Matt
Heck yeah I would. Make one access point and let em' have at it. It's not their land so they should have no control over it.
I bet you would. For one season and then it would be over
Your lawyer probably would not let you do it for the first year anyway.
It's the right thing in a perfect world. Unfortunately that world does not exist
I bet you would. For one season and then it would be over
Your lawyer probably would not let you do it for the first year anyway.
It's the right thing in a perfect world. Unfortunately that world does not exist
Get ALL cattle, sheep, wild horses and burros off public land period!
Case by case bases eminent domain access to qualifying landlocked parcels.
Don’t tell me it can’t be done US Supreme Court has upheld eminent domain even so far as allowing private land to be taken and sold to another private entity. So eminent domain a footpath for public good is just the same as what they do for paved highways .
Get Don Jr. to get PAPA Don on this before The Don gets removed from office .
I'm the first to say that we need all the ranching we can get. But, I'm inline with Scott. I'm tired of huge ranches out west getting special treatment that they then use against those that depend on public land for recreation. At what point does the system stop benefiting the few at the price of all? In my opinion, it should be when a rancher decides he wants to sell 3 million dollars worth of domesticated livestock that was fattened up on tax payers land.
Honestly, I don't know the number where a cut off should be set. But, I talked with a rancher last year in CO that told me, as her cowboys loaded a trailer full of sheep, that she expected to be paid over 3 million dollars for her lambs at market that fall. I know she has costs. I know she was driving an $80,000 pickup. But, I also know that her lambs spent the summer eating everything in sight on that parched landscape, costing her less money per pound, then I can calculate. And, every dang where you'd go was a friggin' herd of sheep, the dogs and cowboys, and water holes the nasty as heck animals had drank dry. I had days over 15 miles round trip and still couldn't get away from them or, where they had already decimated the landscape.
Something has got to give. If I had known you could over extend yourself like that, and have rights to tie up public ground with your decisions, I'd moved out west 25 years ago and built an empire on everyone else's back. Because that is what these people are doing.
Before anyone blasts me, i understand the pluses of it every time I go to the store. But, if you are being honest, you know the deals these guys get for fees is ridiculous. and, there are many who then use their life stock as tools to further take away from the public land hunter
Yeah, sure.... What kind of property do you think Junior hunts??
Careful there, WV - you’re gonna get yourself branded a Libberel!
She must have a pretty big place... you would have to sell about 15,000 lambs to have an income of 3 million dollars. So that means she would have to run approximately 20 to 25 thousand ewes...
This was in CO...every lamb was stuffed with pot so she was actually only selling 500 of them to neighboring states LOL
Matt
It’s ridiculous what ranches pay to graze the public. I believe the rate for AUM is typically around $1.50 per AUM, but I can guarantee you if a ranch was leasing grazing rights they’d charge a hell of a lot more than $1.5 per AUM!!!
I also believe that when a ranch is leased out to an outfitter, which they then use ranch and land locked public for outfitting, for whatever amount, it in turn locks out public unless you pay said outfitter to recreate (hunt)! This changes the use of the land from agricultural to recreational. Which in turn increases taxes significantly on the “rancher!”
I also believe that if that same rancher wanted to grant public access through their land to reach these land locked parcels, they should then receive a tax break.
I think the part that really frosts my cookies is when the ranch leases to an outfitter, making big $, and then complains to state there’s to many elk eating their crops/hay stacks!!! If they open their gates to hunting (without the $10000 cost) they wouldn’t have the elk problems! Seen it countless times in MT and it’s so old!
Anyways rant over.....good luck everyone this season and enjoy the public land we can recreate on!
The USSC has ruled that recreational use is not a determining factor in forcing public access to public lands through private land, via Eminent Domain or any other government mechanism. So land trades or outright purchases of access are the only viable tools.
