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

[Fremont15]

I’m sure happy to live and hunt in the great state of Wyoming where corner crossing isn’t illegal!

 

[BigHornRam]

Vikings Guy said......

"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."

I am not in favor of more 2 tracks on the BLM. Especially 2 tracks made by Bubba on a 4 wheeler. This idea isn't even quarter baked.

 

[grandejuan]

All of us have to be very judicious about using the term "Common Sense". It's been described as, "The facu!ty that tells us that the world is flat". It's the anti gun folks favorite term for new gun laws. It's right up there with "A good first step" to total gun confiscation. GJ

 

[VikingsGuy]

All of us have to be very judicious about using the term "Common Sense". It's been described as, "The facu!ty that tells us that the world is flat". It's the anti gun folks favorite term for new gun laws. It's right up there with "A good first step" to total gun confiscation. GJ

Yup - it’s why I put it in quotes.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Vikings Guy said......

"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."

I am not in favor of more 2 tracks on the BLM. Especially 2 tracks made by Bubba on a 4 wheeler. This idea isn't even quarter baked.

You must spend time on a lot nicer and more thoughtfully charted and maintained two tracks than the ones I have been on. The deer on our land in MN (without govt assistance) make better tracks than many of the ones I was on a few weeks ago in WY.

I agree any idea taken to an extreme is a bad idea - that is why it is a weak rhetorical tool.

But a less extreme approach such as distance limits, seasonal limits, duration limits could make it workable with minimal distruption. It is infuriating to see a 2 track running along and take a 800 yard deviation into a corner of private and the return back on to public and resume its path. That is pure gamesmanship by local landowner who is likely the leasee. I am surprised at how accepting of these tactics we DIY public land hunters seem to be.

 

[BigHornRam]

"You must spend time on a lot nicer and more thoughtfully charted and maintained two tracks than the ones I have been on. The deer on our land in MN (without govt assistance) make better tracks than many of the ones I was on a few weeks ago in WY."

I spend most all my hunting time in wilderness, roadless, or gated walk in areas. Areas like you describe don't appeal to me for some reason.

 

[VikingsGuy]

"You must spend time on a lot nicer and more thoughtfully charted and maintained two tracks than the ones I have been on. The deer on our land in MN (without govt assistance) make better tracks than many of the ones I was on a few weeks ago in WY."

I spend most all my hunting time in wilderness, roadless, or gated walk in areas. Areas like you describe don't appeal to me for some reason.

Sounds cool! Have done a lot of that in Canada for fishing/canoeing. Deep woods elk out west is on the to do list for me, but pronghorn will have to suffice for this season.

 

[antlerradar]

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...

This has a lot to do with the railroad land grants and the homestead act.
When the railroads first started to build rail lines to the west the Government incentiviced the building by giving the railroad companys every other section for in a wide swath next to the rail line. This resulted in the checker board pattern of land owner ship in much of the west.
The homesteaders would file on the most productive land that was available. This resulted in the most of the bottom land near creeks and rivers and the best of the uplands being claimed by homesteaders. When the homestead act was canceled in the 1930's most of the land that was left was the rough, rocky and waterless. This land is the BLM we have today. When the roads were built long ago access to public land was not a concern. Road were built where it was the easiest which for the most part was up the bottoms on private land. This left many of the public land parcels in the hills with out a public road.

 

[onpoint]

Discussions such as these illustrate the gulf that exists between those of us that live and hunt the west, vs. those that visit for a time(short/long, whatever) and go back home to wherever.
So often the discussion(s) lead down the path of westerners attempting to explain and justify our position(s) to those who, after or before another trip to the great-and-vast-blessed-with-public-lands country bring up these topics - from their point(s) of view. Seems the views of the two parties - those who live here and those who visit, are often divergent and colored by our LIFE'S experience.
I (for bigger reasons than just my little designs, as well a few very admittedly selfish reasons - as no doubt a Minnesota guy has very closely held selfish reasons for standing up for Minnesota issues * seldom seen on this website*) tend to believe those of us that live here have valuable insights.
Quite often those insights run up against wants, wishes, and mental wanderings of the visitors after they experience and digest a western hunting/fishing/etc experience.
I have read many valuable and sensible ideas and comments from those "visitors", no doubt. As well as some hair brained shit from 5'th generation "I'm a native"'s.
But seeing BHR's response -"I spend most all my hunting time in wilderness, roadless, or gated walk in areas. Areas like you describe don't appeal to me for some reason".
vs.
VG's response to it, sums it up, for me - "..............but pronghorn will have to suffice for this season".
Completely different life experience(s) attempting to address an issue from their POV. Interesting aside - note the lack of responses from many of the usual out spoken westerner's on here........

