger, or eminent domain.^[210] Thus, a greater ability to amend conservation easements would throw into question the permanence of a public access right acquired through a conservation easement.

Interested parties have also floated eminent domain as a potential solution. Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, private property may be taken for “public use,” so long as the government pays “just compensation.”^[211] Here, the federal government could certainly argue that public access to trails is a “public use.” It has made this argument before, most notably to acquire lands along the Appalachian Trail.^[212] However, the federal government would likely face a difficult legal battle throughout eminent domain proceedings, as the billionaire landowners of Mount Lindsey and Mount Culebra would certainly mount a strong fight to delay or halt proceedings.^[213]

A creative solution would be the Colorado legislature drawing inspiration from Scotland and Sweden by passing a bill that recognizes a “right to roam.” Maine recognizes such a right—its criminal trespass law requires landowners to post no trespassing signs if they do not want the public to enter their land.^[214] Thus, Maine’s “open lands” tradition presumes that private lands are open to the public—which seems necessary due to the overwhelming amount of private land ownership in the state.^[215] Since no such tradition exists in Colorado, where public lands are far more abundant, it seems unlikely Colorado will adopt such a sweeping presumption. The CRUS, by granting landowners tools to open their lands up to the public, appears to fall within the realm of right to roam laws.^[216] However, unlike in Maine, a person commits criminal trespass in Colorado by entering private property, whether or not there are fences or no trespassing signs.^[217] While such a bill recognizing a right to roam could theoretically be introduced into the Colorado legislature, because expansive public access rights have not traditionally been recognized in the state, advocates would certainly face a difficult uphill battle.^[218]

Finally, the public trust doctrine is another potential avenue to achieving public access, though it would involve a substantial extension of the doctrine. Historically associated with navigable waterbodies, the public trust doctrine vests ownership of waterbodies in states to hold in trust for their people.^[219] In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court of California extended the doctrine to non-navigable tributaries to protect the shores, bed, and waters of Mono Lake.^[220] In Matthews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the public trust doctrine protects a right of recreation, meaning the public must have “reasonable access to the foreshore as well as a suitable area for recreation on the dry sand.”^[221] While the public trust doctrine has never been extended to mountains, it has been applied to recognize each state’s responsibility to manage fish and other wildlife.^[222] Colorado appears to have trust-like language in one state statute,^[223] which states “[i]t is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors.”^[224]

While this statutory language appears to be some sort of recognition of not only public trust in wildlife but in the “environment” that supports such wildlife (which would include 14ers), Colorado courts have taken a very narrow view of the public trust doctrine in the absence of any legislative recognition.^[225] In the context of water law, the public trust doctrine does not hold any legal authority within the state.^[226] Thus, an argument that 14ers should fall under public trust because they hold the headwaters for all of Colorado’s major rivers would likely fail, as would one that the “environment” is being held for the “enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors.”^[227]

Ultimately, what these potential solutions—public trust, right to roam, eminent domain, easements, and purchase—boil down to is that achieving permanent public access to all Colorado 14ers will require a lot of money or sweeping legislative action. The state or federal government will need to step in and initiate eminent domain proceedings or a purchase; or, the Colorado legislature will need to expand public access to private land via statute. Clearly, acquiring all of the 46ers was a government priority for the state of New York and the USFS in New Hampshire, aided by the geographical closeness of all those peaks and watershed protection initiatives. While achieving public access to all 14ers may seem like a lofty goal, given the popularity of hiking 14ers,^[228] this initiative is something the public could likely get behind. While a more expansive right to roam may stretch the bounds of a foreseeable legislative fix, a more tailored solution that addresses only privatized 14ers may hold more legislative promise.

2.“Forever Wild” Versus “Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield”

The state-owned lands within the Adirondacks, which are referred to as the “Forest Preserve,” have unique protections enshrined in the New York State Constitution. Article XIV, section 1, passed as a constitutional amendment in 1894 and colloquially known as the “Forever Wild Clause,” declares that all lands within the Forest Preserve shall “be forever kept as wild forest lands.”^[229] “They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.”^[230] These seemingly simple two sentences “make[] the Forest Preserve one of the best protected landscapes in the world,” since they ban logging on any state land within the Adirondacks.^[231]

For decades, the New York State DEC interpreted the ban on timber harvesting to apply to any tree measuring three inches in diameter at breast height.^[232] Following a ruling by the state’s highest court, holding that such interpretation led to a violation of the state constitution during construction of a snowmobile trail, the Department updated its guidance to account for trees as little as one inch in diameter at breast height (“DBH”).^[233] Since this protection against cutting timber is enshrined in the state constitution, removing it would require, first, an amendment to pass in two consecutive sessions of the legislature; and second, approval of a majority of voters in a general election.^[234] This is a high bar to achieve for any proposal to cut down any tree greater than one inch DBH within the blue line. Since the Forever Wild Clause also prevents the forest preserve from being “leased, sold, or exchanged,” a constitutional amendment must also be passed to approve any land transfer.^[235]

These constitutional protections have held strong over the past one hundred and thirty years. A proposed blanket amendment to allow logging on state lands failed in every single county in 1896.^[236] The state also resoundingly upheld the “forever wild” language amidst the creation of a new state constitution in 1938.^[237] There is also no question about the Forever Wild Clause’s enforceability due to Section 5, which authorizes the State or a private citizen (with the consent of the Appellate Division) to pursue relief.^[238]

