Can we ask that all public land be made PUBLIC?

[SFC B]

As the corner crossing case currently at hand goes forward and we contemplate the outcome I think that there is really only one way to settle the question once and for all. I can't believe I am going to say this, as I am one who believes in as little government as possible, but I believe Federal legislation codifying access to federal lands and preventing states from making laws interfering with that access. The idea that corner crossing as was executed in the case at hand in anyway LEGITIMATELY "injures" the land owner is outrageous. I do not believe there will EVER be a widespread compromise as landowners who want to restrict this access have too much to lose (both monetarily and privilege of use wise) and will simply not yield unless forced. PR funds should be used to finance associated costs. Additionally, any landowner who grazes livestock on public land at the ridiculously low rates being charged should be required to provide easements through any their property that restricts access to public land. Greed is the only real opponent of something like this.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You would have to deal with competing state statutes and relative constitutional issues via the 10th amendment (and possibly the 4th).

Better option would be to provide incentives to landowners from the Federal Gov't to open landlocked parcels of public land in the form of lease pricing (increase the bare minimum to reflect closer to state lands, with a sliding scale for grazers when they open access up). Or legislation to purchase perpetual easements to landlocked public land, as well as continue to look towards consolidation through land trades.

 

[Zach]

As the corner crossing case currently at hand goes forward and we contemplate the outcome I think that there is really only one way to settle the question once and for all. I can't believe I am going to say this, as I am one who believes in as little government as possible, but I believe Federal legislation codifying access to federal lands and preventing states from making laws interfering with that access. The idea that corner crossing as was executed in the case at hand in anyway LEGITIMATELY "injures" the land owner is outrageous. I do not believe there will EVER be a widespread compromise as landowners who want to restrict this access have too much to lose (both monetarily and privilege of use wise) and will simply not yield unless forced. PR funds should be used to finance associated costs. Additionally, any landowner who grazes livestock on public land at the ridiculously low rates being charged should be required to provide easements through any their property that restricts access to public land. Greed is the only real opponent of something like this.

Been talking to the wild horse advocates?

 

[Bob-WY]

The problem is many of the solutions SHOULD have been done when the problem was created, now it's to late.

Look at land value alone. Some of the private land is worth WAY MORE since it landlocks public, essentially getting exclusive access. If that changes you basically are dropping the value of that private land.

There's no easy answer. I don't buy for a second the "harm" aspect, it doesn't exist, but by saying corner cross, suddenly across the board is legal, or right of ways ahve to exist, you are decreasing the market value of the private land.

 

[SFC B]

Been talking to the wild horse advocates?

How so? The per unit price paid to graze is laughably low. Combine that with those same folks being able to exclude to public from accessing our common land is pretty offensive. I think easements in exchange for that benefit is still awfully generous to the ranchers.

 

[nhenry]

This whole issue is pretty asinine to me. It raises my blood pressure

 

[SFC B]

You would have to deal with competing state statutes and relative constitutional issues via the 10th amendment (and possibly the 4th).

Better option would be to provide incentives to landowners from the Federal Gov't to open landlocked parcels of public land in the form of lease pricing (increase the bare minimum to reflect closer to state lands, with a sliding scale for grazers when they open access up). Or legislation to purchase perpetual easements to landlocked public land, as well as continue to look towards consolidation through land trades.

The purchase of perpetual easements is probably the most likely to be effective. The monetary and exclusionary incentives these landowners have in the current situation make it highly unlikely.

Where any claims of 10th Amendment coverage for landowners would fail would be where any state laws infringe upon federal property and access to it. State laws that would preclude access to federal lands if federal legislation established it would fail due to the supremacy clause.

 

[SFC B]

The problem is many of the solutions SHOULD have been done when the problem was created, now it's to late.

Look at land value alone. Some of the private land is worth WAY MORE since it landlocks public, essentially getting exclusive access. If that changes you basically are dropping the value of that private land.

There's no easy answer. I don't buy for a second the "harm" aspect, it doesn't exist, but by saying corner cross, suddenly across the board is legal, or right of ways ahve to exist, you are decreasing the market value of the private land.

Any perceived or actual increased value in the private land due to it landlocking federal land was NEVER a legitimate claim and that "value" to both the sellers and buyers was not something that they had any right to rely on. A court would never uphold folks benefiting from what is in essence a "bad act". While there is some legitimate value to the access to public land from one's own land, precluding others from accessing public land is a horrible concept at it's core and contrary to public policy.

 

[dirtclod Az.]

As the corner crossing case currently at hand goes forward and we contemplate the outcome I think that there is really only one way to settle the question once and for all. I can't believe I am going to say this, as I am one who believes in as little government as possible, but I believe Federal legislation codifying access to federal lands and preventing states from making laws interfering with that access. The idea that corner crossing as was executed in the case at hand in anyway LEGITIMATELY "injures" the land owner is outrageous. I do not believe there will EVER be a widespread compromise as landowners who want to restrict this access have too much to lose (both monetarily and privilege of use wise) and will simply not yield unless forced. PR funds should be used to finance associated costs. Additionally, any landowner who grazes livestock on public land at the ridiculously low rates being charged should be required to provide easements through any their property that restricts access to public land. Greed is the only real opponent of something like this.