Just a view from a crappy messenger - feel free to shoot holes in the message

 

[VikingsGuy]

Discussions such as these illustrate the gulf that exists between those of us that live and hunt the west, vs. those that visit for a time(short/long, whatever) and go back home to wherever.
So often the discussion(s) lead down the path of westerners attempting to explain and justify our position(s) to those who, after or before another trip to the great-and-vast-blessed-with-public-lands country bring up these topics - from their point(s) of view. Seems the views of the two parties - those who live here and those who visit, are often divergent and colored by our LIFE'S experience.
I (for bigger reasons than just my little designs, as well a few very admittedly selfish reasons - as no doubt a Minnesota guy has very closely held selfish reasons for standing up for Minnesota issues * seldom seen on this website*) tend to believe those of us that live here have valuable insights.
Quite often those insights run up against wants, wishes, and mental wanderings of the visitors after they experience and digest a western hunting/fishing/etc experience.
I have read many valuable and sensible ideas and comments from those "visitors", no doubt. As well as some hair brained shit from 5'th generation "I'm a native"'s.
But seeing BHR's response -"I spend most all my hunting time in wilderness, roadless, or gated walk in areas. Areas like you describe don't appeal to me for some reason".
vs.
VG's response to it, sums it up, for me - "..............but pronghorn will have to suffice for this season".
Completely different life experience(s) attempting to address an issue from their POV. Interesting aside - note the lack of responses from many of the usual out spoken westerner's on here........

Just a view from a crappy messenger - feel free to shoot holes in the message

I agree, our perspectives are shaped by our experiences and interests. I very much value the learnings I get from those on this forum who live in the west and have hunted these lands far longer than I.

But I believe discussion is useful, and that sometimes an outside view causes the incumbents to take a second look or to challenge assumptions that things just have to be a certain way.

I also believe that in a changing world western states conservationists benefit from allies in more populous states. Discussions like this help “broaden the tent”.

I certainly hope none of the valued HTers have taken this post as an irritant, it was a sincere effort at dialogue. HT is a great place and its experienced users are a great resource for all.

 

[onpoint]

".......sometimes an outside view causes the incumbents to take a second look or to challenge assumptions that things just have to be a certain way".

You will find no disagreement from me on that one, in fact I'd drop the word sometimes.
An illustration of your words and case in point -
I moved to MT from MN a lifetime ago (for some/many on here) and saw things happening in MT, at that time, that had happened in Nordern Minnesoda ten years prior. There were none of my new found MT friends who wanted to listen to me sound a word of caution back then. Today, many of them are the alarm sounders on those very issues. Hmmmm......

But again, I was just putting those thoughts on topics like this out there.

But, with all seriousness, I do find it humorous yet sad that with all the VikingsGuys on here - MN public land issues barely register a blip on the radar screen. I happen to know a little bit about how much public land exists just in the Arrowhead region alone. Everything must be rosy there all the time.

Or maybe either you guys don't give much a shit about issues in your home state, or non-resident western states hunting actually means more to you all.........

 

[VikingsGuy]

But, with all seriousness, I do find it humorous yet sad that with all the VikingsGuys on here - MN public land issues barely register a blip on the radar screen. I happen to know a little bit about how much public land exists just in the Arrowhead region alone. Everything must be rosy there all the time.

Yup - challenges to public access all over the place. I already mentioned above that I am the beneficiary of a land lock situation up at the arrowhead.

I guess the reason I don’t post about MN issues is not because all things are perfect in the land of 1500 lakes and 8500 puddles it’s because HT seems to be a western states focused forum and because I have no interest in tree stand deer hunting anymore. I choose to post on stuff I am interested in.

But if someone else is worked up about MN property laws I am happy to post replies on that as well.

 

[onpoint]

Sums it up, thanks

 

[idahohuntr]

I think VG's initial list including eminent domain for easements to landlocked parcels over 2500 acres is a good direction...I would probably set the acreage a lot lower, but obviously prioritize the higher acreage areas.

One of the core issues that always leaves me unsatisfied when it comes to landlocked public lands is how differently "property rights advocates" treat or view public land vs. private land. In at least some states, all private land must have some form of legal access. I can't subdivide the family farm, sell you the back 40 and then later prohibit your access (assuming your only means of access is through my property). In short - there is no such thing as "land locked" private lands...and if there was, can you imagine the outrage?? I guess what I'm saying is I want equal rights for public and private lands...not the current system where private lands are held on this pedestal while public lands are constantly kicked, beaten, and stepped all over.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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 AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!