Everybody uses the word "should" as if it were an obligatory command. As in, "We should force landowners to allow anyone to cross their land for any reason". "We should end hunting." "We should confiscate guns from everyone except police amd military". Everybody has a "should". Mine is that I "should" win the lottery so I can buy a huge ranch for hunting and fishing.
Seems positive for all parties.
Also seems just like what many above mentioned - tying access to use. Rancher/farmer uses public land, they have to allow access to it. Seems very reasonable.
But Ill also freely admit, that the land access mentality out west is so massively different from what I'm used to in the North East that I cant comprehend it. So while that idea seems reasonable to me, it may be a complete non - starter out there?
People unfamiliar with the West like to project these as being controlled by rich mega-ranchers. That is true in some cases. But I bet the huge majority of these parcels adjoin 35-160 acre properties people saved for and purchased with the legal understanding that they and their neighbors could have access.
As I've posted before on these threads, nobody in the whole country cares about this issue except for a tiny minority (a few disgruntled hunters unhappy with the tens of milllions of acres of public land we already have to hunt).
Before the gas drilling boom, the BLM was actually trading some of these parcels off to have more contiguous pieces for the rancher and BLM. But now, the BLM is hanging on to them for obvious reasons. If gas is determined to be found on an isolated parcel of BLM, they will get easement to drill.
That is because when a rancher leases out AUMs they are responsible for Maintaining the property, fences, reservoirs, wells, etc.... The BLM is not responsible for this. The leasee is responsible for building and maintaining all of this on BLM so the fee has to be cheaper.
I'm not being a wise guy Lou. But, you seem to imply that the majority of people don't understand the problem here. Yet no one here or, anywhere else that discusses this issue has problems with landowners not looking to fleece others because of their land holdings. As example, not to many small 35-150 acre landowners selling guided hunts on their property and, using land locked Pubic or government land to aid that effort. Or, not to many small 35-150 acre landowners running thousands of heads of domesticated animals on public or government land, with all the noise, disturbance, and mess they cause, lessening ever other outdoor enthusiast experience with their livelihood. I might be wrong. If I am, then you can add me to the list of someone that doesn't understand the problem very well.
WY, I'm not sure of the numbers she had total. I just know what she said. Which is something you shouldn't brag about to a hunter that drove 4000 total miles, walked about 100 miles in 11 days, who had to physically defend his camp from the numerous sheep stampedes that happened while the cowboy's pushed those herds back and forth through every square inch of that water shed multiple times, or a hunter that had to pick up his bagged trash the sheep dogs keep getting into every day while he was out hunting.
On the Federal side, there is a similar history that resulted in this strange array of land ownership. The Homestead Acts, The General Mining Act of 1872, and the Railroad Land Grants from 1850-1872, where railroads were given every other Section in a 20-mile or 50-mile swath, for each mile of railroad built. Look at the land ownership along Interstate 80 in southern Wyoming. That is a classic checkerboard stemming from these railroad land grants. Similar incentives were provided to timber and mining companies.
The homesteaders were allowed to stake claims based on the rules of the Homestead Acts and subsequent amendments. Those were usually the most watered and productive lands. That left the arid or unproductive lands unclaimed, retained by the US Government or retuned by homesteaders who couldn't make a go of it on these poorly suited lands. End result is that these less productive lands that were in the hands of the US Government were surrounded by the more productive lands that had homesteaders making claim to. And, the original roads were built to connect homesteaders to the cities/towns, resulting in roads that were mostly over/across private lands, further isolating these public lands.
These events were happening 100-200 years ago, with lands having changed hands many times over that period, and with each subsequent owner paying significant prices (relative to the era) for these lands. Some current owners might use this strange ownership pattern for their own benefit, but they have the right to do that, given part of what they paid for when they purchase the property was the right to control access across their lands, whether to public or other private lands.
Any thought that the Congress or a State is going to somehow impair the value of those lands, via ballot initiative or Legislative/Congressional action or a large scale Eminent Domain claim, is dead on arrival. Such would be a clear violation of the property rights granted these landowners via the 5th Amendment. If you believe in the tenets of the US Constitution, as I do, it is hard to support something that would be such a clear violation of property rights under the 5th Amendment.
