More good news for public access!!!!!

Muledeer4me

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
1,597
Location
Idaho
BlueRibbon Coalition Applauds R.S. 2477 Ruling



The BlueRibbon Coalition applauded last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that could bolster the claims of local governments and public access proponents to controversial "RS 2477 highways" criss-crossing many western lands. "This is a huge victory for millions of Americans who value access to public lands," said BlueRibbon's Public Lands Director, Brian Hawthorne.



The ruling came in an appeal from a U.S. District of Utah decision in SUWA v. Bureau of Land Management (D.C. NO. 2:96-CV-836-TC). The litigation began in 1996 when road crews employed by Utah's San Juan, Kane, and Garfield Counties graded sixteen roads located in southern Utah. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and other anti-access groups filed suit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) , San Juan County, Kane and Garfield Counties, alleging that the Counties had engaged in unlawful road construction activities and that the BLM had violated the law by not taking more aggressive action against the road maintenance. The BLM subsequently filed cross-claims against the Counties, alleging that their road construction activities constituted trespass and degradation of federal property. The Counties claim the road maintenance activities were lawful because the activities took place within valid "R.S. 2477" rights of way. The district court ruled that federal law, as interpreted by BLM, dictated critical legal definitions in the case relating to the establishment, scope and maintenance of the "highways."



A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit reversed, finding that state law properly guides interpretation of the existence and scope of any 2477 roads. The case was remanded to the district court for new proceedings to address issues such as the validity of the Counties' right-of-way claims, the scope of any such rights-of-way, and whether their actions constitute "trespass" on federal lands. "It will take time to evaluate the impact of this important decision, but it appears that the Circuit Court has reversed the district court's deviation from the previously-established precedent and reminded the parties to focus on state law concepts in evaluating the counties' actions," observed Paul Turcke, General Legal Counsel to BlueRibbon. "Contrary to the cries of anti-access interest groups, I think it unlikely that a new breed of "road warriors" will spring forth as a result of this ruling," he stated. "2477 claims have always presented complex legal, factual and political challenges, and this ruling appears to only clarify the rules of the game while leaving many thorny challenges for future debate," Turcke concluded.



"R.S. 2477" refers to a now-repealed portion of the 1866 Mining Act, which states "the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." While this grant of highway construction authority was repealed in 1976, rights-of-way previously created under the statute can effectively remain "grandfathered" in use and available to the public today. 2477 claims have engendered great passion and confusion throughout the West, were state and local governments, federal land managers, public access proponents, wilderness advocates and private property owners have regularly taken irreconcilable positions on 2477 assertions. "For BlueRibbon members, RS 2477 can offer additional protection to public access along some of the West's most beautiful and historically-significant routes," Hawthorne noted. "While we are disappointed that BLM joined SUWA and the anti-access groups in this case, we will continue to work with federal land managers and all interested parties in seeking solutions to this and other public lands issues in Utah and beyond, whether those solutions occur through collaboration, legislation or the courts," said Hawthorne.




The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national recreation group that champions responsible use of public and private lands, and encourages individual environmental stewardship. It represents over 10,000 individual members and 1,200 organization and business members, for a combined total of over 600,000 recreationists nationwide.

1-800-258-3742. http://www.sharetrails.org
 
JoseCuervo said:
MD,

Could you give us a summary and explain how this is good for hunters?

How about you save her the trouble of answering YOUR question about OUR public lands and do the summary and explanation yourself.
 
Jose, we all know nothing anyone could say to you could help you understand that "Public Land" should be open to the public to enjoy.
Not all of the public wants ,needs, or has the means to enjoy public land that can only be accessed by foot,raft ,horses or the use of an outfitter.

I agree that we need regulations and thats why I support org. that are working towards that goal .
 
I didn't think this would help hunters, and it appears MD couldn't find anything in it to show it helps hunters. It does look like it is a big win for the Blue Ribbon paid counsel as they can continue fleecing the flock of fat-assed ATV riders for finanical support.
 
Jose,

Could you give us a summary and explain how this is bad for hunters?

Could you give us a summary and explain how their membership is being fleeced?
 
I did a google search and read quite a few articles on this issue. I agree that it is a win for pipelines,mining,timber,off-road interests and ranchers.

It is a big loss for taxpayers,hunters who like to get away from it all and some property owners who will end up with no privacy.


I wonder how the west will like looking like the east.
 
I'm not sure where NUT was going with that train of thought, but we aren't roaded like the east, and without existing "road bed" areas, there can be no "highway" maintenance. It doesn't mean they can make roads where ever they want, but it does say they can maintain public highways. The best I can gather from all the blather sites is that the "roads" had to exist prior to 1976 in order to be eligible for consideration.
 
Ten Bears said:
I'm not sure where NUT was going with that train of thought, but we aren't roaded like the east, and without existing "road bed" areas, there can be no "highway" maintenance. It doesn't mean they can make roads where ever they want, but it does say they can maintain public highways. The best I can gather from all the blather sites is that the "roads" had to exist prior to 1976 in order to be eligible for consideration.


My train of thought (besides being a slow one)is that the road that does appear might be one you do not want. Plus at one time the east was not roaded but people started popping up once the few roads were accessable.Then more showed and more showed.....Isn't it west of the Mississippi where the population is growing???? :confused:
 
Nut ,anytime you and the family want to come for a vacation ,Steve and I will be more then happy to show you around.

It might give you a whole new look at what WILL NOT be accessable to you and your family in the future if the anti-access groups get there way.
It will also show you how we are different here then back east.

Keep in mind we arent asking to open up more areas or asking to ride off the road or trail systems, just to keep open whats there now.
Also keep in mind many of these same anti-access org. would like to keep horses and Mt Bikes out.
 
NUT, there is a big difference between the private lands of the east, and the vast public lands of the west.

If you want to come vacation in N. Idaho let me know.
 
Muledeer4me said:
It might give you a whole new look at what WILL NOT be accessable to you and your family in the future if the anti-access groups get there way.

MD ,
For the sake of accuracy I'll correct this statement for you ;

It might give you a whole new look at what WILL NOT be accessable to you and your families' MACHINES in the future .....

You left out the word machines , I'm sure it was an honest mistake , you're welcome .
Ben
 
The more I read about how many view the "right of way" of RS2477 the more I know it will be exploited. Oh sure the majority of private lands will not be touched but some will be affected. This will beused onPUBLIC lands where the taxpayer will fund the special interest welfare people who can't do it on their own.


Thanks for the offers to show me your views.

However it is my dream that I would do it in a area without motorized vehicles with a elk tag in my pocket.
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,599
Messages
2,026,330
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top