Kidding.

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'm trying to recall the issue, but honestly I'm having a brain freeze. My discussions with some lawyers who work on the access issue on a regular basis are what informed that opinion and they were certain there was some constitutional grey areas. I'll try and track those down, but suffice it to say, the Mtn States Legal Fund, etc, would be suing quickly, and the outcome is not sure for our side on it.

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.

Your view that landlocked public lands are improperly blocked is not shared by landowners. While I share the desire to open those lands, I also think you won't be successful with a conflict only model and that there are better uses of resources than trying to force access. That sets up a bad political dynamic in rural states (not just western - look at the midwest). We are asking people to give us passage through their lands, whether you agree with the air-space argument or not - to access a shared resource. That is a political nightmare waiting to unfold.

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.

You'd still be looking at eminent domain, which access for recreation does not legally rise up to the level of public good that ED is supposed to meet. I do think you're looking at usurping the state's role in setting trespass statute however, and I can think of a number of competent attorneys who could successfully argue this in court. Again, honey, not vinegar gets the job done here, without creating a well-funded and organized opposition at a political level (or invigorates the existing opposition).

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.

It costs money to disseminate information just as it does to create the GIS overlay, work with other state & county agencies to coordinate travel management, etc. Maps have to be printed & then you have enforcement issues on top of all of that. It's not just so simple as saying "this is open and this isn't." There is a real need for better data on open and closed routes, etc, but we don't get that until all agencies can share information & disseminate it in a thoughtful fashion.

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.

I would disagree. Precedent still matters, as does posterity. Creating programs and policies that can withstand the changing morals of a nation is mission critical for hunters to remain positively viewed by others. That means continuing with the NAM and state management of wildlife to the largest degree possible. While some instances of federal involvement make sense (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ESA, USFWS, Refuges, etc) I think ceding authority like you've said is dangerous to a model of wildlife management that has been largely successful, and creates more advocates every year. The farther away from the people wildlife management gets, the worse off it becomes.

 

[VikingsGuy]

@Ben Lamb

Lots of good points. When push comes to shove I too try to find smaller wins in life - but always try to remind myself sometimes it’s worth swinging for the fences and if I don’t consider those every once in a while chances at significant change can be missed.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

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.

A critical comment usually has some sort of support to back it up. You are just simply disagreeing to be argumentative.

I support all the ideas- 100%

 

[Aperventure]

My thoughts are:

Yes, these 2 would be my highest priority (maybe easiest to do?)

• All 50 states should punish improper posting of public land as private with the same effort that it does its trespass laws. would add "should require intent (or at least reckless disregard)"
• 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).

Would like to see what personnal/staff resources BLM has for this (if any?). I don't know how much effort each case would take... would need to see a management/implementation plan. The "open locked" effort might be more "valuable" in opening up more land?

• 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.

maybe?

• 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.

I like the idea, alot of good points brought up here.

• 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.

 

[MTGomer]

I think VG's initial list including eminent domain for easements to landlocked parcels over 2500 acres is a good direction...I would probably set the acreage a lot lower, but obviously prioritize the higher acreage areas.

One of the core issues that always leaves me unsatisfied when it comes to landlocked public lands is how differently "property rights advocates" treat or view public land vs. private land. In at least some states, all private land must have some form of legal access. I can't subdivide the family farm, sell you the back 40 and then later prohibit your access (assuming your only means of access is through my property). In short - there is no such thing as "land locked" private lands...and if there was, can you imagine the outrage?? I guess what I'm saying is I want equal rights for public and private lands...not the current system where private lands are held on this pedestal while public lands are constantly kicked, beaten, and stepped all over.

There are no,( or very few)land locked private lands because many states prohibit creating land locked tracts, and even if they didn’t, there is no market for inaccessible land.

The federal government once held the private land that is now blocking us access to public land, and issued patents on it, in some cases not doing so in a manner that guarantees access to the remaining federal(public) land.

Eminent domain of private property for the purpose of public recreation is a pipe dream.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Eminent domain of private property for the purpose of public recreation is a pipe dream.

It’s a reality today - lots of good bike trail examples. The constitutional question is “public use”, of which recreation is one. The bigger constraint is state legislation that sets boundaries on state/local use of eminent domain, but that doesn’t limit the fed. Last fed rule I saw was Bush Pres Order requiring “public use” to combat some concerns about passing land from one private owner to a second (but govt preferred) owner via eminent domain.