While general attempts to amend the Forever Wild Clause repeatedly fail, narrowly-tailored amendments for specific projects within the blue line regularly succeed.^[239] For example, in 1918, voters approved an amendment to construct a State Highway from Saranac Lake to Long Lake to Old Forge.^[240] In 1927, voters approved the construction of a toll road up to the top of 46er Whiteface Mountain to honor veterans of World War I.^[241] Subsequent amendments approved ski trails on Whiteface, Gore, and other mountains.^[242] These amendments have made the Forever Wild Clause the most amended section of the New York State Constitution.^[243]

In contrast to the strong, sweeping protections against cutting down trees as little as one inch DBH in the Adirondacks, management of USFS land in New Hampshire and Colorado operates under the guidance of “multiple-use sustained-yield.” In 1897, the Forest Service Organic Administration Act established that public lands could be set aside and reserved as National Forests to “improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”^[244]

In 1960, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act outlined the modern-day management principles for the USFS to use in managing National Forests.^[245] The Act declares several purposes for National Forest administration, including outdoor recreation, shooting, timber harvest, watershed preservation, and wildlife protection, with these purposes supplemental to the ones in the Forest Service Organic Act.^[246] The Act also decares that the Secretary should manage forest resources for “multiple use and sustained yield” of the timber and other services obtained from them.^[247] The Act defines “multiple use” as “[t]he management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people.”^[248] Meanwhile, “‘[s]ustained yield of the several products and services,’ means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.”^[249]

Clearly, the multiple-use sustained-yield management of National Forests opens the door to a much broader range of uses. Unlike in the Adirondacks where logging is completely banned on public lands (absent a constitutional amendment, of course), logging is not only allowed but is explicitly encouraged on USFS lands. Outdoor recreation and wildlife preservation are just two of many purposes the landscapes may be put to.^[250] The question then becomes: might the public be at risk of losing access to peaks if the Secretary of Agriculture determines an area would be better suited for resource extraction?

This is where the Wilderness Act steps in. The Wilderness Act of 1964 granted Congress the power to designate federal lands as “wilderness areas,” to be “administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.”^[251] With most Colorado 14ers and New Hampshire 4,000 footers lying in wilderness areas, it seems these lands will be protected for their outdoor recreation purpose for the long run. The declaration that “there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area,” together with the ban on “motorized equipment” and “mechanical transport” means logging and development are, for all intents and purposes, prohibited.^[252] Though no constitutional amendment is required to alter wilderness areas, an act of Congress designates (and therefore is required to alter) wilderness areas.^[253] Thus, 14ers and New Hampshire 4000-foot summits within wilderness areas appear to have the second-best protections against the loss of public access rights.

For National Forest lands not designated as wilderness, one might assume that the USFS would not do anything to impair lands that are so highly treasured for their recreational purposes. The USFS, in fact, has a whole team—the Colorado Fourteeners Program—dedicated to improving trails on 14ers.^[254] However, multiple-use sustained-yield means that the Secretary of Agriculture can allow timber sales and other activities that are not compatible with outdoor recreation on National Forest lands.^[255] Therefore, 14ers located on USFS lands that are not designated as wilderness have fewer protections than their wilderness counterparts.

National Forest land, however, could be at risk, given President Trump’s executive order titled “Immediate Expansion of America Timber Production.”^[256] This order directs the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the BLM, and the Chief of the USFS to “issue new or updated guidance regarding tools to facilitate increased timber production and sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty.”^[257] While logging is only possible on the lower slopes of 14ers, given that tree line lies around 11,500 feet in Colorado, major logging operations along the approach to 14ers or in the WMNF could certainly impact trails and public access.^[258] Those in support of more permanent public access to peak bagging summits in New Hampshire and Colorado, therefore, would benefit from pressuring Congress to make more wilderness designations.

As to Longs Peak, the only 14er managed by the NPS, the NPS Organic Act of 1916 provides strict protections for lands under its management.^[259] The dual mandate of National Park management requires the NPS to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”^[260] The Secretary of the Interior may only “sell or dispose of timber” where such actions are “required in order to control the attacks of insects or diseases or otherwise conserve the scenery or the natural or historic objects in any such park, monument, or reservation.”^[261] Furthermore, Longs Peak is also located within the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness.^[262] With not only NPS Organic Act but also Wilderness Act protections, the public access rights on Longs Peak certainly are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Finally, the BLM’s management of Handies, Sunshine, and Redcloud occurs through two Wilderness Study Areas (“WSAs”).^[263] Under FLPMA Section 603, the BLM may create such WSAs through identification of lands with “wilderness characteristics.”^[264] WSAs should be managed as to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their resources to afford environmental protection.”^[265] Once lands are designated as a WSA, they must be managed “in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness,” until Congress decides to designate them as wilderness or releases them from the study.^[266] In other words, protections for the 14er within the Handies WSA and the two 14ers within the Redcloud Peak WSA are protected under the “unnecessary or undue degradation” standard.

