Montana BLM Determines Fence Built Around Landlocked Public Land is Legal

[KFhunter]

There is no land locked public lands in WA, it's a misleading phrase to say so.

There are plenty of "not for recreational use" DNR lands though,  but rest assured DNR has access to all of the state's holdings.
Same holds for any other public lands not for recreation, the agency holding that property has access. 

You're gripe is that you cannot use the government easement/s for your personal use.   The government can't make non-recreational use lands into recreational use either due to many different factors but a big one is patrolling it.  Simply can't afford to put on large amount of new officer hours to patrol all the states holdings if they were suddenly made to be recreational use lands.   The state is probably against that anyways, the current trend is to further restrict accesses rather than encourage it.

I don't see anything moving anytime soon on the state making more land available for public use 

[pianoman9701]

There is no land locked public lands in WA, it's a misleading phrase to say so.

There are plenty of "not for recreational use" DNR lands though,  but rest assured DNR has access to all of the state's holdings.
Same holds for any other public lands not for recreation, the agency holding that property has access. 

You're gripe is that you cannot use the government easement/s for your personal use.   The government can't make non-recreational use lands into recreational use either due to many different factors but a big one is patrolling it.  Simply can't afford to put on large amount of new officer hours to patrol all the states holdings if they were suddenly made to be recreational use lands.   The state is probably against that anyways, the current trend is to further restrict accesses rather than encourage it.

I don't see anything moving anytime soon on the state making more land available for public use 

I'm unsure your statement is true. There have been many threads on HuntWA about DNR land that's completely surrounded by timber company land with no access. Do you know this to be false, KF?

[KFhunter]

There is no land locked public lands in WA, it's a misleading phrase to say so.

There are plenty of "not for recreational use" DNR lands though,  but rest assured DNR has access to all of the state's holdings.
Same holds for any other public lands not for recreation, the agency holding that property has access. 

You're gripe is that you cannot use the government easement/s for your personal use.   The government can't make non-recreational use lands into recreational use either due to many different factors but a big one is patrolling it.  Simply can't afford to put on large amount of new officer hours to patrol all the states holdings if they were suddenly made to be recreational use lands.   The state is probably against that anyways, the current trend is to further restrict accesses rather than encourage it.

I don't see anything moving anytime soon on the state making more land available for public use 

I'm unsure your statement is true. There have been many threads on HuntWA about DNR land that's completely surrounded by timber company land with no access. Do you know this to be false, KF?

by access you mean no roads period?  Or just no pubic access?
Per the law already quoted the state can doze a trail for logging, mining etc etc.  May not be cost feasible to do so - thus no roads.  Or maybe it's some protected area.  Doesn't take much for the state to take lands off the table for logging.  Doesn't mean they can't force access if they desired.

I'm no expert in land use issues, so I'm kind of talking out both ends here.  I won't have an argument about it and am open to corrections.

[pianoman9701]

Yeah, not looking to argue at all. I understand that there is land locked public land that can't be accessed without landowner permission, by foot or otherwise.

[KFhunter]

Yeah, not looking to argue at all. I understand that there is land locked public land that can't be accessed without landowner permission, by foot or otherwise.

Oh ya I'm sure there's a bunch of it.  I know of some DNR land that's locked behind gates, but the DNR has their locks on the gate so they can get through...but I can't.

Lot's of that over here.  Some of it is surrounded by timber corperation land that doesn't allow public access.  Very frustrating.

I think the timber companies need to pay their share of property taxes.  I know they pay a very low rate for timber lands, perhaps there needs to be further incentive for them to allow public access.  I would support a tax incentive to allow low cost permits or open public access.  Even if the incentive reclassifies timber use lands into a higher category of taxation unless they allow access.  That would be like a tax penalty, almost.

I won't support any abuse of private property rights though, especially for private ownership where the property owner legally lives on the property in question full time.  I'm less inclined to protect cooperate lands, LLC's etc etc, especially held by foreign interests or foreigners owning vacation property. 

[idahohuntr]

Im not sure how much (if any) non-DNR land in WA is landlocked either...this thread was started in regards to MT though, and MT, WY, ID, CO,...have millions of acres of truly landlocked (mostly BLM) land.  I agree on the point DNR land is not recreation land...its there to generate revenue for the state...BLM land though is much different IMO. 

