IFish Fishing Forum banner

Public access to Fed lands

7K views 48 replies 21 participants last post by  huntingboybill 
#1 ·
I just read on another site where a congressman Martin Heinrich D from NM introduced a bill to find away to provide access to lands greator than one square mile if they are open for hunting or fishing. Sounds like we need to write our US congressmen and show our support for this bill. It is easy to contact them by email.
I dont want to hear the excuses you didnt do it because you dont have a computer.
 
#2 · (Edited)
anytime i see this "D" i have a hard time not thinking that there is some underlying agenda. tax it ban it regulate it restrict it... id have to see some more details... thx for the heads up. ill look into when i get a chance...


*edit*

a quick google search fixed my feelings... ill send an email.
 
#4 · (Edited)
I have a hard time supporting such a thing as it takes property rights away from property owners by state enforced easements.


It's a property rights issue and NOBODY should be forced to allow people to 'trespass.'

But one landowner should be able to keep the access rights to "public" land, so that no one else can access it?

I'm all for land-owner rights, but public land that is locked up by private land-owners isn't really available to the "public" now, is it?

Obviously, this is a complex issue and a constant source of debate. I have always wondered why, for example, one private land-owner who ties up public land should be the only one to use it?? Never made sense to me that this can happen.

It looked to me like the bill would require "agencies" (BLM, USFS, etc?) to 'acquire' easements from the land-owner. I'm reading that as, a fed agency would purchase an easement from the private land-owner. More fair than eminent domain.
 
#5 ·
This should be a stipulation at least in cases where the adjoining property owner has the livestock lease of the landlocked land.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Before you guys get going, why doesn't someone do some research on exactly WHY our GOVERNMENT decided it was a good idea to buy up millions of acres of land that otherwise would be private property? It was an unprecidented move at the time, but I'll let you guys do some legwork learning about the deal.

Just sayin'. The REAL issue isn't being addressed here. GOVERNMENT OWNS OUR LAND! The regulate, restricted, sell, etc, etc etc, as they please.

As to this bill, the problem IS NOT the private land owners that surround NF land. Anything that encroaches on their rights should be fought tooth and nail by anyone who values LIBERTY.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Okay, I did a little research, and TEEB is right, the (checkerboard) lands were granted (given) to private rail road companies in order to facilitate rail development west in the 1800's...

You might want to check your facts a little. the US Govt didn't BUY up land in the checkerboard fashion. They GAVE it away....

ACTUALLY, the US Govt owned ALL the land, and GAVE some to the rail companies... Same deal with the formation of National Forests, Parks, etc. T. Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to preserve some lands from development, for the use of the American public. So really, this was all federal land before any of it was private.

Before you get me wrong, here's the deal. I dislike govt interference as much as anyone, and don't try to turn this into some LIBERTY debate.

This is about taxes, who pays 'em, and what is publicly owned and privately owned. I pay federal taxes that fund public lands.

Any private citizen who denies the use of public property to the public is wrong...
 
#17 ·
Hate to break it to you, you live in the United States of America not the great nation of Orelk. None of us actually own the land we live on it is all the property of the US. Now right to use the land is an entire different story. Which. Let of the land here in Oregon had its land rights given to the people by the government.
 
#20 ·
Do you own your home or rent?

Do you really own your home or are you still making payments to a finance company?

How would you feel if the government 'forced' you to let me camp in your yard?

How would you feel if the government 'forced' you to trade your land on the nearest outside edge that can be accessed by all?
Meaning that since your property is in "my" way, the government is going to take it from you and give you some land of equal value someplace else in the country. Remember that the government is only going to need to take a 20' wide area the length of your property so that is all you will receive in compensation. In the mean while you will need to move your house because of city/county ordinance that doesn't allow for residential dwelling to be that close to easements.

Do you believe in property rights?

Do you belong to the blue ribbon coalition?
You seem to feel strongly about this landlocked public property issue, seems like maybe you should join. I'm a member. Here's a link for you. http://www.sharetrails.org/ Let me know if you have any questions as I have been a member upwards of twenty years now.
 
#33 · (Edited)
The problem is not where the PRIVATE land is, it's where the PUBLIC land is. If you want access, maybe the case should be made that the public should purchase land to allow access to public land?

Private property should never be encroached upon. You are treading on VERY thin ice giving our government that type of authority.

