Gilpin County

[Java]

These roads are closed because people were using them to access USFS lands, according to the post. They will affect Yankee Hill access. I wonder if they've closed the ATV parking area? I've also seen the Clear Creek County Sheriff threatening to ticket people at hiking trailheads, but according to the state wide order hiking is OK and Jeffco parks page says it's OK in healthy groups of 4 or less with social distancing. I wish there was some continuity in the messaging.

https://www.facebook.com/GilpinSheriff/

"Effective Immediately GILPIN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER FOR ROAD CLOSURES issued to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Gilpin County residents and the public, until further order.The road closures are as follows: Tolland, Apex Valley, and Columbine Campground roads will be closed to all non-residents. Gilpin County residents may still access these roads.
Tolland, Apex Valley, and Columbine Camp Ground Roads provide local residents of Gilpin County necessary access to their homes and neighborhoods and additional access to United States Forest Service public lands for recreation and other purposes. Gilpin County has been experiencing large numbers of non-resident visitors traveling to, parking on, and gathering at, on and around these Roads for the apparent purpose of accessing United States Forest Service lands."

[Getaklu]

USFS: Will recreation sites and facilities stay open?In coordination with state and local health and safety guidelines, National Forests remain open however recreation services at our facilities may be changed, suspended or offered through alternate approaches as we manage for the health and safety of our work force and the public. Agency direction tasks local managers to perform risk assessments of our facilities and limit congregations of people and person to person interactions. Our decisions will align with local city, county and state actions to provide for human health and safety (ie. quarantine, curfew, and other social restrictions).

CPW: Effective March 26, 2020: Colorado State Parks remain open, but Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) will close all playgrounds, campgrounds, dispersed camping and camping facilities (including yurts and cabins) at Colorado’s state parks as well as camping at State Wildlife Areas effective Thursday, March 26 until further notice. This action has been taken based on The Stay-At-Home Order from Colorado Governor Jared Polis and the advice of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CPW: Governor Polis's Stay at Home order and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's most recent Public Health order allow for continued outdoor recreation, including fishing and hunting.

Though I didn't find anything on four wheeling, the above from both official websites show that these public lands are open for our use. Keeping people from the lands is not a valid reason to close those roads. Protection of the people that live there, and protection of the limited local resources readily available in regards to search and rescue, medical call-outs, etc. may give cause in their minds.

[Java]

In a nutshell I want to go hiking during this, it's what is making this palatable for me, but I don't want to be a dick and certianly don't want any conflict with law enforcement over hiking, of all things. Just want to know what the right thing is so I can do it.

[Jim]

My view (0.02 / FWIW / IANAL): Get out. Hike. Give solid reason that you won't have any injury that would require emergency or medical persons to give you assistance. Another way to consider things - get outside but don't do anything that would put YOU into a high risk environment to catch the virus (read: you do not want to find yourself inside of a hospital).

[Swank1975]

I think they are saying you can go out from your home and walk and hike if it's in your neighborhood. I've read you can go driving across counties or up into the hills to go for a hike.

https://theknow.denverpost.com/2020/...-order/236219/

[Getaklu]

Per your article, Denver residents are subject to the stricter rules.

”You might be thinking, “Well hold on a second, Gov. Jared Polis said hiking was fine!” Unfortunately for Denver residents, the stricter restrictions are what apply, so in this particular case, the city and county order trumps the statewide order.”

[Tom]

I had heard today, second hand, that one can travel freely within ones home county but not between counties. That would mean for me switzerland, bunce, etc is ok, but yankee hill nope.

[open_circuit]

Tom previously posted:

[Jim]

<putting my post at the bottom of the thread - I started editing a long ago and new posts had been made>

[JandDGreens]

open_circuit previously posted:

[Jim]

A whole bunch of conflicting info out there. If you want the short verdict - Let's Wheel - as always - responsibly.

Bottom line - you don't want to catch it, you don't want to pass it to another, you don't want to burden the medical community, you don't want to end up in a hospital (for some non-covid item, and then catch covid while in the hospital). Keep your distance where reasonable and be aware of the surfaces you touch (hands / face / shopping cart push-bar, buttons on ATM/Gas pump/Grocery store checkouts, food [fruit]).

