BigHornRam
Well-known member
Ask them, then post up what you've learned.
List of "Common Sense" Legal/Regulatory Changes to Improve Public Land Access
- Thread starter VikingsGuy
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Very helpful - but not surprised.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Better way to learn then by tossing out half baked ideas on the internet and then ignoring any critical comments of your half baked ideas.
WyLionHunter
New member
I support this 100%
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I believe his intent was for us to help him bake them...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I rest my case VG.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
That hurts.I rest my case VG.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Each of these bullets is either already the law of the land in multiple states, up for public discussion by others or fairly routine government treatment of the land so while I know some will disagree with idea x or y, none are “half-baked.
1 & 2 are somewhat achievable in blue states where landowners don't have undue influence on the legislative process. What we've seen in many western states, especially those that the Wilk's have holdings in, is the reverse, where attempts to eliminate any landowner requirement to properly post are either passing or become major fights, while other bills are designed to eliminate the tools in place to decide what is or isn't a public road. Similarly, we've seen attempts in WY, ID & MT to make unintentional trespass a criminal violation, and in some instances, a felony.
On corner-crossing, it's a great issue to whip up the masses, and yes, it would open up millions of landlocked, checkerboard public land, but it faces some serious constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved, making any passage of corner-crossing legislaton difficult at best.
Lastly, a strategy that relies on all 50 states to implement laws like this is a massive undertaking that would cost 10's of millions of dollars in terms of grassroots, grasstops & lobbying efforts. THen, you still have to battle your opponents who often times carry much more influence than sportsmen in state legislatures (large ag groups, county commissions, etc).
What we've seen work at the state level is voluntary access programs that reward landowners for their generosity while ensuring public access either perpetually in the case of easements, or on short term easements like HMA/Block Management/Walk In Access. Other states are seeing some success by offering tags & permits that are transferable, which is counter to the ethos of many conservation minded hunters, and flies against the NAM's prohibition on the commerce of wildlife.
So I think rather than a hammer of corner-crossing & forced compliance with draconian statutes, a better solution at the state level is to work to incentivize access to both landlocked public as well as private land.
See above on corner crossing. I think at the federal level, even if you could get it done, it would be challenged under the 10th amendment and they may have a case to stand on since trespass law is commonly a state issue and not a federal one.
The BLM can already allow for re-routing (So can the FS - see the thread on the Crazies). This costs man-hours and money to do so, and at current funding levels, it is tough to get this going on a large scale. Some small scale work is being done, and that should be encouraged.
Identifying historical access easements - I think a lot more work could be done on this, as many county roads, State Trust roads, FS, BLM, etc roads are not well inventoried. A significant step forward would be to inventory those roads, make them subject to travel planning & provide better solutions for states, counties & the fed to work together to better identify routes that should be left open. We tried this in the 2019 Legislature, but Rep. Kerry White shot it down in his committee after we agreed to all of his amendments.
The Land & Water Conservation fund is a primary funding source for small fee title purchases that can open up many acres of landlocked public land. Currently, RMEF, TPL, etc are leveraging their funds with LWCF to achieve this goal, and they're doing really good work. Full funding for LWCF would be the best option to see more of this work done.
Your final solution would mean more federal control over hunting & angling regulations than currently exists, and it would take away the right of the state to license as they see fit. I'm not sure we want to go down that road, especially when it's President Ocasio-Cortez & a Vegan congress.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Well RMEF has been wildly successful using other methods and has managed to maintain decent PR with multiple stakeholders while doing so. I think those are 2 good reasons why they don't and won't adopt some of these other tactics strategies
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
On a practical level it makes sense to continue with more of the same. On an ideal level landowners who are granted local government permission to lock up public are nothing more than rogue roadblocks either refusing traffic or charging a poll to a public resource. I agree that it would take a very liberal socialist change in Washington to ever get this dynamic changed at federal
Another thing to consider is land-banking like MT does with it's state lands. The authority at the federal level exists under FLPMA to do this. You essentially sell some landlocked land and use the proceeds to purchase land that opens up more public, or you replace the acreage with lands that are accessible.
one ate E grain
Active member
All public lands must have access. All. Even an acre. If landowners don't want to deal with people traipsing across their land, sell, or if the piece is small enough and FS/BLM wants to sell... Frankly the US is long overdue for land reform, just like in banana republics where a tiny percent of people own everything. I can see real ranches having big acreage but not hobbyists like High Lonesome or similar. Bust em up. Tax big land parcels to pay off the debt. Any landlocked public should at the least be off limits to adjoining landowners who do not allow public access. I think we are long overdue for pitchforks. All this talk of "oh jee we don't want to anger them" heck they should be happy the mob doesn't just take all their stuff. Put the fear of god in them and see what they come up with.