Despite having the word “wilderness” in their name, WSAs are not managed as strictly as wilderness. Courts and the executive have recognized that “unnecessary or undue degradation” is a lower standard than “nonimpairment” in the Wilderness Act.^[267] To illustrate, the BLM has allowed destructive activities like off-road vehicle use to continue on WSAs—and the Supreme Court has even sanctioned these management decisions.^[268] Motorized vehicle use seems to run directly counter to the idea of wilderness preservation, so WSAs are much more vulnerable to potentially damaging uses than wilderness areas. Additionally, Congress could just as easily release these WSAs back to multiple-use sustained-yield management, presumably in a much less controversial way than the public would view revoking wilderness area status. Thus, the future of these 14ers is more at risk than their designation in a “wilderness study area” indicates.

IV. Conclusion

This Note analyzed the status of public access rights in the three most prominent peak bagging challenges in the United States—the Adirondack 46ers, the New Hampshire 48, and the Colorado 14ers. It has identified the Colorado 14ers as the peak bagging list where public access issues are most at risk due to the unique history of westward expansion that led to the privatization of land through mining claims and through land grants from Mexico, as well as the difficulty of acquiring public ownership of a set of mountains distributed throughout a large geographic region.

Public access to summits on peak bagging lists is clearly something that a large portion of society values, as seen in the outcry to the AMR permit system and general displeasure with the private ownership of multiple 14ers. Not to mention, hiking mountains provide immense benefits to local economies and human health. Though the revised CRUS attempted to eliminate liability risks for private owners of recreation lands, acquiring permanent access to privately owned peaks will likely require the federal government, state governments, and conservation organizations to step in and purchase the lands or enact legislative solutions.

While the Forever Wild Clause of the Adirondacks provides perhaps the most airtight protection of future land conservation and public access rights, the USFS and NPS might provide comparable protections in wilderness areas and National Parks. Future decisions by the President and Congress will determine whether National Forests and WSAs will continue to protect public access rights and conserve valued peak bagging summits. Though multiple-use sustained-yield has allowed old mining claims to prevail over public access rights in National Forests, some claims are slowly being purchased and placed back into the public domain. While the Adirondack 46ers and New Hampshire 4000 footers will have no trouble adding members to their rosters in the coming years, aspiring 14er hikers may be unable to complete the challenge, especially without paying the $150 Culebra fee, in the absence of widespread public support and government intervention in favor of public access rights.

