Land locked property

[1_pointer]

In regards to landlocked public land, here are a few points as I understand them:
1. The Federal Government has ZERO authority to make a private land owner allow public to traverse their property to get to federal land. IIRC, this was settled by the Supreme Court in a case brought by a singer in Idaho. So unless they allow you to cross their land, you're out of luck.
2. Corner hopping is a rule designated by the state. I think CO even published the UTMs of the corners for access. I am pretty sure that corner hopping is illegal in UT. Thus, no access unless there's a county/public road through the private land.

Miller- Thanks for keeping facts straight pertaining to public lands grazing. I have tried in the past to help your 'pupil' to no avail it seems.

As it stand now the ranchers get to lease it at a tax payer, subsidized rate and yet keep those self same tax payers from getting any use of it. That's just one instance of the Slimy politics mentioned above. The BLM could inact rules that disallowed the rancher's lease options unless he agreed to public access.

A holder of a federal grazing permit cannot keep anyone else from doing anything on that public land. Holding a grazing permit does not convey any right or ownership to the public land specified in that permit. I know of no way that the BLM could remain within their regulations and inact a rule that suspends cancels a grazing permit/lease for public access. They would be sued if a decision like that was issued and they would lose handily (See #1 above).

If you want to lease the property, anybody can lease the property. BLM and State leases are open to the public.

I do know that in some states that the state leases do go up for open bid. Yes, anyone that meets the requirements can hold a grazing permit (BLM). You can even in some cases hold the grazing permit without ever intended to use it or you can just make 'substantial' use of the permit and keep it. However, as miller brought up, the idea of preference is where many get lost. The owners of the permit actually just have the preference. Meaning that they have first chance to use the AUMs authorized by that permit. If they do not make full use of that permit, anyone can make application to use the rest given the same terms/conditions of the permit.

Shooter, how do you feel about competing with other ranchers that lease federal land for $1.35 a pr.? It's like me building houses and the competition gets there materials at a 1/10 of the price. I'd never be able to compete with that.

This is not an apples to apples comparison, IMO/E. In UT when private land is leased for grazing the landowner is responsible for the maintainence/construction of all the infrastructure. This is most often not the case on federal lands.

If you charge more for cows to graze on public land, the land generally won't get grazed...

WRONG.

If you don't do something to mitigate the grasses to an extent, fires rage over the ground, then people on this board complain about their best hunting spots getting burned over...

Often times wrong.

simple supply and demand, apparently this is what the market (according to your bosses) will bare when it comes to cost analysis, or they would be charging more...

Wrong. As others have tried to point out the grazing fee has nothing to do with supply and demand. The full formula for the calculation of a grazing fee can found at this link:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/43cfr4130.8-1.htm

 

[Meatatarian]

1 pointer- regarding #1, what do you and/or mtmiller know about the Unlawful Inclosure Act? Do you know for what purposes it applies? Has it been taken off the books? Thanks.

 

[1_pointer]

I hadn't heard of it, but in doing a bit of research found it! From what I found it made it illegal of fence of public domain lands for your sole use of those lands. From what I can find, that law no longer applies, due to the Taylor Grazing Act, which removed all lands from public domain and placed them in ownership of the federal government. If I'm mistaken on this I would like to hear the correct information.

 

[Meatatarian]

From what I can find, that law no longer applies, due to the Taylor Grazing Act, which removed all lands from public domain and placed them in ownership of the federal government. If I'm mistaken on this I would like to hear the correct information.

Search for the Taylor Lawrence case regarding Red Rim antelope. I believe that was part of his contention as well but I also think the SCOTUS said the UIA was still federal law. I really don't know if this Act amounts to a hill of beans from a recreational standpoint, but it is a rather interesting concept to ponder.

 

[1_pointer]

It appears that the UIA is still valid! Thanks for the info!!! It appears that it is fully legal to build a fence on BLM, if and only if it is approved by BLM and follows all laws/rules/specs etc as set forth by the BLM.

Also, in regards to #1 mentioned above, the Lawerence decision also states that the Federal Government DOES NOT retain easements through checkerboarded land that was dispersed to the railroads.

Here's a link to the decision for the Lawerence case:
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1988/sg880334.txt

 

[Meatatarian]

Here's another case to read up on: Camfield v. United States.

 

[1_pointer]

The Camfield case was mentioned in the brief as the basis for the other decision.

 

[Meatatarian]

Yes it's cited several times in the Lawrence case but the Camfield case explains much more how the UIA applies to enclosing public lands and the resultant exclusive use of those public lands. Some interesting passages in the Camfield case write-up. At least I think so. If you or anybody else is inclined to read more about it, here's a link:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/167/518/case.html

 

[Southwind]

So, I am just taking this all in but i do have one question or two.

1) If a piece of landlocked BLM or public is bid on and won for purposes of grazing and the successful bidder does not own and of the private land surrounding the landlocked property then how do they gain legal access?

2) Or, are the grazing rights only available to those who hold deed to the private ground around it?

By the way, here in Kansas we burn our prairie every year.

 

[sweetnectar]

BLM simply needs to do some land swapping and get these huge chunks of land usable to the public. Once again its our governments own fault. As much as I would love to blame the land owner I can't.

 

[mtmiller]

BLM simply needs to do some land swapping and get these huge chunks of land usable to the public.

Welcome sweetnaive. Do you have any experience on land exchanges or have you only traded monopoly property?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Welcome sweetnaive. Do you have any experience on land exchanges or have you only traded monopoly property?

I am sure he has vast experience, as on the Wolf thread he appears to have a biology degree from Bar Stool State.......

 

[sweetnectar]

JoseCuervo-I smile every time I see that picture.

 

[sweetnectar]

MTMiller-Seems how government is involved you don't have to have any experience. I'm sure it runs like a smooth oiled machine and that there are no laws that would make the process difficult in any way... Government created the problem in the first place and now we should fix it after we bail out a few more...

 

[noharleyyet]

JoseCuervo-I smile every time I see that picture.

Me too, by Gunner's own sanctimonious parameters, that pic is racist and patronizing.

I'm just sayin'....

 

[mtmiller]

Sweet, I am in Havre. Could you please educate me on how the gov't "created the problem" of land locked public parcels on the Hi-Line. Do you know how the Federal gov't aquired much of the land in northern MT?

 

[duckhead59]

Hi jose......I've enjoyed your comments since joining OYOA...but hey since the subjects out on the table...what's with the pic?

 

[Big Shooter]

Hi jose......I've enjoyed your comments since joining OYOA...but hey since the subjects out on the table...what's with the pic?

His significant other.........strictly speculation on my part.:hump:

 

[sweetnectar]

MtMiller-I'm not too sure but I'll take a try at it. A lot of these pieces of land were likely rough terrain that became non homesteaded. Some of these pieces could be related to homestead failures caused by drought. Then government gets its claws into these pieces and we pass laws that restrict the abilities of the managing agencies (like BLM) making it difficult for anything to be done with them like swapping them for accessable lands. So the public land ends up bennefiting the public very little. Then there are the state owned pieces like school sections etc. Am I close? Perhaps we can use some edumacating. Oh ya and Jose, being new to this website and all, I do love the picture. It got me more interested and keeps me smiling. I'm just thinking that someday when I'm out sneaking in the woods I'll see you dressed in that get up with a rifle or bow in your hands.

 

[Blue Yummies]

Wow, I think Jose doesnt need to use match.com