Washington Post Opinion Piece Completely Misses the Point

[COEngineer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/20/blm-public-land-corner-locked-hunting/

How does someone do so much research and completely miss the point that the public does not have to pay for access to public land (assuming the court rules in favor of the Missouri hunters in the Eschelman case)?

I know Randy and guests have suggested that smart private landowners in checkerboard lands would consider selling an easement now, while they have some bargaining chips. Once the appeal is finalized, they may not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Cant read it

 

[406dn]

I can't read it either, and it is an opinion piece. It would not be the first opinion piece to willfully miss the point.

 

[Beignet]

How does someone do so much research and completely miss the point that the public does not have to pay for access to public land (assuming the court rules in favor of the Missouri hunters in the Eschelman case)?

Sure, the opinion piece used Elk Mountain as an opening example, but it's more broadly about the difficulty of securing easements and acquisitions. And, how market values have skewed appraised values in relation to the procurement of easements and acquisitions. That problem is applicable to more than just corners. Plenty of public land out there either sits in islands of private, or has access that's hindered by terrain. Easements and acquisitions are a useful tool in opening these areas up.

 

[Sheltowee]

Cant read it

Try this one: https://wapo.st/4dDLBTL

 

[Elky Welky]

I agree @COEngineer; where there is an already a publicly accessible corner, there is no need for an easement because the public already has the right to access there, which I anticipate the 10th circuit is going to uphold. To @Beignet's point, however, there are also checkerboarded lands and public lands that are completely inaccessible, and easements and access agreements are the only way (aside from paying for a helicopter) to get to many of these places.

There are some folks on here I have also seen argue that once the fact that the public is entitled to corner cross becomes clarified in favor of the public, that many landowners are going to get angry and stop getting involved in public access programs too. That's incredibly petty on their part, but it is something things like easements and access agreements can go a long ways to mollify.

 

[TOGIE]

There are some folks on here I have also seen argue that once the fact that the public is entitled to corner cross becomes clarified in favor of the public, that many landowners are going to get angry and stop getting involved in public access programs too. That's incredibly petty on their part, but it is something things like easements and access agreements can go a long ways to mollify.

i suspect it would be a minority that get in such a hissy fit that they pull out of public access programs. in fact, i would bet the only ones that would pull out of public access programs aren't even in public access programs to begin with.

no matter how you slice it, i bet it's a net acreage gain even if some landowners make good on the threat.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There's a lot of wisdom in the piece, if you set aside the issue of cc and look more broadly at what she is saying related to creating partnerships and collaborations on access to public land.

MT has reduced the amount of landlocked public land since passage of the PAL Act by 500,000 acres. There is a waiting list for that program. Combined with Block mgt, that number increases to around 1 million acres, or about 25% of the 4 million acres found to be landlocked by OnX about 5 years ago or so.

That's a 25% reduction in 5 years. Seems like that way builds bridges instead of of ladders.

 

[Beignet]

Hey @Ben Lamb or anyone else - mind giving us all a primer (or linking to one) on how an organization like RMEF goes about land acquisitions? I’m fuzzy on the details, but believe that they work on behalf of public agencies and are beholden to the appraised values mentioned in the op-ed under discussion. Don’t believe I’ve ever seen the process concisely explained.

 

[BuzzH]

Bottom line is that we need both. Corner crossing was not going to be solved without intervention by the courts. Plus, let's keep in mind who forced the issue, it was Iron Bar Holdings/Fred.

Another thing to consider is that landowners AND sportsmen had decades to solve the issue of corner crossing and didn't do it, let's be honest, wouldn't do it.

I think most hunters and fishermen have been supportive of easement, acquisitions, and other access programs. However, there still needs to be a willing landowner for any of those to work. For many, it's not about the money and the landscape is changing fast to those types. Realistically, for access to some properties, there is no amount of access, acquisition, or easement money that will change that. They don't and won't ever allow access.

There are certainly still lots of landowners that will be willing to if we increase funding levels and working above appraised value, all for it. I just wonder where the money would come from?

Honestly, the average hunter is a cheap skate, you read about it all the time on hunttalk. The complaints about raising license fees and the deadbeats that contribute exactly ZERO to accessyes, etc. is the rule rather than the exception. I just don't see the average hunter or fisherman ponying up anything extra for access, easements, and acquisitions.

While it seemed significant at the time, and it was and I'm still grateful, having to do a lot of legwork to raise a couple hundred grand for a court case that has the potential to open up 8 million acres seems as paltry as it is ridiculous. If the numbers are correct, about 38,000,000 licenses are sold each year to 15,000,000 license holders. Yet, when given the opportunity to open up 8 million acres, those 15 million people kicked in less than $200,000.

That's the biggest issue with all of it, a very small minority not only do all the work, but also provide all the funding as well. Everyone wants access, but they want it for free and someone else to do it.

 

[Elky Welky]

I just wonder where the money would come from?

Legal weed or some other significant tax revenue generator, or raising license fees. I also know that since MT has allowed people to donate their application refunds to block mgmt, and since those are usually just a few dollars, that that has helped raise a significant amount for block.

 

[BuzzH]

Legal weed or some other significant tax revenue generator, or raising license fees.

For the first, everyone wants a piece of that money, and for the second I can hear the high-pitched whining already.

 

[406dn]

Generally speaking, if attempting to get some one to change their behavior, to join a good cause, telling them they are lazy pieces of feces, is largely ineffective.

I think if the state was allowed to offer a voluntary stamp, earmarked for access, there would be significant interest. It could be similar to the window sticker, issued with sportsman licenses, back in the day.

 

[Forkyfinder]

For the first, everyone wants a piece of that money, and for the second I can hear the high-pitched whining already.

I cant believe R are such "snivelers"

Where do you find the resistance to tag cost increases?

 

[Elky Welky]

For the first, everyone wants a piece of that money, and for the second I can hear the high-pitched whining already.

I don't disagree at all; just saying that's where the money would have to come from.

 

[Elky Welky]

I think if the state was allowed to offer a voluntary stamp, earmarked for access, there would be significant interest. It could be similar to the window sticker, issued with sportsman licenses, back in the day.

I think this is a great idea. I also continue to advocate for a state-run advanced hunter-ed or private land access certification program, that would give landowners some peace of mind that the people accessing their property aren't going to treat it the way some very problematic hunters have.

 

[BuzzH]

I cant believe R are such "snivelers"

Where do you find the resistance to tag cost increases?

From damn near everyone...commission, legislature, sportsmen, etc.

Oddly, the one group that doesn't complain is outfitters.

 

[BuzzH]

Generally speaking, if attempting to get some one to change their behavior, to join a good cause, telling them they are lazy pieces of feces, is largely ineffective.

I think if the state was allowed to offer a voluntary stamp, earmarked for access, there would be significant interest. It could be similar to the window sticker, issued with sportsman licenses, back in the day.

We have voluntary donations in place here for accessyes. I haven't looked for a while, but it's not near enough to support the program and more funding for that comes from NR than R.

 

[elkduds]

I cant believe R are such "snivelers"

Goes w the red hat.

Oh, you meant Residents. Carry on. Moderator, note I did provide clarification of a hunting-related post.

 

[perma]

I think this is a great idea. I also continue to advocate for a state-run advanced hunter-ed or private land access certification program, that would give landowners some peace of mind that the people accessing their property aren't going to treat it the way some very problematic hunters have.

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t MT have something like that? How well does that work, (not a rhetorical question)?