Bureau of Econ. Analysis, Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2023 (2024), https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/orsa1124_0.pdf. ↑
Goda Lukoseviciute et al., The Economic Impact of Recreational Trails: A Systematic Literature Review, 21 J. Ecotourism 366, 367 (2022). ↑
John Loomis & Catherine Keske, Did the Great Recession Reduce Visitor Spending and Willingness to Pay for Nature-Based Recreation? Evidence from 2006 and 2009, 30 Contemp. Econ. Pol’y. 238, 239 (2011). ↑
Guillaume Friconnet, The History of Peak Bagging, SocArXiv 3 (2024). ↑
Id. at 4. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
See ADK 46ers, Adirondack 46er Roster, https://adk46er.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Adk46er-Member-Roster-as-of-2024-10-22.pdf; Colorado 14ers, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/groups/colorado14ers/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2025). ↑
While all 46 peaks were once measured at 4,000 feet or more, improvements in geographic surveying have revealed that four of the 46ers (Blake, Cliff, Nye, and Couchsachraga) fall just short of 4,000 feet, while one other peak (MacNaughton) reaches exactly 4,000 feet. Nonetheless, the 46ers challenge defers to the historical list of 46 peaks. Friconnet, supra note 4, at 26; ADK 46ers, The Peaks, https://adk46er.org/peaks/ (last visited Mar. 9, 2025). ↑
Friconnet, supra note 4, at 16–17. ↑
Appalachian Mountain Club, AMC Four Thousand Footer Club, amc4000footer.org/whitemountainfourk.html (last visited Mar. 9, 2025). ↑
Appalachian Mountain Club, A History of the New Hampshire 4,000-Footers List, https://www.outdoors.org/resources/amc-outdoors/history/a-history-of-the-new-hampshire-4000-footers/?campaign=701Ht0000021JlHIAU&gad_source=1 (last visited Mar. 9, 2025). ↑
14ers.com, 14er Information, https://www.14ers.com/info_peak.php (last visited Mar. 9, 2025). ↑
Id. ↑
State Now Owns its Mountain Tops, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 1923), https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1923/02/21/issue.html; Nat’l Geographic, White Mountain National Forest West: Franconia Notch, Lincoln (2020); Nat’l Geographic, White Mountain National Forest East: Presidential Range, Gorham (2020); Rebecca Sokol, Toward Sustainable Recreation on Colorado’s Fourteeners, 91 U. Colo. L. Rev. 345, 348 (2020). ↑
Friconnet, supra note 4, at 11. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. at 16. ↑
Id. ↑
Id.at 16–17. ↑
Id.at 17. ↑
Id. at 19–20. ↑
Gregory S. Alexander, The Sporting Life: Democratic Culture and the Historical Origins of the Scottish Right to Roam, 2016 U. Ill. L. Rev. 321, 323 (2016). ↑
Id. at 346. ↑
Id. at 346–47. ↑
Id. at 348. ↑
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, (ASP 2) c. 1, §§ 2–3, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/contents. ↑
Matthias Brinkmann, Freedom to Roam, 22 J. of Ethics & Soc. Phil. 209, 212 (2022). ↑
Alexander, supra note 23, at 367. ↑
Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass’n, 95 N.J. 306, 325 (N.J. 1984). ↑
Alexander, supra note 23, at 368–69. ↑
Denise Mitten et al., Hiking: A Low-Cost, Accessible Intervention to Promote Health Benefits, 12 Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 302, 303 (2016). ↑
Hiking just 150 minutes a week is associated with lower rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, anxiety, depression, mental fatigue, and stress. Id. at 303–04. ↑
Alan Ewert et al., Beyond “Because It’s There:” Motivations for Pursuing Adventure Recreational Activities, 44 J. of Leisure Rsch. 91, 92 (2013). ↑
These social benefits include belonging, friendship, and teamwork; sensation-seeking purposes, including risk, danger, and challenge; and self-image motivations, including being known a hiker and show one’s skill. Id.at 106. ↑
See Native Land Digital, Mapbox https://native-land.ca/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2025), for a map of the ancestral and traditional homelands of many Native American peoples across the United States. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Philip G. Terrie, Contested Terrain: A New History of Nature and People in the Adirondacks 190 (Alice Wolf Gilborn eds., 2d ed. 2008). ↑
Stacey Lauren Stump, “Forever Wild” A Legislative Update on New York’s Adirondack Park, 4 Albany Gov’t L. Rev. 682, 684 (2011). ↑
Id. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 4. ↑
Id. at 3. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. at 20, 21. ↑
Melissa Otis, At Home in the Adirondacks: A Regional History of Indigenous and Euroamerican Interactions, 1776 – 1920 29–30 (2013) (PhD dissertation, University of Toronto) (on file with the University of Toronto Libraries,https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/cedea5ca-4f95-41cc-94a9-71848b282f16/content; Alfred L. Donaldson, A History of the Adirondacks 257 (1921). ↑
John Sasso, The Heart of the Adirondacks: The Totten & Crossfield Purchase, Adirondack Almanack, https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/02/the-heart-of-the-adirondacks-the-totten-crossfield-purchase.html#more-207290 (Feb. 10, 2023). ↑
New York State Archives, Map of Township No. 12, Old Military Tract and Town of North Elba, https://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/objects/10685 (last visited Jan. 29, 2026); Terrie, supra note 40, at 21. ↑
Russell M. L. Carson, Peaks and People of the Adirondacks 91 (1927); Terrie, supra note 40, at 21. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 84–87. ↑
Id. at 89, 90. ↑
Forest Commission of the State of New York, Annual Report of the Forest Commission of the State of New York 22 (1892), https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_NDAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. ↑