In Az. if there is a fence we cross it, a gate we open it. And close it.
No B.S.! we share and share alike...

 

[Zach]

How so? The per unit price paid to graze is laughably low. Combine that with those same folks being able to exclude to public from accessing our common land is pretty offensive. I think easements in exchange for that benefit is still awfully generous to the ranchers.

The HA's also use the welfare rancher argument too but for a different cause. How many ranchers, outside of Bundy, do you know about or how many have you had conversations with? I can only talk about those I've had conversations with, but they put more into the land than just their grazing fee, which benefits more than just their livestock.


Granted, corner crossing needs to be resolved, but your issue is a legislative one, not a rancher one IMO.

Waiting for the crowd to burn me at the stake...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Waiting for the crowd to burn me at the stake...

That's only if you float like a duck, wood or very small rocks.

I agree with you. Grazing leases have more value than just the aum cost.

 

[220yotekiller]

How so? The per unit price paid to graze is laughably low. Combine that with those same folks being able to exclude to public from accessing our common land is pretty offensive. I think easements in exchange for that benefit is still awfully generous to the ranchers.

Hardly, ranchers put far more into the land than they take: water projects, burns/brush removal, maintaining road costs come directly out of their pockets. I believe the solution is to try and work with the ranchers rather than fight them, my personal belief is that we should be able to corner cross and I think that Ben Lamb had it right, if you make it more economical for the rancher he will open up access. One problem that I see is that the game now has such value that the outfitters are controlling for more than they should.

 

[SFC B]

Hardly, ranchers put far more into the land than they take: water projects, burns/brush removal, maintaining road costs come directly out of their pockets. I believe the solution is to try and work with the ranchers rather than fight them, my personal belief is that we should be able to corner cross and I think that Ben Lamb had it right, if you make it more economical for the rancher he will open up access. One problem that I see is that the game now has such value that the outfitters are controlling for more than they should.

In the PUBLIC area I hunt per unit cost is +-$23 a MONTH per head.....the only "improvement" they have done is run MILES of fence through otherwise wilderness areas (BTW, also being able to do that using atv's in wilderness roadless areas) which are nothing but obstacles and dangers to wildlife, causing huge beat down cattle trails throughout the grazing allotments along with what amount to roads along the fences, AND to top it off run outfitting businesses that makes several hundred thousand dollars PER RANCH each year with tags guaranteed to them by CPW. There is such a HUGE monetary incentive to not cooperate (at least in CO) there is no way public funds can compete on a "cooperative" basis. To take some of the value to them off of wildlife you would have to stop selling access to public lands for the outfitters coming off of adjoining private, stop giving preference for tags in anyway- draw just like everyone else, ......it is a complicated equation but currently ranchers have WAY too much power in it. Easements to public would not effect the usage of their private nearly at all and I think most folks would be fine with a reasonable amount for the tiny bit of land needed along with such things as cattle guards when necessary. The solutions aren't really difficult, except for ANY large scale cooperation from landowners.

 

[SFC B]

The HA's also use the welfare rancher argument too but for a different cause. How many ranchers, outside of Bundy, do you know about or how many have you had conversations with? I can only talk about those I've had conversations with, but they put more into the land than just their grazing fee, which benefits more than just their livestock.


Granted, corner crossing needs to be resolved, but your issue is a legislative one, not a rancher one IMO.

Waiting for the crowd to burn me at the stake...

The area I hunt here in CO (8 seasons so far) is public with private on 3 sides. There are 2 large ranches that abut public and my interactions with them as well as 3 different ranches enrolled in ranching for wildlife are what I have direct knowledge about. On the public we hunt the only thing that could remotely be construed as positive to wildlife would be the odd mineral blocks left about. There are zero improvements that have been made beneficial to wildlife (see the response to 220's post about the negatives). On top of that, in those 8 seasons the adjoining ranches have been caught herding elk twice and one has run hundreds of head of cattle off of their land and through a couple of miles of prime hunting land AND camps during 2nd rifle season then back onto their land twice with ZERO consequences (had video of both instances that were submitted). Both of them are also enrolled in RFW and have lost ZERO of their guaranteed tags. Ranches enrolled in RFW are given such leeway in how they "allow" access (both through seasons and actual restrictions on portions of the ranch) as compare to the tags they are given is pretty outrageous. This is one of the ranches at $7600 a hunt for 2 to 1 https://bullbasin.com/elk-sunnyside ......and they got 78 GUARANTEED elk tags last year alone(not to mention deer tags). Legislation IS the answer.....believing that ranchers will some how be altruistic enough to give access while making the outfitted hunts less valuable through loss of exclusivity is naïve I would argue. Currently public lands are basically being held hostage.

 

[Nemont]

How so? The per unit price paid to graze is laughably low. Combine that with those same folks being able to exclude to public from accessing our common land is pretty offensive. I think easements in exchange for that benefit is still awfully generous to the ranchers.