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Show up on my property with pitchforks and try to take my stuff and I'll shoot you in the balls.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Ben, I concede you are much more involved and informed on this topic than most/I, but I do not entirely agree with all your points.
I should have chosen my words more carefully. I was not calling for orchestrated action across 50 states at once, I was just suggesting these principles are more universal than just WY & MT hunting access. In fact, many states are already here, so it also referenced a more uniform approach to trespass along the more public friendly lines.
I like programs like these to gain access to a property owner's land - but what I am addressing is their "improper" stranglehold on the public's land. It really is two different issues - each important, but not the same. I should not have to pay you off to allow me to board a city bus.
I would not characterize the adoption of trespass rules already in existence in many states (and de facto in many counties in WY for that matter) as "draconian".
The federal government's right to set rules of access onto federal land is already well settled - no 10th amendment issue here. At best it is a "takings" issue, but one that has the feds winning in my opinion.
Why does it cost money for the BLM to announce that it is no longer a violation for a vehicle to leave a current two-track for the sole purpose of avoiding private land (and so long as it is done using the shortest reasonable path to do so)? That's all they would need to do - hunters would take care of the rest for free. Not every solution needs government funding and employee involvement.
Understood. Public land aside for a moment, I hate the movement over the last 40 years towards strict liability in the majority of legal areas - in the long term it is bad government policy to criminalize the well meaning, but our "pitchfork nation" demands "justice" on every little thing.
What constitutional issues? I am not aware of any constitutional commandments defining the nature of the rights along property lines. It is a relic of overly formalistic ancient common law that protected the kings lands at all costs/absurdity. It can be fixed by the courts or the legislature with the swipe of a pen. Many other areas of law honor the principle of "de minimus" - modern real property law should as well. Heck, in some states every section line was reserved as a public easement.
I should have chosen my words more carefully. I was not calling for orchestrated action across 50 states at once, I was just suggesting these principles are more universal than just WY & MT hunting access. In fact, many states are already here, so it also referenced a more uniform approach to trespass along the more public friendly lines.
I like programs like these to gain access to a property owner's land - but what I am addressing is their "improper" stranglehold on the public's land. It really is two different issues - each important, but not the same. I should not have to pay you off to allow me to board a city bus.
I would not characterize the adoption of trespass rules already in existence in many states (and de facto in many counties in WY for that matter) as "draconian".
The federal government's right to set rules of access onto federal land is already well settled - no 10th amendment issue here. At best it is a "takings" issue, but one that has the feds winning in my opinion.
Why does it cost money for the BLM to announce that it is no longer a violation for a vehicle to leave a current two-track for the sole purpose of avoiding private land (and so long as it is done using the shortest reasonable path to do so)? That's all they would need to do - hunters would take care of the rest for free. Not every solution needs government funding and employee involvement.
We are so far down this slope that it just isn't slippery anymore. There is almost no niche of life too small to avoid fed involvement, so I would take my chances. Plus if Pres OC wants it done, our deference today will mean nothing to her tomorrow.
elkduds
Well-known member
Many landowners understood they were buying exclusive access to public lands locked away behind private property they purchased, and paid more for their private property because of that. They will view increasing legal access to blocked public land as an illegal taking, reducing the value of their real estate, and oppose it.
The obvious flaw in their logic is that those public lands have long been illegally withheld from us, the rightful owners. Those public lands were never theirs to begin with. As aggrieved landowners, not only do we have a legal right to access our public lands; we should be compensated for the decades of value we have lost by this illegal withholding, by those same landowners.
The obvious flaw in their logic is that those public lands have long been illegally withheld from us, the rightful owners. Those public lands were never theirs to begin with. As aggrieved landowners, not only do we have a legal right to access our public lands; we should be compensated for the decades of value we have lost by this illegal withholding, by those same landowners.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This has already been litigated. In a “takings” situation the private land owner gets no financial benefit from proximity to public land when it is the public land owner that is doing the “taking”. The question is not “how valuable is a 1 mile easement into world class elk country, it is “what is the value of an easement in the middle of nowhere. That is why folks try so hard to keep the government out of this issue. Way better to extract a King’s ransom from a hunter non-profit and then act like you are doing us all a favor.
And to be clear. I am an owner of land that benefits greatly from locked adjacent state land - but doesn’t make it right, nor will I cry if the state ever does something about it.
elkduds
Well-known member
If I understand your question, the blocked public land was never privately held. The private property started as public land, which the gov't sold or granted to ranchers, timber developers, railroads, homesteaders, developers.
Similar threads