See Terrie, supra note 40, at 83. ↑
Id. at 103. ↑
The “Forest Preserve,” as used in New York State, refers to state-owned lands. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 104–05. ↑
Id. at 84. ↑
Id. at 98, 99. ↑
Id. at 107. ↑
N.Y. State Bar Ass’n, Report and Recommendations Concerning the Conservation Article in the State Constitution (Art. XIV) 10 (2016); Philip Terrie, Perspective: The Forest Preserve’s Expanding Size and Role, Adirondack Explorer (Nov. 19, 2025), https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/the-forest-preserves-expanding-size-and-role [hereinafter Terrie Adirondack Explorer Article]. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 128. ↑
Id. at 143. ↑
Id. at 128. ↑
Id. ↑
Victory Mountain: A Memorial to Valor, N.Y. Times (July 20, 1919), https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1919/07/20/issue.html. ↑
State Now Owns its Mountain Tops, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 1923), https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1923/02/21/issue.html. ↑
Id. ↑
Harold Faber, Adirondacks Purchase Completes Public Holding of High Peaks Area, N.Y. Times (Sept. 6, 1977), https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1977/09/06/75682366.html?pageNumber=43. ↑
Over 2/3 of which is the military base Fort Drum. See Sam Stebbins, How Much Land in Each State is Owned by the Government, 24/7 Wall St. (Oct. 26, 2022, 7:49 AM EDT), https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/10/25/how-much-land-the-government-owns-in-every-state-and-what-its-used-for/. ↑
The federal government manages a much larger percentage of land in New Hampshire than any other New England or Mid-Atlantic state. The federal government owns 0.3% of Connecticut, 2.4% of Delaware, 1.5% of Maine, 3.2% of Maryland, 1.2% of Massachusetts, 3.6% of New Jersey, 2.2% of Pennsylvania, 0.7% of Rhode Island, and 7.8% of Vermont. Laura A. Hanson & Carol Hardy Vincent, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data 8–9 (2020) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42346. ↑
Id. at 10 (listing numbers from 2018). ↑
Lisa Densmore Ballard & James Buchanan, Hiking the White Mountains 1 (2d ed. 2020). ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 100. ↑
Lincoln Bramwell, 1911 Weeks Act: The Legislation that Nationalised the US Forest Service, 30 J. Energy & Nat. Res. L. 325, 325–28 (2012). ↑
Ballard & Buchanan, supra note 73, at 1. ↑
Randall H. Bennett, The White Mountains: Alps of New England 33 (2003). ↑
Id. ↑
Id. at 38. ↑
Id. at 41. ↑
Stephen D. Blackmer, Of Wilderness and Commerce: A Historical Overview of the Northern, 19 Vt. L. Rev. 263, 266 (1995). ↑
Bramwell, supra note 75, at 328–29. ↑
Id. at 328. ↑
The Weeks Forest Purchase Act, Pub. L. No. 61-435, ch. 186, 36 Stat. 961 (1911). ↑
Id. at 962. ↑
Id. ↑
Gordon W. Stuart & Livia Crowley, The streamflow study that created the White Mountain National Forest, 66 Historical New Hampshire 50, 50 (2012). ↑
Id. at 59. ↑
Christopher Johnson & David Govatski, Forests for the People: The Story of America’s Eastern National Forests 129 (2013). ↑
Id. ↑
Id. at 130. ↑
U.S. Forest Serv., Interactive Forest Visitor Map, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a695e1dbdeab4e8ba5c6ad4fd06a0ba0 (last visited Jan. 28, 2026). ↑
See id. ↑
Cannon Mountain Ski Area, N.H. State Parks (last visited Apr. 27, 2026), https://www.nhstateparks.org/find-parks-trails/cannon-mountain-ski-area#:~:text=Cannon%20Mountain%20is%20New%20Hampshire%27s%20only%20state-owned%20premiere,skiing%20%28192%20with%20snowmaking%29%2C%2025%20miles%20of%20trails. ↑
The mountain can also be accessed from the west side via WMNF lands, which continue until about 150 feet from the Moosilauke summit, where Dartmouth’s ownership begins. This trail is also a segment of the Appalachian Trail, which the federal government has famously used eminent domain to acquire continuous public access, so it would be surprising indeed if Dartmouth shuttered public access to the summit. See Mount Moosilauke via Gorge Brook Trail, AllTrails, Mount Moosilauke via Gorge Brook Trail (last visited Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/new-hampshire/mount-moosilauke-via-gorge-brook-trail. ↑
Moosilauke, Dartmouth Librs. (Jan.–Mar. 2025), https://www.library.dartmouth.edu/exhibits/moosilauke. ↑
Mt. Washington State Park, N.H. State Parks (last visited Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.nhstateparks.org/find-parks-trails/mt-washington-state-park; Robert S. Monahan, Dartmouth’s Historic Ties with Mount Wahington, 37 Dartmouth Alumni Mag. Dec. 1951, at 33. ↑
Monahan, supra note 97. ↑
Quick Hits, Dartmouth Alumni Mag. (Sep.–Oct. 2008), https://archive.dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/article/2008/9/quick-hits. ↑
Hanson & Vincent, supra note 71, at 7, 8. ↑
Id. at 9, 10. ↑
Colorado’s 14ers with Wilderness, FS, and BLM Lands, ArcGIS (Sept. 11, 2019), https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=a54f774563fa417db88741c690feddc1&extent=-110.6277,36.3874,-99.6743,41.3122. ↑
Id. ↑
Blackmer, supra note 81, at 266. ↑
W.E. Riebsame et al., Land Use and Landscape Change in the Colorado Mountains I: Theory, Scale, and Pattern, 16 Mountain Rsch. & Dev. 395, 398 (1996). ↑
Brandi Denison, Dirt and Morality During Ute Removal, 88 Pac. Hist. Rev. 127, 137–38 (2019); Indigenous Peoples History in Colorado Resource Set, Colo. State Univ. (Feb. 6, 2025), https://historymatters.colostate.edu/2025/02/06/indigenous-people-colorado/. ↑
Elliott West, The Contested Plains: Indians, Goldseekers, & the Rush to Colorado, 115–116 (University Press of Kansas, 1998). ↑
Riebsame et al., supra note 105, at 398. ↑
Denison, supra note 104, at 136, 37. ↑
Id. at 139, 40. ↑