While I agree the AUM price is way to low, I will never be in favor in any way shape or form of forcing access through private property. Property rights are to be taken seriously.

Nemont

 

[SFC B]

While I agree the AUM price is way to low, I will never be in favor in any way shape or form of forcing access through private property. Property rights are to be taken seriously.

Nemont

If you look at the huge amount of private land that has actually been taken out of public necessity (think about every major road project just to begin with) through imminent domain or similar proceeding, doing the same for the relatively small amount of property needed for easements I think it is a good solution. Property rights, like ALL of our rights, exist only to the extend to where they interfere directly with others. These landowners, in opposing public access, come to the table with unclean hands to begin with. Creating an imposition (a COMPENSATED imposition at that) upon them is comparatively miniscule to the harm(lack of access and use) they wish the visit upon the public.

 

[Nemont]

Well, I would suggest you take a look at what it would cost in just litigation costs to attempt to open access using eminent domain. Each and every land owner can object to the proceeding of eminent domain based on that in each case can be argued as to whether the compensation is "Just".

Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Also in Montana, (and I can look at other state Constitutions if I need to,) the State Constitution makes it clear who pays when the property owner prevails.

Eminent domain is addressed in the Montana Constitution. Article II, section 29, of the Montana Constitution states that: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation to the full extent of the loss having been first made to or paid into the court for the owner. In the event of litigation, just compensation shall include necessary expenses of litigation to be awarded by the court when the private property owner prevails."

It isn't like hunting access is anything like a court house, Highway, bridge, railroad, dam or anything that approaches a "Public good" or even benefits a majority of the public, therefore it is likely that most of those cases would be found in favor of the property owner.

There are more manageable, affordable and fair to both sides ways of getting more access to more public land for hunters.

But carry on.

Nemont

 

[SFC B]

Well, I would suggest you take a look at what it would cost in just litigation costs to attempt to open access using eminent domain. Each and every land owner can object to the proceeding of eminent domain based on that in each case can be argued as to whether the compensation is "Just".


Also in Montana, (and I can look at other state Constitutions if I need to,) the State Constitution makes it clear who pays when the property owner prevails.




It isn't like hunting access is anything like a court house, Highway, bridge, railroad, dam or anything that approaches a "Public good" or even benefits a majority of the public, therefore it is likely that most of those cases would be found in favor of the property owner.

There are more manageable, affordable and fair to both sides ways of getting more access to more public land for hunters.

But carry on.

Nemont

I think for a little more illustration about what is possible, and truly appears to be reasonably possible (pay particular attention to the power that already exists for the BLM specifically), you should listen to the 2nd part of Randy's recent series and a couple of professionals who have done extensive research into the issues and lay them out very well. Increased access to public lands (which is in no way limited to hunting) literally benefits every single American through opportunity. As for the state constitutions, these actions would take place on a federal level.

I would be VERY interested to hear about the "affordable and fair" ways we could get large landowners, ESPECIALLY those like the Wyoming non-resident deep pocket, who currently have illegitimate control of and make huge sums of money (in many cases) off of public land to even come to the table. Look at the instant case.....this is a landowner who has absolutely ZERO claim to damages in any sense of the word and yet here we stand. If landowner had any interest in doing what was fair they would engage, like was illustrated by the attorneys, into negotiations for easements which they would have a say into limitations that would be reasonable compromises ( ie no motorized traffic, confined size of easements etc)........how many of THOSE are happening?

 

[Hunting Wife]

Any type of eminent domain action to force access is exactly the type of “government overreach” that fuels the privatization/ state management crowd. You cannot go about it that way and expect a good outcome for public lands. It has to be collaborative if there’s any chance of long-term success. And private property rights are very much in the state domain. The feds can’t just roll up and take land, despite what people like to think.

Landowners are no more beholden to do what is “fair” than anyone else in the world. Life isn’t fair. It doesn’t mean going scorched earth to get what we want is justified. That typically backfires in an equally scorched earth fashion in my experience.

Access easements and agreements are happening all the time, but when you’ve got limited staffing and budget to do the work, you have to be strategic about it. Plus those types of agreements don’t happen without building relationships and trust with private landowners, and that takes time and significant effort. You can’t just expect to snap your fingers and have access to every landlocked 40 overnight.
It took a very long and convoluted path to get where we are, and it’s likely going to take a very long and convoluted path to get to the solution(s).

Just my .02.

 

[one ate E grain]

I have to agree SFC B, Public land belongs to the public. It might take a while, but I really don't care whose fee fees get hurt.

Carrots and sticks. Landowner works to give access, the feds are nice, they fight it and there are severe penalties for trespassing on that portion of Public land, don't allow the landowner to corner cross, or toss him in the hoosegow when he does, and take his land for fines. investigations by the IRS, heck just black sight the SOB.

Anything less than public lands for the public, and the landowner gets hammered. Oh, it's worth less money? Too bad, so was the land my folks had when they took it for a dam. So was that lease Bundy had when they took it for some turtles. (and condos and shopping malls in Vegas)