Montana BLM Determines Fence Built Around Landlocked Public Land is Legal

[JimmyHoffa]

And it sounds like in this case it wasn't the landowners keeping the public out as much as other public land hunters keeping people out.  The landowners (from what I've read) are mostly trying to keep people off the private land and wanted a trade.  But sounds like hunters that have the means (air travel) wanted to keep it locked up as their de facto private preserve.

[pianoman9701]

And it sounds like in this case it wasn't the landowners keeping the public out as much as other public land hunters keeping people out.  The landowners (from what I've read) are mostly trying to keep people off the private land and wanted a trade.  But sounds like hunters that have the means (air travel) wanted to keep it locked up as their de facto private preserve.

That's exactly what I was getting at.

[pianoman9701]

Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.

 

Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? 

Amen!

I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street.  All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.

You do have a right to access the land

I'm not sure what you mean here    In this specific case, yes, folks with airplanes can access it.  There are many other chunks of land that are similarly landlocked, but have no air access...and thus no way to access legally.

What I mean is, no rights are being violated in this case.  Absolutley no one is stopping you or anyone from accessing this land.  It's an unfortunete set of circumstances that you can't walk or drive to it.

It's more than circumstances if the government abandoned the land swap (a swap which would have made public lands accessible to anyone by ground) in favor of a few rich hunters' wishes to have land only accessible by air. Whether it be in MT or WA, public land is bought and maintained by public dollars. That means that everyone who has paid anything in taxes should have access to it. That's not currently the case and laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.

[bigtex]

laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.

So essentially hell with private property rights?

If my land borders landlocked DNR land why should I be forced to allow citizens cross my land to get to DNR land? Shouldn't DNR be at fault for acquiring landlocked land? Or for failing to puchase lands which will then create access to those lands? Why should private property owners incur damage to their lands by citizens because some agency has failed to create access?

[Bean Counter]

A lot of these blm and state trust land parcels might as well be private. So many a-hole landowners block access with a locked gate. They ought to have to pay property taxes on that land IMHO.

[zike]

I can't believe BLM had to ask "teacher may I"  to access
there lands.They must have had access in the past
to build roads on those lands. I'm sure they didn't fly in equipment to build roads in an area with no landing strip. And since this started after the land was sold, there was probably access for the general public til then. I don't know if there was a deeded easement, but there was some sort of easement. I say if the public cannot access their lands then no one should. CLOSE IT TO EVERYONE.

[fireweed]

I'd like to know more about this fence--is it a standard cattle fence, or is it a wildlife blocking 8-ft high fence.  If a private fence blocks the movement of wildlife, or encloses wildlife that cannot escape, it should be made illegal.  Wildlife fences are ok if they keep animals out (like an orchard), but not ok if they entrap wildlife.  a full section enclosed in an 8-ft fence essentially captures any animals in there and prevents them from escaping or migrating.   If this type of fence isn't illegal, it needs to be.

[pianoman9701]

laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.

So essentially hell with private property rights?

If my land borders landlocked DNR land why should I be forced to allow citizens cross my land to get to DNR land? Shouldn't DNR be at fault for acquiring landlocked land? Or for failing to puchase lands which will then create access to those lands? Why should private property owners incur damage to their lands by citizens because some agency has failed to create access?

I didn't say to hell with private property rights. I said that public land should be available to the public.  In the above example, the existing landowner was willing to make a land trade which would have opened up land to unfettered public access, but because of the objections of a few hunters, hunters who had no stake in any of the private land, the BLM decided to keep the public property land-locked. Had the trade gone through, this would not have been "to hell with private property rights", but a win for the general public. As it played out, it took the public land use out of the hands of anyone who couldn't afford to access that land by air.

There should be a law put in place that disallows public land being completely surrounded without right of way/easement for public access. Many people buy land which has easements or rights of way that have to be honored. People purchasing that land have the right not to purchase it if they don't like the rules. Why should I have to pay taxes for property to which I have no access? In the case of existing parcels of landlocked public land, the government should make every effort to either get the land owner to agree to access through some kind of consideration (payment), or to make trades which will then allow public access.

[zike]

Sure Wilks offered to trade other land for the Durfee Hills property. But can you say the land offered was as good as Durfee. It might be land not fit for man or beast. Since this just came up there must have been access in the past for the public. If the people who own the land can't use it, close it to everyone NOW.

BTW There is a timber company in ID wanting to trade some clear cut property on the  MT border for good timbered, recreation and hunting property near Lewiston. So far it hasn't happened but I think there still trying.

[snowpack]

More to the land for a land trade than just quality of animals.  If the public had unfettered access to it in its current position, would the quality of animals be the same?  I would think not.  If they did the switch and it was to a different area and no hunting then a herd would likely build up and get the right spreads for age characteristics.  By not switching then the public loses out on all kinds of other activities--ORV, horseback, rockhounding, etc.  Why I'm surprised BLM didn't go for it.  Maybe BLM workers are the ones hunting in the landlocked area?  Or they are greenies not wanting to see more people chasing 'their' elk.

[Humptulips]

I remember reading about this some time ago. The thing that killed the trade was unequal land value as I remember.

[idahohuntr]

laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.

So essentially hell with private property rights?

If my land borders landlocked DNR land why should I be forced to allow citizens cross my land to get to DNR land? Shouldn't DNR be at fault for acquiring landlocked land? Or for failing to puchase lands which will then create access to those lands? Why should private property owners incur damage to their lands by citizens because some agency has failed to create access?

Its asking for equal property rights bigtex.  In Washington and I believe every other state, a private landowner can not be landlocked out of his property.  Why should a public landowner be subject to such a restriction?  Property rights should not be a one way street 

[zike]

Its asking for equal property rights bigtex.  In Washington and I believe every other state, a private landowner can not be landlocked out of his property.  Why should a public landowner be subject to such a restriction?  Property rights should not be a one way street 

No you can be landlocked in WA, ID, and I guess MT. I had a broker who bought land locked parcels in town (WA) and then bought an adjoining house. Gave himself an easement and resold the house, I can remember riding in his big  Caddy and he'd turn in some guys yard and drive to his property. He explained he had to use the easement so it wouldn't be seen as abandon.

BLM might be able to get an easement by eminent domain, thats the way the govt takes peoples land who don't want to sell.

[pianoman9701]

That's why there should be a law, so the gov't doesn't have to take land. It puts it all up front at the beginning.

[idahohuntr]

Its asking for equal property rights bigtex.  In Washington and I believe every other state, a private landowner can not be landlocked out of his property.  Why should a public landowner be subject to such a restriction?  Property rights should not be a one way street 

No you can be landlocked in WA, ID, and I guess MT. I had a broker who bought land locked parcels in town (WA) and then bought an adjoining house. Gave himself an easement and resold the house, I can remember riding in his big  Caddy and he'd turn in some guys yard and drive to his property. He explained he had to use the easement so it wouldn't be seen as abandon.

BLM might be able to get an easement by eminent domain, thats the way the govt takes peoples land who don't want to sell.

Im not sure of the specifics of your example, but that is not correct in WA.  You can not landlock a private parcel.  You must have ingress/egress to the property.  If necessary a forceable easement can be granted. 

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010

This law, unfortunately, does not extend to public lands...thats what I mean by equal property rights.  Why should this law be provided for private property holders but not public property holders (i.e., us taxpayers)?

Alternatively, if a private landowner won't grant access to landlocked public land...fine...why should the public allow that specific landowner to cross our land to get to his?  Sorry bud...you travel on BLM ground and a BLM road to get to your private ranch that landlocks 4 square miles of public BLM ground...well, we are going to be as neighborly as you...