Id. at 139–41; Amorina Lee-Martinez, Colonial Land Appropriation and Prior Appropriation Have Limited Water Access for Indigenous People, 33 W. Legal Hist. 76, 86 (2023). ↑
Denison, supra note 104, at 141, 42. ↑
Ute History and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Colo. Encyclopedia (last visited Apr. 27, 2026), https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/ute-history-and-ute-mountain-ute-tribe. ↑
Homestead Act, 12 Stat. 392; 37 Cong. ch. 75 (1862). ↑
Riebsame et al., supra note 103, at 398. ↑
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §1701. ↑
30 U.S.C. § 22. ↑
Id. ↑
30 U.S.C. § 29; Andrew P. Morriss et al., Homesteading Rock: A Defense of Free Access Under the General Mining Law of 1872, 34 Env’t L. 745, 756 (2004). ↑
Morriss et al., supra note 119, at 760. ↑
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, Pub. L. No. 103–332, § 112, 108 Stat. 2499, 2519 (1994). ↑
Logan Smith, Private Landowner Resolves Trail Dispute, Sells Part of Popular Colorado 14er, CBS News Colo. (Dec. 15, 2023, at 13:31 MT), https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/private-landowner-resolves-trail-dispute-sells-part-popular-colorado-14er-democrat-decalibron-usfs-liability/. ↑
Richard D. Garcia & Todd Howland, Determining the Legitimacy of Spanish Land Grants in Colorado: Conflicting Values, Legal Pluralism, and Demystification of the Sange De Cristo/Rael Case, 16 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 39, 44 (1995). ↑
Id. at 48. ↑
Id. at 45. ↑
Id. at 46. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. at 47. ↑
Lobato v. Taylor, 70 P.3d 1152, 1158 (Colo. 2003). ↑
Amy Tikkanen, What’s the Largest U.S. State by Area?, Britannica (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www.britannica.com/topic/largest-U-S-state-by-area. ↑
See Terrie, supra note 40, at 83. ↑
See Terrie, supra note 40, at 83, 93.. ↑
Stuart & Crowley, supra note 87, at 50, 52, 60. ↑
Major River Basins, Water Educ. Colo., https://watereducationcolorado.org/water-101/hydrology-water-resources/major-river-basins/#/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2025). ↑
See Organic Administration Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. §§ 473–78, 479-82, & 551. ↑
See, e.g., Garcia & Howland, supra note 123, at 44. ↑
Bramwell, supra note 75, at 328, 329. ↑
General Revision Act of 1891, ch. 561, 26 Stat. 1095, 1103 (repealed 1976); National Forests, Forest Hist. Soc’y, https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service-history/u-s-forest-service-publications/general-publications/highlights-in-the-history-of-forest-conservation/national-forests/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2026; Gerald W. Williams, U.S. Dep’t Agric., Forest Serv., The USDA Forest Service—The First Century 8 (Centennial Commemorative ed. 2005), https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/The_USDA_Forest_Service_TheFirstCentury.pdf. ↑
After 1897, any new reserves needed to meet three criteria: forest protection, watershed protection, and timber production. Williams, supra note 138, at 10. In Colorado, treeline is located just below 12,000 feet in elevation, so a 14,000-foot summit would not contain any harvestable timber. Paul E. Carrara & John P. McGeehin, Evidence of a Higher Late-Holocene Treeline along the Continental Divide in Central Colorado, 25 Holocene 1829, 1829 (2015). ↑
See State Now Owns its Mountain Tops, N.Y. Times, Feb. 21, 1923, at 20, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1923/02/21/issue.html. ↑
Faber, supra note 69. ↑
See Kelly Jensen, Someone Actually Bought That $105 Million 14er for Sale, 9News (Aug. 14, 2017, at 17:56 MT), https://www.9news.com/article/life/style/colorado-guide/someone-actually-bought-that-105-million-14er-for-sale/73-464267002 (listing the price of the 83,000-acre property as $105 million, and dividing 105,000,000 by 83,000 produces a value of about 1,265). ↑
The name “Decalibron” is created by taking the first two or three letters of each of these four 14ers to form the word: DeCaLiBron. ↑
Jason Blevins, Closed Colorado 14ers Reopen with QR Code Waivers But Owner Says Reform of Recreational Use Law is “Ultimate Fix”, The Colo. Sun (July 27, 2023, at 8:49 MT), https://coloradosun.com/2023/07/27/landowner-decalibron-14ers-access/. ↑
Michael Betrus, A Tall Summit: Securing Lasting, Reliable Public Access for Recreational Use on Colorado’s Privately Owned Fourteeners, 10 Tex. A&M J. Prop. L. 111, 119 (2024). ↑
Jason Blevins, Landowner Will Close Access to Two Colorado 14ers after Lawmakers Rejected Legislation Limiting Liability, The Colo. Sun (Mar. 3, 2023, at 3:50 MST), https://coloradosun.com/2023/03/03/landowner-closing-14ers-mount-lincoln-democrat/. ↑
Colorado Recreational Use Statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 33-41-101–33-41-106) (amended 2024). ↑
Blevins, supra note 144. ↑
See Nelson v. United States, 915 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2019). ↑
Id. at 1246. ↑
Colorado Recreational Use Statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 33-41-104 (amended 2024). ↑
Nelson, 915 F.3d at 1256. ↑
Blevins, supra note 144. ↑
Jason Blevins, Conservation Fund Buys 14er in the Mosquito Range Above Alma, Helping Protect Access to Decalibron Loop, The Colo. Sun (Sept. 21, 2023, at 9:16 MT), https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/21/conservation-fund-buys-mount-democrat/. ↑
Jason Blevins, Landowners Shut Down Access to Three Colorado Fourteeners Citing Liability, Impacts, The Colo. Sun (Sep. 22, 2022, 17:17 MT), https://coloradosun.com/2021/04/30/colorado-fourteeners-14ers-closure-lincoln-democrat-bross/. ↑
Jason Blevins, Bill to Shield Colorado Landowners from Lawsuits Filed by People Who Recreate on Their Land Heads to Governor’s Desk, The Colo. Sun (Feb. 23, 2024, at 14:59 MT) https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/23/colorado-lawmakers-amend-recreational-use-statute/. ↑