As for the legal announcements - I read (and CAN NOT find the reference today - arg) that in Colorado only the Governor has legal ability to dictate orders - sub groups (counties / cities) can not (thus the Larimer county link I posted might have no legal standing). On the Gov's stay-at-home order there is a comment that sub-groups can have legal standing if approved by the governor (II.D.1.e) - Though curious a sub-group may not relax the Gov's effective order - they may only issue something more protective of the public but in the same section states that the sub-groups (local jurisdiction) remain in full force and effect - thus Larimer County says it's fine to go to the park. Letter of the law is messy - spirit of it is - stay away from others and be aware of transmission.

Again - bottom line - try to not get it or catch it or burden the medical community. If our government were really concerned about limiting exposure - grocery shopping would not be the wide open (potentially infected) west that it is. It would be "order online or phone in your food order" and we'll deliver when you arrive to the parking lot.

Governor Polis's Stay at Home Order
https://www.colorado.gov/governor/ne...ponse-covid-19

From the above link there is this line
Read the full order here. Read the FAQ here. Read the public health order here. Watch the press conference here.

The full order link (Google drive):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O1E...ew?usp=sharing

FAQ link (Google drive):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16nO...ew?usp=sharing

Amended Public Health order link (Google drive):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Izf...ew?usp=sharing

My excerpts:
Full Order, Section II, Part B
I direct all Coloradans to stay at home, subject to limited exceptions such as obtaining food and other household necessities, going to and from work at critical businesses, seeking medical care, caring for dependents or pets, or caring for a vulnerable person in another location.
My take - no trail riding


Full Order, Section II, Part D, 1, e
Nothing in this Executive Order prevents a local public health authority from issuing an order more protective of public than this Executive Order. For clarity, any stay at home or similar order issued by a local jurisdiction remains in full force and effect.
My take - conflict - Local jurisdictions may make orders so long as they are more protective of the public. Some jurisdictions have made orders less protective of the public (by the letter of the ruling) - but - the final bit is that they remain in full force and effect. conflict.


Amended Public Health Order, 6.
[emphasis mine] When people leave their places of residence, whether to obtain or perform critical emergency services, recreate, go to work, or for other valid reasons, they should at all times comply with Social Distancing Requirements as defined in Section III.F below.
My take - recreating is allowed. This, again, social distancing and all...


Amended Public Health Order, I, F
All travel, including, but not limited to, travel by automobile or public transit, except Necessary Travel is prohibited.
My take - no recreating - necessary travel only - conflict.


These last two sections are the meat of what I wish to focus upon...


Amended Public Health Order, III, A, 3
Necessary activities...
[emphasis mine] Engaging in outdoor activity, such as, by way of example and without limitation, walking, hiking, nordic skiing, snowshoeing, biking or running. For purposes of outdoor activity, State parks will remain open to the public to engage in walking, hiking, biking, running, and similar outdoor activities but all playgrounds, picnic areas, other similar areas conducive to public gathering, and attended areas shall be closed. Additionally, the permitted outdoor activities in this PHO do not include activities that would violate the Social Distancing Requirements defined in Section III.F, below.
My take - outdoor activity is considered a necessary activity and thus is allowed. Again, social distancing and all...


Amended Public Health Order, III, B
[emphasis mine]Necessary Travel. For purposes of this Order, travel is Necessary for any of the following purposes: (1) providing or accessing Necessary Activities, Minimum Basic Operations, Critical Government Functions, and Critical Businesses; (2) receiving materials for distance learning, for receiving meals, and any other related services from educational institutions; (3) returning to a place of Residence from outside the jurisdiction; (4) travel required by law enforcement or court order; (5) non-residents returning to their place of Residence.
My take - Engaging in outdoor activity is a "Necessary Activity" and accessing a Necessary Activity is considered Necessary Travel. Let's wheel - and keep physically / socially distant - CB's are great!

[Getaklu]

Jim previously posted:

[Java]

Think I'm gonna lay low for a couple more days and see how things develop. The best problems are the ones I avoid.

[Getaklu]

It reads that Gilpin county doesn't have any cases. If I were the sheriff, I would probably close some roads down to help keep it out as well in reality.

