Garfield County sues High Lonesome Ranch over road access

[beginnerhunter]

How do these things equate? There are county roads through private land all over, highways, railroads, powerlines, imminent domain blah blah, and the closest thing to either of those countries' systems is sitting in the ....casa blanca. I would say the real crime is stealing public access in the name of private business.

There's an old saying about highways: The only thing worse than the government taking your property is the government NOT taking your property.

 

[MTGomer]

How do these things equate? There are county roads through private land all over, highways, railroads, powerlines, imminent domain blah blah, and the closest thing to either of those countries' systems is sitting in the ....casa blanca. I would say the real crime is stealing public access in the name of private business.

In most of these cases. Nobody stole public access. The government land locked itself when it issued land patents.

I’m not talking about when these pricks gate a road that is public and it forces the publ to consume time and resources to reopen it, I’m just talking about land that has no access and never has.

If I sell you a piece of land and land lock my other parcel, my great great great grandkids don’t get to come whining to yours’ about how greedy they are.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

If I sell you a piece of land and land lock my other parcel, my great great great grandkids don’t get to come whining to yours’ about how greedy they are.

Evidently they do, that's the American way... For example, we are still being held accountable for slavery and other American atrocities in the past. Just a thought.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In most of these cases. Nobody stole public access. The government land locked itself when it issued land patents.

I’m not talking about when these pricks gate a road that is public and it forces the public to consume time and resources to reopen it, I’m just talking about land that has no access and never has.

If I sell you a piece of land and land lock my other parcel, my great great great grandkids don’t get to come whining to yours’ about how greedy they are.

Agree, the government landlocked itself... but your second argument. If I sell you a piece of land that is landlocked your great great grandkids could likely sue and get an easement of necessity or the like... in many states it's actually illegal to sell landlocked parcels.

 

[MTGomer]

Agree, the government landlocked itself... but your second argument. If I sell you a piece of land that is landlocked your great great grandkids could likely sue and get an easement of necessity or the like... in many states it's actually illegal to sell landlocked parcels.

And it should be. It’s been litigated endlessly and time and time again courts have ruled very unfavorably towards attempts at land locking
But many things governing us do not apply to the sovereign state. For example you can’t claim adverse possession against the government.
The government chose to land lock itself, voluntarily, before state laws were established against the practice - Laws that probably wouldn’t and don’t apply to the US government anyway.

They’re all dead, so we can’t ask them, but I wonder if this was done intentionally or they were just not thinking long term.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And it should be. It’s been litigated endlessly and time and time again courts have ruled very unfavorably towards attempts at land locking
But many things governing us do not apply to the sovereign state. For example you can’t claim adverse possession against the government.
The government chose to land lock itself, voluntarily, before state laws were established against the practice - Laws that probably wouldn’t and don’t apply to the US government anyway.

They’re all dead, so we can’t ask them, but I wonder if this was done intentionally or they were just not thinking long term.

You can't claim adverse possession against the government, because technically you own the land in common with the rest of US citizens and therefore you would be claiming adverse possession against yourself.

I'm not in favor of the state or federal government building a road across someone's private property to provide an access public lands, but the reality is that virtually all public lands have been mined/grazed or otherwise used by someone at some point. I honestly can't think of a single reasonable sized parcel of public land (say 1280 acres) that doesn't have an existing trail or road into it. We are really just talking about letting the public use established roads.

If I sell you a landlocked piece of land and you have to sue to force me to give you an easement to build a road... that's a lengthy battle. If I sell you a piece of land and then say you don't have access to the portion of the existing drive way that goes across my land... that's an immediate grant.


I mean come on...

 

[MTGomer]

You can't claim adverse possession against the government, because technically you own the land in common with the rest of US citizens and therefore you would be claiming adverse possession against yourself.

I'm not in favor of the state or federal government building a road across someone's private property to provide an access public lands, but the reality is that virtually all public lands have been mined/grazed or otherwise used by someone at some point. I honestly can't think of a single reasonable sized parcel of public land (say 1280 acres) that doesn't have an existing trail or road into it. We are really just talking about letting the public use established roads.

If I sell you a landlocked piece of land and you have to sue to force me to give you an easement to build a road... that's a lengthy battle. If I sell you a piece of land and then say you don't have access to the portion of the existing drive way that goes across my land... that's an immediate grant.


I mean come on...
View attachment 125575

Yes, I’m not defending the high lonesome ranch.
Just pushing back on the incorrect but common narrative on here and other hunting forums that every land locked piece of property is due to some weasely action of a land owner, when in many cases, we (USA) just didn’t prove ourselves with access.

I think VikingsGuy is on to something in the other thread similar to this one (about tressspasser hunts), where he points out all the ways that we could gain access if we and our government had the will to do it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yes, I’m not defending the high lonesome ranch.
Just pushing back on the incorrect but common narrative on here and other hunting forums that every land locked piece of property is due to some weasely action of a land owner, when in many cases, we (USA) just didn’t prove ourselves with access.