Id.; Accord S.B. 24-058, 2024 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024). ↑
Mount Bross, 14ers.com, (Apr. 2025), https://www.14ers.com/route.php?route=bros2. ↑
Jason Blevins, New Owner Fighting to Restrict Access to Private Cielo Vista Ranch by 5,000 Descendants of the San Luis Valley’s Earliest Settlers, The Colo. Sun (Sep. 5, 2018, at 6:00 MT) https://coloradosun.com/2018/09/05/cielo-vista-ranch-legal-battle/; Cielo Vista Ranch Purchased Monday, Valley Courier (Aug. 15, 2017, at 0:00 MT) https://www.alamosanews.com/stories/cielo-vista-ranch-purchased-monday,37977. ↑
Climbing and Hiking, Cielo Vista Ranch, https://www.cielo-vista-ranch.info/activities/climbing-hiking/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2025); Jensen, supra note 142. ↑
Id. ↑
Scroll through the comment section of this post for a peek at some of these viewpoints. Tom Andenno, Facebook (Colorado 14ers), Any Thoughts on Culebra Peak??? (Mar. 5, 2020, at 5:42 MT), https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18VfpbK5ag/. ↑
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-41-104(b) (2024). ↑
Catherine M. Keske & John B. Loomis, High Economic Values from High Peaks of the West, 6 W. Econ. F. 34, 40 (2007). ↑
Id. ↑
See Anja Whittington, Jeremy Armentrout & Jay E. Raymond, Outdoor Participation and Spending Trends in Virginia: How Much is Too Much, 56 Va. Soc. Sci. J. 25, 33 (2023). ↑
Jason Blevins, How One El Paso County Bike Crash is Changing Access to 14ers in Rural Colorado, The Colo. Sun (July 14, 2023, 10:38 MT), https://coloradosun.com/2021/09/13/colorado-recreational-use-statute-landowner-liablity-trinchera-fourteener/. ↑
Trinchera Once Part of Land Grant, The Pueblo Chieftain (Sep. 20, 1993, 12:01 MT), https://www.chieftain.com/story/special/1993/09/20/trinchera-once-part-land-grant/9106235007/. ↑
Colorado’s 14ers with Wilderness, FS, and BLM Lands, supra note 102. ↑
Blevins, supra note 167. ↑
Seth Boster, Colorado 14er Reopens through Waiver Requirement, Denver Gazette (Mar. 4, 2025), https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/03/04/colorado-14er-reopens-through-waiver-requirement-97aca90e-2c91-57c3-abc4-c0d6ab477e8b/. ↑
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, Facebook (Mar. 4, 2025, 05:14 MT), https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1L7DGkk3fW/. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
John Waters, Privately Owned Mount Lindsey is Now Open, Valley Courier (Mar. 8, 2025, 07:00 MT), https://www.alamosanews.com/stories/privately-owned-mount-lindsey-is-now-open,76133. ↑
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, supra note 169. ↑
Terrie, Adirondack Explorer Article, supra note 61. ↑
Adirondack Mountain Reserve Conservation Easement Tract, N. Y. State Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, https://dec.ny.gov/places/adirondack-mountain-reserve-conservation-easement-tract (last visited Mar. 19, 2025). ↑
AMR Reservation System Frequently Asked Questions, N.Y. State Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, at 5, https://www.hikeamr.org/files/AMR%20Parking%20Reservation%20System%20FAQ%202024.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2025). ↑
Adirondack Mountain Reserve Conservation Easement Tract, supra note 178; Gwendolyn Craig, Permits in the Preserves, Adirondack Explorer (Mar. 5, 2026), https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/environment/permits-in-the-preserves/. ↑
AMR Reservation System Frequently Asked Questions, supra note 179, at 4. ↑
Gwendolyn Craig, Public Relays Concerns about Possible Visitor Limits on Adirondack High Peaks Trails, Adirondack Explorer (Mar. 20, 2025), https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/public-relays-adirondack-high-peaks-management-concerns. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Bob Meyer, It’s Debatable: Hiking Permits, Adirondack Almanack (July 14, 2021), https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2021/05/its-debatable-hiking-permits.html. ↑
Id. ↑
Gwendolyn Craig, Adirondack Mountain Reserve Hiking: Reservation System Enters 4^th Year, Adirondack Explorer (Mar. 20, 2025), https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/adirondack-mountain-reserve-hiking-reservation-system-to-enter-4th-year. ↑
Press Release, N.Y. State Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, DEC and Adirondack Mountain Reserve Announce Start of 2025 Parking Reservation System (Apr. 25, 2025). ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Peter Bauer, A Review of the AMR Parking Permit System in Year Two, Adirondack Almanack (July 13, 2022), https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2022/07/a-review-of-the-amr-parking-permit-system-in-year-two.html. ↑
Id. ↑
Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, supra note 169. ↑
Betrus, supra note 145, at 116, 117. ↑
S.B. 24-058, 2024 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024). ↑
Jason Blevins, Landowners Shut Down Access to Three Colorado Fourteeners Citing Liability, Impacts, The Colo. Sun (Sep. 22, 2022, at 17:17 MT), https://coloradosun.com/2021/04/30/colorado-fourteeners-14ers-closure-lincoln-democrat-bross/. ↑
Press Release, Colorado 14er Hiking Use Drops to 2015 Levels (260,000 Days): Decalibron Loop Closure Contributes to Equaling 9-Year Low, Colo. Fourteeners Initiative (Sept. 3, 2024). ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Steve Staeger, Popular 14er Loop Reopens, but with Some Added Paperwork, 9News (July 27, 2023, at 20:07 MT), https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/next-with-kyle-clark/decalibron-loop-reopens-with-legal-paperwork/73-e03cf6e4-8297-4a93-b84e-c95163187964. ↑