As much as I want to see access to all public lands, my perspective is that we are best served to find ways to accomplish such and not infringe on the 5th Amendment rights of the landowners who own lands that control access to the public lands. It is not like a State or Federal agency did this by design. It is not like the original homesteaders or companies receiving the land grants did it to block access to recreationists in the 21st Century.
I would offer that hunters are far better served by supporting full funding of programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increasing support for access easements, working on land exchanges, and the purchase of perpetual easements with willing landowners. It might not solve the problems as quickly as hunters of today would like, but if a long-standing effort was supported and funding provided, over the course of the next 100 years, a lot of access could be obtained through willing buyer-willing selling agreements.
As for flying a helicopter into landlocked public lands, it is pretty easy to find someone permitted to do it out here in western states. And the cost is about the price of a non-resident elk tag. I've done it five times and it has never cost more than $800 per person.
Maybe that is wrong. But, it can't be anymore wrong then what some are doing to pad their pockets off of public resources. I understand this is a situation caused by opportunity. And, I might not feel so strongly about it if I were on the others side of the fence. But, it is simply a case of fleecing the tax payers.
Keep in mind this is just a discussion. No disrespect towards anyone. And, I'm always open to hearing the other side if my feelings are misplaced.
Justin, from what I read on this and other similar threads, I believe the huge majority of hunters (really the only people who give a hoot about this issue) don't understand the situation at all. They know there is public land they can't access, and they want "someone" to force adjoining landowners (which one?) to allow the general public to cross their land to access it. "Should" seems to be the operative wish in many posts.
It chaps me that outfitters can charge to hunt these lands (with a permit). One simple solution might be for the USFS and BLM to deny outfitting permits for any public land that is totally landlocked and inaccessible, thereby reducing the outfitting lease value to the landowner. This would provide a de facto financial incentive to landowners without spending a dime of tax (or LWCF) money.
But outfitters could get around it by letting their hunters go in unguided, with self-retriebal of any killed animals, though we know outfitters would simply ignore the law because the chances of getting caught would be near zero.
There is no easy answer, as Randy points out.
"Broker a deal to purchase a two lane dirt road on one side of private to access public." ~ me
Siigghhhh...read the post Jaq! I said BROKER a deal. That means make an offer, and yes, eminent domain has been used before for recreational use, it allows the government to approach landowners for the use of their property for the good of the community at a fair market value. Eminent domain doesn't mean just take away, there has to be compensation. A quick google search may help
Citing case law does not mean all litigation goes the same way. All it does is justify an argument and build a case so long as that case is similar. And, normally it is referred to as SCOTUS for the Supreme Court Of The United States...
7-4-6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas
a. The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include:
1. When forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator;
2. At officially designated landing sites; or
3. An approved official business of the Federal Government.
Access purchases, leases, land swaps are continually negotiated. But the gubmint can't force access for recreation. The USSC ruling clearly spells that out
The Fifth amendment. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
......."nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
pretty simple, that 'recreation ruling' can be overturn negated reinterpreted, reclassified, overruled, reconstrued, Whatever, nothings written in stone.
who would have ever thought the Supreme Court would rule in favor of a Government entity {State and local} the power of eminent domain to compensate a private owner off his property to be transferred to another private party for development for the new owners private enterprise and gain, regardless if one wants to label it recreation or whatever.
;;;;;;;;;;;;Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
that's just shocking but its the current law of the land.
Change is inevitable. Sitting on the past, wouldn't guarantee the future.
Who is going to buy this land if they decided to sell it? There’s no access. Why would you own it if you can’t get to it.
Is it not our land?
If it was a chunk of private property there would be access that may even go through other properties or have an easement to go through other properties.
Why is it different on the land we all share and own?
