Calif. Hunter
Active member
Sorry, Jose - can't help you with that....
But you don't want to make access a condition of the agreement for the use permit?
That's my point - make it part of the agreement. The "permittee" does not have to sign the agreement, but if he wants to use the public land, then he agrees to grant access. No one is holding a gun to his head. There is obviously some economic advantage to him for using the public land. It is up to him if that outweighes having to allow access. If the grazing fees, for example, are cheaper than leasing private land, then he may decide it is "worth it." But again, no one is forcing him to sign anything.
Access could be limited as to times of year, number of people allowed at one time, required sign-in, etc. You have to get a fire permit or a back country permit in certain parks and wilderness areas - this could be regulated the same way. Why allow the wealthy tycoons or the welfare ranchers to block access to "our" land while enjoying a private kingdom?
But you don't want to make access a condition of the agreement for the use permit?
That's my point - make it part of the agreement. The "permittee" does not have to sign the agreement, but if he wants to use the public land, then he agrees to grant access. No one is holding a gun to his head. There is obviously some economic advantage to him for using the public land. It is up to him if that outweighes having to allow access. If the grazing fees, for example, are cheaper than leasing private land, then he may decide it is "worth it." But again, no one is forcing him to sign anything.
Access could be limited as to times of year, number of people allowed at one time, required sign-in, etc. You have to get a fire permit or a back country permit in certain parks and wilderness areas - this could be regulated the same way. Why allow the wealthy tycoons or the welfare ranchers to block access to "our" land while enjoying a private kingdom?
Also, I think you're missing the cooperative part of cooperative agreement. In that, both sides agree to something and these are often used in land management for things like letting the government build a fence on private land or letting a private individual build a water tank in public land. What you are describing is something that is conditional to a permit, a term and condition, and not something that is agreed upon. If the permit was origanally granted with that type of stipulation it would be less troublesome, but the private property rights supporters still would have it shot down. Heck, I know of an instance where having a term and condition similar to that was tried just for administrative access, but yet it was later dropped after all the hub-bub.