Instead of writing bills that take away our freedom and liberty, why don't they have us vote on whether we want our tax dollars spent on buying access to public land?

Lots of reading to do here as well.

Gonna take more than 21 minutes.
 
#35 ·
If you want access, maybe the case should be made that the public should purchase land to allow access to public land?

.

This is the issue, and this is what has been suggested. Allow the public (fed govt agencies) to purchase easements from the private land-owner.

What I do not understand, in your "liberty" argument, is this:

A private landowner owns let's say 20,000 acres, and through this ownership subsequently ties up another 20,000 acres of BLM land. He allows no public access to this 20,000 acres of public land and therefore has sole access to it.

Isn't he trampling on the rights and 'liberty' of the taxpaying public who paid taxes to have access on that land?

an even worse example is the same landowner who already has an easement (ie - BLM maintained road) going thru his property, to the BLM land. And he has gated it. This is blatant. A land-owner has now taken away the rights of the public to use a publicly maintained road, paid for with taxpayer dollars...


Look, I get it. I don't blame a landowner for not wanting to let a bunch of slobs onto his property, even if it is just to cross. and I don't believe in the nanny-state where the fed govt tries to take away all of our liberty, etc.

But in this example, a significant amount of public property is tied up by one single land-owner who is allowed to gain financially, or recreationally, by essentially keeping this land to himself without paying taxes.

Explain to me how this land-owner isn't trampling on your liberty as a US taxpayer, assuming you actually are in the 53% of Americans who actually pay taxes....
 
#37 · (Edited)
So if a forest fire broke out on a piece of public property surrounded by private land, is it the tax payer or the private property owner that foots the bill?

How does the government get access to the property to do their assessments?

Was there not a case in recent years from coming from Yachats regarding beach access? So maybe, at least in Oregon, precedent is already set for access to isolated public lands.
 
#38 ·
The government has already has reciprocal easements with neighboring landowners. Both parties can grant access to whoever they want for reasons outlined in the easements.

In most cases the easements read that roads that go through private property can be gated and closed to the general public at anytime. Government employees and anyone who is granted access to government land by them, will given keys to the locks or they will put their own lock on. In other words, the private landowner can't deny access to government employees or their contractors.

The whole idea that someone who owns land which surrounds public land is the only one allowed to use it is wrong. Government employees have access as do anyone they allow for reasons outlined in the easement.

Public land is almost a misnomer. It may be owned by the government but that doesn't mean the public has unlimited access.
 
#42 ·
This is a HUGE topic that has been debated for decades: Eminent domain.

Briefly, something that might get you pointed in the right direction. Take a look at the precedent set for land East of the Mississippi. Then notice the great difference with land West of the Mississippi. Ask yourself: Why is this? How did this happen?

Then go do some research, please.

Our government has known for quite some time that in a truly FREE society that the land is owned by the PEOPLE, not the government. Our federal ownership is now over ONE THIRD the land mass in our 50 states!!!

Additionally, take note at how well the government manages...well...anything. It's an inefficient, bureaucratic mess that nearly always benefits some special interest group, stifling any progress or development. That special interest group MAY be a hunting organization and provide you some access to BLM land 1 or 2 weekends per year, but more likely will be some corporation or private business that will profit of the condemation of land by the government. Of course, some politicians will get a healthy campaign donation as a "thank you".

Do you REALLY want this?

Our fight should ALWAYS be to restrain eminent domain at all levels of government and at the very least, you guys need a basic understanding of the right to own private property and how forfeiture of this right can only lead to a less free society.

I'm done with this one. Just gonna be spinning my wheels with some of you guys anyway.
 
#44 ·
Im not going to get into a huge discussion of this.
But I know of 2 huge parcels in Washington that have been blocked by private landowners.One owns about 5 acres . The access runs through about 1500 acres of state land. He gated the road. And the state refuses to enforce it.
Another has landlocked about 600 acres. State land. Lake in the middle of it. His excuse for not letting us walk across the road that he gated? Well, it would make the guys he leases his POND to angry(duck hunters). The truth is, not only is he locking off public hunting land, he is leasing the hunting rights to it also. He is a big taxpayer in that county, so the state refuses to enforce.
In both cases there is access recorded, but no enforcement, so the landowner deprives the public of land, and profits from it.

So while I agree that government shouldnt be heavy handed, maybe this lproperty should be sold to the highest bidder.. At least someone has to pay the taxes on it then.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top