Jason Blevins, Conservation Fund Buys 14er in the Mosquito Range Above Alma, Helping Protect Access to Decalibron Loop, The Colo. Sun (Sep. 21, 2023, at 09:16 MT), https://coloradosun.com/2023/09/21/conservation-fund-buys-mount-democrat/. ↑
Id. ↑
See Jason Blevins, Colorado Fourteeners Initiative to Buy Mount Shavano Summit, Denver Post (Nov. 20, 2016), https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/colorado-fourteeners-initiative-to-buy-mount-shavano-summit/article_975619e4-aeeb-11e6-a716-aba72b491ee0.html. ↑
Jason Blevins, Partnership Keeps Private Colorado 14ers Open to Hikers, Associated Press (July 24, 2022, at 17:24 MT), https://www.cpr.org/2022/07/24/partnership-keeps-private-colorado-14ers-open-to-hikers/. ↑
Jensen, supra note 142. ↑
Chief Randy Moore, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Updates, U.S. Forest Serv. (Aug. 29, 2024), https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/fy25-budget-updates. ↑
Betrus, supra note 145, at 113. ↑
Betrus, supra note 145, at 132. ↑
Walter J. Downing, Terminating and Amending Conservation Easements in Colorado, 45 Colo. Law. 47, 48, 51 (2016). ↑
Id. at 47. ↑
U.S. Const. amend. V. ↑
Betrus, supra note 143, at 129. ↑
See Betrus, supra note 145, at 133. ↑
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A § 402 (2024). ↑
Peter H. Kenlan, Comment, Maine’s Open Lands: Public Use of Private Land, the Right to Roam, and the Right to Exclude, 68 Me. L. Rev. 185, 192 (2016). ↑
Colo. S.B. 24-058 (2024). ↑
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-504 (2023). ↑
See, e.g., Heather Sackett, Boaters, Anglers Want Clarity Around Public Access to Colorado’s Streams, PostIndependent (Oct. 27, 2025), https://www.postindependent.com/news/boaters-anglers-want-clarity-around-public-access-to-colorados-streams/ (discussing the difficulty faced by fishers and boaters in attempting to establish a right to wade through the Colorado legislature). ↑
Martin v. Lessee of Waddell, 41 U.S. 367, 413 (1842). ↑
Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Ct., 33 Cal. 3d 419, 437 (1983). ↑
Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass’n, 471 A.2d 355, 366 (N.J. 1984). ↑
Nyssa Landres, The Public Trust in Wildlife: Implementation in 13 Western States, Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Pro. Papers, 9–10 (2019). ↑
Id. at 38. ↑
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-1-101(1). ↑
Landres, supra note 222, at 39. ↑
Bruce C. Walters, A Brief History of the Public Trust Doctrine in Colorado: Arguments Made for and against Its Application, 18 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 456, 457 (2015). ↑
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-1-101(1). ↑
See Press Release, Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, Colorado 14er Hiking Use up Slightly in 2024 to 265,000 Days: Reopened Decalibron Loop Offsets Declines Elsewhere (Aug. 11, 2025). ↑
N.Y. Const. art. XIV, § 1 (formerly N.Y. Const. art. VII). ↑
Id. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 102. ↑
Gwendolyn Craig, Tree Cutting Policy 2.0 and More Adirondack Policy News, Adirondack Almanack (Sept. 18, 2023), https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/09/tree-cutting-policy-2-0-and-more-adirondack-policy-news.html. ↑
Id.; Protect the Adirondacks! Inc. v. New York State Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, 170 N.E.3d 424 (2021). ↑
N.Y. Const. art. XIX. ↑
N.Y. Const. art. XIV. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 102. ↑
Terrie, supra note 40, at 148. ↑
N.Y. State Bar Ass’n, Report and Recommendations Concerning the Conservation Article in the State Constitution (Article XIV) 20–21 (2016). ↑
Rachel E. Deming, Protecting Resources – Forever: The Obligations of State Officials to Uphold “Forever” Constitution Provisions, 36 Pace Env’t L. Rev. 202, 225 (2019). ↑
N.Y. State Bar Ass’n, supra note 238, at 17. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. ↑
Deming, supra note 239, at 225. ↑
16 U.S.C. § 475. ↑
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. § 528. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. § 529. ↑
Id. § 531(a). ↑
Id. § 531(b). ↑
Id. § 528. ↑
The Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131–1136. ↑
Id. § 1133(c). ↑
Id. § 1131(a). ↑
Colorado Fourteeners, U.S. Forest Serv., https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/trails/priority-areas/colorado-fourteeners (last visited Mar. 19, 2025). ↑
16 U.S.C. § 472a. ↑
Exec. Order No. 14225, 90 Fed. Reg. 11365 (Mar. 6, 2025). ↑
Id. at § 2. ↑
The 14er summits located in national forest land (but not Wilderness Areas) include Mount Elbert, Mount Sherman, the Decalibron Loop, Quandary Peak, Grays Peak, Torreys Peak, Pikes Peak, Little Bear Peak, Blanca Peak, Mount Princeton, Mount Antero, Mount Shavano, and Tabeguache Peak. See Colorado’s 14ers with Wildernes, FS, and BLM Lands, supra note 102. Several NH 48 summits located in WMNF land (but not Wilderness Areas) include Mount Pierce, Mount Monroe, Wildcat Mountain, Mount Cabot, Mount Waumbek, and Mount Tecumseh. ↑
National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, 16 U.S.C. § 1. ↑
Id. ↑
Id. § 3. ↑
Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness, Nat‘l Park Serv., https://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/rocky-mountain-national-park-wilderness.htm (last visited Mar. 19, 2025). ↑
Colorado’s 14ers with Wilderness, FS, and BLM Lands, supra note 102. ↑
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1782(a). ↑
Id. § 1782(c). ↑
Id. ↑
State of Utah v. Andrus, 486 F.Supp. 995, 1004 (D. Utah 1979); Dep’t of Interior, Off. of the Solic., M-37007, Surface Management Provisions for Hardrock Mining (2001). ↑
See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004). ↑