New Access Bill in Congress

[Ben Lamb]

Outdoor Life got an exclusive on an access bill that's being introduced. Congressman Martin Heinrich from New Mexico just introduced the HUNT act. It's a damned good bill.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...uld-unlock-public-hunting-and-fishing-areas-a

There’s nothing worse than a beautiful piece of public wilderness getting landlocked by private property and made inaccessible. In hopes of making sure that more of those areas are busted open to the public, Congressman Martin Heinrich (D-NM) stepped up today and introduced the HUNT Act.

The Hunt Unrestricted on our National Treasures Act is the kind of legislation we love to see. It’s simple and to the point. It directs the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to do what many outdoorsmen have been asking those agencies to do for years: Inventory public lands, figure out which areas are inaccessible, and decide what resources are needed to change that.

The difference between the HUNT act and some of the other efforts like HR 1581 (the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011) is that there’s no overreach here. It’s simple: Find out how to get to landlocked public land, provide a solid funding source to help implement it, and don’t reduce habitat functionality while doing it.

My lord, what a concept.

Gets folks to the trailhead, doesn't monkey with Travel Planning, and it utilizes an existing program to fund it.

 

[jlmatthew]

How about "no access = no cheap grazing on public land"

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

sure would be nice to be able to hunt in wilderness zones in wyoming as a non-resident on our public lands,i think the outfitters got a racket going on with it.other states dont have this wilderness b s issue.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Like a dream come true.

 

[Ben Lamb]

sure would be nice to be able to hunt in wilderness zones in wyoming as a non-resident on our public lands,i think the outfitters got a racket going on with it.other states dont have this wilderness b s issue.

I wonder if SFW will come to the rescue and eliminate this subsidy?

 

[MTbowhunter84]

Like a dream come true.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Long way to go but a great star.

 

[1_pointer]

How about "no access = no cheap grazing on public land"

I don't see that happening as they are two different programs and mandates. Besides, not all private landowners blocking access are grazing permittees.

From the condensed version of the bill in the article I think it is a good one. However, I think the 6mos timeframe for inventory is very optimistic, but I do think they need to set a deadline. I also feel that this dovetails somewhat well into the RS2477 issue. As Ben pointed out, it makes use of already existing funding which I think would be critical in the funding environment that the agencies are currently in. One thing to note and I think this is important for a bill like this to pass is that procurring either easements or property to increase access takes a cooperative landowner. IIRC, it has been ruled that the federal agencies can't force a landowner to allow access, but with a bill like this the agencies at least have a better avenue for securing it. IMO, there will still be large tracts without access due to landowners not wanting to cooperate.

I do hope this is not the start of an end-around to set the table for disposal of public lands. I can see some making the case that after the inventory lands that are not accessible or that gaining access is unfeasible, could then be put up for disposal. Hopefully the provision to ID lands that are valuable to hunting/fishing will negate some of this, but I can foresee how the inventory could be used to help "justify" disposal of some lands.

One thing I did find a bit interesting is that the article mentioned easements and procurring property but did not specifically include land trades. I would have like to see that added as in many cases I think that would be the easiest way to secure access. It would also open up the opportunity for smaller scale land trades, many of which make a whole lot of sense. IME, anything short of thousands of acres is not even considered due to the time and work required to do a land trade.

 

[jlmatthew]

I don't see that happening as they are two different programs and mandates. Besides, not all private landowners blocking access are grazing permittees.

I know, I was just venting over the landowners here in Colorado that are about to get a larger slice of the tag quota with nothing in return to the public. I know thats a State agency doing that (and an apathetic public).

 

[1_pointer]

Gotcha. The dichotomy of federal land management and state wildlife management often leaves one with a reason to vent...

 

[Oak]

I do hope this is not the start of an end-around to set the table for disposal of public lands. I can see some making the case that after the inventory lands that are not accessible or that gaining access is unfeasible, could then be put up for disposal. Hopefully the provision to ID lands that are valuable to hunting/fishing will negate some of this, but I can foresee how the inventory could be used to help "justify" disposal of some lands.

My first thought as well.