I think VikingsGuy is on to something in the other thread similar to this one (about tressspasser hunts), where he points out all the ways that we could gain access if we and our government had the will to do it.

Absolutely, I think less then 1% of these issues are weaselly landowner problems. Poor planning 100-150 years ago led to these problems and we need to work on fair strategies to fix them.


This crap though... huge piece of public land essentially land locked, where the "public" portion of the road ends and is gated 50 yards (pin) from a very reasonable access point, is rampant throughout the west.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

You can't claim adverse possession against the government

You need to consult your attorney before you make claims like this.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You need to consult your attorney before you make claims like this.

Counsel should recognize the claim was made by Mr. Gomer and we were just assuming his argument to be true in our hypothetical...

 

[Deleted member 39961]

Counsel should recognize the claim was made by Mr. Gomer and we were just assuming his argument to be true in our hypothetical...

because technically you own the land in common with the rest of US citizens and therefore you would be claiming adverse possession against yourself.

So, you don't technically own land in common with the rest of US citizens or was that another "assumption" to support the first "assumption?" Sorry, new to the HT lexicon of legal terminology.

 

[MTGomer]

Down the rabbit hole boys;

POB Online Discontinued | BNP Media

www.pobonline.com

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry, new to the HT lexicon of legal terminology.

Yeah so unlike rokslide, on HT if you take issue with a statement you just provide the correct information and a citation if possible. ^

or a snarky .gif

 

[beginnerhunter]

Absolutely, I think less then 1% of these issues are weaselly landowner problems. Poor planning 100-150 years ago led to these problems and we need to work on fair strategies to fix them.


This crap though... huge piece of public land essentially land locked, where the "public" portion of the road ends and is gated 50 yards (pin) from a very reasonable access point, is rampant throughout the west.

View attachment 125586

Sounds pretty similar to the case here. It looks pretty clear they are trying to keep access to public land for themselves. The littering and trespassing complaints are red herrings.

Its not like I blame them either. I have a friend in my home state that bought land in order to have better access to some public ground. If the county decided the road going through his place was public he'd be livid. But if he bought it knowing there was public access at one time and might be access in the future then that's on him.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

Yeah so unlike rokslide, on HT if you take issue with a statement you just provide the correct information and a citation if possible. ^

or a snarky .gif

Shit, sorry. I just assumed that HT'ers would know the difference between an assumption and a legal statement.

Also, 28 U.S.C. 2409a is the rabbit hole you're looking for.

Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Shit, sorry. I just assumed that HT'ers would know the difference between an assumption and a legal statement.

That is a hell of an assumption.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

28 U.S. Code § 2409
Any civil action by any tenant in common or joint tenant owning an undivided interest in lands, where the United States is one of such tenants in common or joint tenants, against the United States alone or against the United States and any other of such owners, shall proceed, and be determined, in the same manner as would a similar action between private persons.
Whenever in such action the court orders a sale of the property or any part thereof the Attorney General may bid for the same in behalf of the United States. If the United States is the purchaser, the amount of the purchase money shall be paid from the Treasury upon a warrant drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury on the requisition of the Attorney General.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 972.)

 

[one ate E grain]

Anyone who says the government should take over private land/roads to provide access should try living somewhere that the government does whatever it wants...like Syria, or China...and let us know how they like it.

I've lived in China, and one more of the five remaining communist dictatorships. In my experience it's the wealthy who have the power to do as they please one needs to fear the most. When those with money can simply buy the government there isn't much you can do. I've seen mining and timber companies move villages hundreds of years old with populations in the hundreds without any sort of compensation whatsoever. Forced relocation, in trucks. Complain and they tell you to report to the police station. Rubber companies. It's true that private property owners have no rights when those rights conflict with the government, it's doubly true that the wealthy can do anything they well please. Is it capitalism when even the government is for sale?

Public lands are not if the public has no access to them.

 

[COEngineer]

That got really confused really fast. My remark about living in China or Syria was directed at the post that basically said, "It should be illegal for one person to own millions of acres and keep everyone else off his land." The problem with this argument is where do you draw the line. The guy living in a 400 sq ft apartment might think a 1 acre lot is too big of a parcel to keep the public out of. The guy that owns 10 acres might think the line should be 1,000 acres, and so on. Saying that no one should control "that much" land rings hollow for me and smacks of jealousy.

 

[Orion’s Breath]

New to Hunttalk but came across this thread and wanted to give you all heads-up - there's an item on the upcoming agenda for the Garfield County commissioners (https://garfield-county.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&event_id=1868) to discuss funding for this ongoing case involving CR 200.

Just emailed the commissioners to encourage them to continue to support this effort and thanking them for working to ensure public access to public lands. If anyone else is interested in this case you can message them on the Garfield County website: https://www.garfield-county.com/board-commissioners/