List of "Common Sense" Legal/Regulatory Changes to Improve Public Land Access

[VikingsGuy]

Each of these, in my opinion, fully respects private property rights, while limiting an improper expansion of those rights onto public land via legal hair splitting in favor of land owners at the expense of the public. While I list these as "common sense" and view them as simple straight forward "tweaks", I understand that there are incumbent local voices who will fight each of these to the death. I also understand the Fed gov. as little interest in this topic. As such, my hopes are low that any of these occur, but next time my dues are up for BHA and RMEF I will ask if these are on their radar. (not as an all or nothing litmus test - just as a little encouragement).

• All 50 states should require intent (or at least reckless disregard) for charges of criminal trespass, and exempt unintended civil trespass and hunting trespass where the individual was using GPS/maps with the intention not to trespass.
  
  
• All 50 states should punish improper posting of public land as private with the same effort that it does its trespass laws.
  
  
• All 50 states should make it clear that non-destructive pedestrian corner-crossing is not trespass (of any form).
  
  
• The Fed should make it clear that non-destructive pedestrian corner-crossing into or out of federal lands is not subject to state trespass laws.
  
  
• The BLM should allow re-routing of existing 2 tracks (or development of new ones) for the sole purpose of avoiding private land.
  
  
• The BLM, Park Service, USF&G & Forestry Services should proactively identify and protect historical access easements.
  
  
• The BLM, BLM, Park Service, USF&G & Forestry Services should proactively seek access easements to any "locked" public land over 2500 acres (4 sections/ 4 sqmi), using eminent domain if necessary.
  
  
• The Fed should make it illegal to impose differential regulations (excluding general fees and tag #s) upon non-resident and resident hunters on federal land (an example is outfitter requirement to access federal wilderness area only for non-residents).

So, what say you, HT?

 

[Irrelevant]

2. should be a felony.
3. Not actually sure I support this, I think it would be a good way to really piss a lot of people off and turn them into adversaries.
4. How is that different than 3?

I would add that all leased access to landlocked public lands for, say grazing access, must include public access easements for the same duration. If a rancher can legally access the land for grazing then the public should be able to legally access it for recreation.

 

[bts09]

• All 50 states should punish improper posting of public land as private with the same effort that it does its trespass laws.

• The BLM, BLM, Park Service, USF&G & Forestry Services should proactively seek access easements to any "locked" public land over 2500 acres (4 sections/ 4 sqmi), using eminent domain if necessary.

So, what say you, HT?

These are the two I would probably most like to see. Hard enough finding legal access in many places without folks coming along and treating BLM/State land like it's theirs. Would like to know a little more of the history of how large parcels got landlocked--was it a deliberate attempt to landlock by someone working in conjunction with an agency, did the agency just not care, or was someone asleep at the wheel? Those answers might impact how strongly a solution should be sought...

 

[VikingsGuy]

4. How is that different than 3?
[/QUOTE]

Just that could be down at federal level vs state, but similar issue.

I would add that all leased access to landlocked public lands for, say grazing access, must include public access easements for the same duration. If a rancher can legally access the land for grazing then the public should be able to legally access it for recreation.

Good one - I should have included that.

 

[BigHornRam]

These are the two I would probably most like to see. Hard enough finding legal access in many places without folks coming along and treating BLM/State land like it's theirs. Would like to know a little more of the history of how large parcels got landlocked--was it a deliberate attempt to landlock by someone working in conjunction with an agency, did the agency just not care, or was someone asleep at the wheel? Those answers might impact how strongly a solution should be sought...

Railroad checker board land grants are the source of most all the access issues in the west.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)#Railroad_grants

I would rather spend my time working with groups like Trust For Public Lands or RMEF resolving these issues. They are getting results, not making wish lists of what should be done.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Headed to a meeting and will respond in detail later, but a fair number of the lower ideas are already in play or the authority exists to do so.

Good thread.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Railroad checker board land grants are the source of most all the access issues in the west.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)#Railroad_grants

I would rather spend my time working with groups like Trust For Public Lands or RMEF resolving these issues. They are getting results, not making wish lists of what should be done.

I think if landowners see a push to adopt new corner crossing rules, and see the BLM and USFS given new powers to forcibly create easements they will be more likely to play ball with the RMEF and TFPL. The old carrot and stick approach.

 

[BigHornRam]

I think if landowners see a push to adopt new corner crossing rules, and see the BLM and USFS given new powers to forcibly create easements they will be more likely to play ball with the RMEF and TFPL. The old carrot and stick approach.

Strongly disagree.

 

[Pucky Freak]

All States quit allowing any road maintenance to be turned over to private in cases where it restricts access to public land, while also reclaiming maintenance of roads via eminent domain to reestablish public access. Don't care who this may piss off

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Strongly disagree.

Please elaborate.

 

[BigHornRam]

Please elaborate.

Reread your post and think about it a little.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Reread your post and think about it a little.

If I owned a ranch and was able to restrict access to 2000 acres of BLM, and hunted it like it was my property I would probably want to keep it. If I new that in the coming years there might be legislation that allowed the BLM to mandate that my road be open to the public, I might preemptively work with RMEF to monetize my situation as I was probably going to lose that private access to the BLM anyway. I'm assuming RMEF would pay more for an easement to my road then the US gov.

What am I missing?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Railroad checker board land grants are the source of most all the access issues in the west.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)#Railroad_grants

I would rather spend my time working with groups like Trust For Public Lands or RMEF resolving these issues. They are getting results, not making wish lists of what should be done.

How do you know what you’re working on if you don’t discuss? But yes, action is good.

 

[BigHornRam]

Who is going to support this potential legislation? Certainly not TPL or RMEF.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

How do you know what you’re working on if you don’t discuss? But yes, action is good.

Exactly, I look at the forum as a good way to test out ideas and have holes shot in them before I write letters or show up at public meetings.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Who is going to support this potential legislation? Certainly not TPL or RMEF.

The 349 million Americans who are not western ranchers?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Who is going to support this potential legislation? Certainly not TPL or RMEF.

I think that landlocked public lands are becoming more known outside of the hunting community. As western states become more crowded I think things are going to change.

I also think we are naive if we think that hunters are going to have huge blocks of newly opened BLM to ourselves, we will likely be sharing them with a network of biking trails or whatever.

 

[BigHornRam]

The 349 million Americans who are not western ranchers?

Good luck corralling that mob into doing something you want done.

I'm sticking with knowledgeable and informed groups like RMEF and TPL to get things done.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Who is going to support this potential legislation? Certainly not TPL or RMEF.

Why would RMEF not support a few of these?

 

[Straight Arrow]

I think that landlocked public lands are becoming more known outside of the hunting community. As western states become more crowded I think things are going to change.

I also think we are naive if we think that hunters are going to have huge blocks of newly opened BLM to ourselves, we will likely be sharing them with a network of biking trails or whatever.

The current attitude / policy toward mixed use of BLM leads me to believe the greatest intent with opening access to those lands would relate to oil, gas, mineral and other resource extraction. That would gain the political favor ... and the biking support to use those byways.