One thing I did find a bit interesting is that the article mentioned easements and procurring property but did not specifically include land trades. I would have like to see that added as in many cases I think that would be the easiest way to secure access. It would also open up the opportunity for smaller scale land trades, many of which make a whole lot of sense. IME, anything short of thousands of acres is not even considered due to the time and work required to do a land trade.

Yes.

 

[Ben Lamb]

From the condensed version of the bill in the article I think it is a good one. However, I think the 6mos timeframe for inventory is very optimistic, but I do think they need to set a deadline. I also feel that this dovetails somewhat well into the RS2477 issue. As Ben pointed out, it makes use of already existing funding which I think would be critical in the funding environment that the agencies are currently in. One thing to note and I think this is important for a bill like this to pass is that procurring either easements or property to increase access takes a cooperative landowner. IIRC, it has been ruled that the federal agencies can't force a landowner to allow access, but with a bill like this the agencies at least have a better avenue for securing it. IMO, there will still be large tracts without access due to landowners not wanting to cooperate.

I do hope this is not the start of an end-around to set the table for disposal of public lands. I can see some making the case that after the inventory lands that are not accessible or that gaining access is unfeasible, could then be put up for disposal. Hopefully the provision to ID lands that are valuable to hunting/fishing will negate some of this, but I can foresee how the inventory could be used to help "justify" disposal of some lands.

One thing I did find a bit interesting is that the article mentioned easements and procurring property but did not specifically include land trades. I would have like to see that added as in many cases I think that would be the easiest way to secure access. It would also open up the opportunity for smaller scale land trades, many of which make a whole lot of sense. IME, anything short of thousands of acres is not even considered due to the time and work required to do a land trade.

Good point on the land trade issue. You are correct that the Fed cannot force access. All easements and/or fee title acquisition is based on a willing seller, willing buyer scenario.

I suppose some folks will use the inventory to try and make a push for selling off isolated tracts of public land, but honestly, they do that already. I hate letting fear get in the way of doing good things because some jackwagon is going to try and screw it up. If we go into things with the understanding that someone will in fact always try to subvert good intentions, it makes it easier to plan for those skirmishes.

I've uploaded the PDF of the bill.

 

[sbhooper]

One of the worst that I have run into is the section of land that Three Forks Ranch in Colorado managed to get locked off for their own use by getting the Forest Service or BLM (not sure which) to close the road that used to go there. It was a big mountain that you could see from a public road and it is covered with elk.

Access needs to be given to those tracks of land, or the feds need to trade the land for the same amount that is already connected to other accessible land.

That sounds like it may at least be a step in the right direction.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One of the worst that I have run into is the section of land that Three Forks Ranch in Colorado managed to get locked off for their own use by getting the Forest Service or BLM (not sure which) to close the road that used to go there. It was a big mountain that you could see from a public road and it is covered with elk.

Access needs to be given to those tracks of land, or the feds need to trade the land for the same amount that is already connected to other accessible land.

That sounds like it may at least be a step in the right direction.

This is happening across the US, especially in areas that are desirable for amenity landowners.

We've got roads from Troy to Ekalaka that should be open that get closed illegally. While this bill wouldn't stop that (It's a county and state issue), it would help identify open roads when someone tries to close them.

 

[1_pointer]

Good point on the land trade issue. You are correct that the Fed cannot force access. All easements and/or fee title acquisition is based on a willing seller, willing buyer scenario.

I suppose some folks will use the inventory to try and make a push for selling off isolated tracts of public land, but honestly, they do that already. I hate letting fear get in the way of doing good things because some jackwagon is going to try and screw it up. If we go into things with the understanding that someone will in fact always try to subvert good intentions, it makes it easier to plan for those skirmishes.

I've uploaded the PDF of the bill.

I agree. with the second paragraph. I posted what I did as a concern and a "heads up". IMO, this is a good bill and if passed it will be interesting to see if this changes much. I can see it doing so for small parcels, but not for some of the bigger, more desireable access locked parcels. In too many cases those preventing access gain more from limiting access to those parcels than they would get from an easement or purchase. That said, I still think this would allow more options for gaining access than the agencies currently have.