[Jim]

Getaklu previously posted:

[Getaklu]

Just one point of view Jim, though I can justify the other side as well.

As an elected law enforcement official, his role is to protect his constituents (yes, some of this could be political). Considering Gilpin county has limited first responders and medical facilities, his decisions on this matter are that much more important. He is allowed to create tougher rules than the governor so closing certain roads are well within that realm.

The more people in the area mean the more chances for accidents, conflicts, trips and falls, etc. Attending to any of these puts first reponders at unnecessary risks of exposure to C19. People parking along already narrow roads creates hazards such as auto/auto, auto/ped, and even auto/pet accidents; as well as the potential narrowing of the path for fire trucks to get to a structure fire if needed(we have all seen some of these roads packed such that getting a Jeep through is like threading a needle).

He also has a duty to keep the unlawful out or at least in check. If he and his department let themselves be over-run at a time like this, it could be construed as dereliction of duty. Not only are the "innocent" heading into these areas to hike and recreate, there is also the bad element he is responsible for. Are there thieves, potential squatters, etc. in these batches of people? If he just put a sign out that read "Closed to thieves, squatters, assaulters, etc." it wouldn't work any better than the signs at the local parks that read "dogs must be on leashes" or the law that requires a front license plate in Colorado.

Has he shut down the forest? No, there are other ways in. Is he blocking the county property tax payers from getting to or using their own property? No. Is he doing anything different than shutting roads for protection during a forest fire? No. (they normally let "local residents" into the area as long as it doesn't interfere with fighting efforts or is putting the resident in harms way).

Quickly penned so I may have missed a few thoughts.

[Jim]

My take is this: Pick one road to be blocked and mull it through...

The elected Sheriff decides to stop people from driving on one road - entering the county and possibly bringing in something undesirable. How is that to be tended - put a full barricade across the road? What about the resident that needs access to their home 300 yards beyond the barricade and was "outside" when the barricade went up? Will they drive around or remove a non-staffed barricade?

Perhaps there's now a deputy out there to decide - yes, you're a resident and yes your driveway is 300 yards beyond the sign - go ahead? That deputy is now having person-to-person contact (handing over a driver's license with residence address listed) where they might not have had such contact. That deputy is at a higher risk and could be removed from being able to perform their job by getting sick.

So, at one barricade, there could be a deputy on staff - 24x7? How much staffing does the Sheriff have available for the roads in/out of the county? If locals have one road closed they'll quite likely "take the back way" to get home. This becomes a barricade resources and personnel staffing issue. Non-staffed barricades will need to be VERY difficult to get around - people will start walking around (calling an "inside" friend to come pick them up).

Is the road closure to only keep people out or is it a full closure - keeping people in as well? If people are to be kept in, the county must be able to provide for all life needs - how's the hospital there for at risk pregnancy's? Cancer treatments? If the county wishes to keep people in - and someone HAS to get out (an essential services worker) - will they be allowed back in? If the answer is yes, someone has to decide (deputy staffing a barricade again) if they can get in. That person could be bringing in something bad (unknowingly infected while "out").

My bottom line is that if an area wishes to lock down, it'll take a good amount of staffing (to close all of the roads), and does the area have staffing to accomplish the task 24x7.

In all, there is a balance to be worked with.

A fun mental exercise!

[Getaklu]

Probably more realistically they could just sign it as "Local Traffic Only 4/x to x/x" or something to that effect. The couple out for a Sunday stroll will probably show up to this sign, look at each other, shrug, then head on to the next road on their route to see if they can drive it. The car with the couple looking for the next place to build a meth lab will look at each other, shrug, say "F that" and head up the road anyway. There are probably more of the first type then the second, so say 66-75 percent of the traffic was diverted with just signage, that would be fairly successful with little exposure risk to anyone and with out too much monetary cost.

[Jim]

chuckle - at least the meth lab people ultimately WANT social distancing (at least while in manufacturing). ;-)



In related news, I found this article worth the time:
www.NewYorker.com/science/elements/from-bats-to-human-lungs-the-evolution-of-a-coronavirus

[Spieg]

open_circuit previously posted: