I don’t recall the CFR listing/setting penalties for any prohibitive act listed. Just something to the effect there could be civil or criminal penalties.
New bill would crack down on those who block public land access
- Thread starter Greyman
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
That is my assumption, but then those penalties require some type of enforcement process by BLM or district attorneys - which they likely have no time for, and little political interest in given local influence of land owners, enforcing. A self terminating penalty would essentially mean once they did it the lease would be gone and they would be the ones in violation when they put their livestock on the land or built fences. They couldn't sell (or borrow) against their land claiming leased rights - it would be a business killer for many - after one or two learned the hard way, the rest would quickly learn that this behavior is not ok. But this is a fantasy, as the feds lack the political will power to actually pass the law. That really is the bottom line on all of our complaining about corner crossing, inaccessible public lands, rancher over reach -- each and everyone one could be easily resolved at fed/state legislatures if they had the backbone/interest to do so. There are no legal or constitutional barriers to fixing, just political ones.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Many "nuisance" crimes go unenforced due to law enforcement and district attorney resource limitations, as well as strong local influences. This makes good sense in the big picture, but as a result it often can allow repeat violators to get off scot-free with little relief to those harmed by their wrong doing. The theory here is to empower the aggrieved citizen to enforce directly.