Again...I don't see it is a private property rights infringement to require the same rights as would be granted if those land-locked public BLM parcels were held in private ownership.     

[KFhunter]

Some of those easements to DNR lands go right through the middle of someone's yard, literally.

Drive up through their compound, right past their barns, livestock, pets and dogs, opening and closing gates - what you advocate for would make one heck of a mess and get people hurt.


no thanks!


Those properties were bought and sold,  easements looked over and agreed upon.  People bought those places with privacy in mind.  To open a little used DNR easement to the general public for whatever is a pretty large change on the conditions in which those properties were purchased.  I see it as a huge infringement upon private property rights, you'd advocate to lessen privacy, let anyone tromp through their lands and in cases blaze a trail through private land.   This is a bigger disagreement than the wolf threads.  Liberal socialist ideology at its worst.

[idahohuntr]

KF- Why should a piece of public property not have equal rights to a piece of private property?  You can not land lock a piece of private ground...why should public property be different...and have inferior rights?

When you say "what I would advocate for" you are not back to suggesting that an access easement requires a road or trail or even any alteration to the subject private parcel are you? 

Public land access is not a liberal socialist ideology...its an American value that transcends trivial 2 party political ideologies. 

[KFhunter]

Most of what your asking for would be opening existing established roads that are in disrepair and would have to be brought back up to specs.
Foot access wouldn't ever work because people are too lazy to keep it foot access, they'd wallow out a trail with ATV's and trucks, and worse new roads would be blazed across private property because why not?  The state if forced to put in public access isn't going to just settle for a foot path, they'll build a road so they can log, fight fires etc.   

Not only that but essentially you're a 3rd party suing for access non-recreational state/federal lands, as I'm sure this would have to go through the court system.

Public land access is not a liberal socialist ideology...its an American value that transcends trivial 2 party political ideologies. 

Private property rights IS an American value that transcends any political ideology and is one of the founding priciples of this country.

[idahohuntr]

Most of what your asking for would be opening existing established roads that are in disrepair and would have to be brought back up to specs.
Foot access wouldn't ever work because people are too lazy to keep it foot access, they'd wallow out a trail with ATV's and trucks, and worse new roads would be blazed across private property because why not?  The state if forced to put in public access isn't going to just settle for a foot path, they'll build a road so they can log, fight fires etc.   

Not only that but essentially you're a 3rd party suing for access non-recreational state/federal lands, as I'm sure this would have to go through the court system.

Your assumptions are incorrect.  I suspect you are simply not familiar with public land issues in most western states.  No road, no alteration, no motorized access is necessary.  As far as lawbreakers...they could do that now so that is a moot point.

I'm not suing anyone...nor am I a 3rd party.  I am part owner of the land in interest though.

[KFhunter]

What standing do you have to demand access through private ground to public ground?   You'd have to come at it from a legal standpoint and use the courts to force the issue, you'd have to be a part of some "public access group" and sue BLM/DNR etc for access.   A lot like environmentlists sue to stop logging, or pro-wolf groups sue to stop WDFW from killing wolves.

So yes, you'd be a 3rd party suing the government.  That case would go all the way to SCOTUS, you might find a ruling in a lesser district court but they'd stay their decision pending appeal - from either party- and eventually SCOTUS would have to see it.

A decision from SCOTUS would have massive implications all across the USA.


And YES - roads would be put in as a result, you can't convince me that any litigation would remain small enough to stipulate some foot path or non-motorized access through a private holding.

I suspect you are simply not familiar with public land issues in most western states.  No road, no alteration, no motorized access is necessary.

I suspect you just aren't looking far enough down the tracks, too focused on the tree - and not seeing the forest.

[idahohuntr]

You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property?  Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. 

   

[Humptulips]

So who owns DNR lands? Does not ownership by the State mean they belong to the people of the State of WA? Isn't the State merely a trustee of the land for the people? Shouldn't the owners (the public) of the land be allowed access to their property?
Another point I think needs to be, when the State started charging for use of DNR land for recreation (Discover Pass) it became an income producing activity. That put it in the same boat with mining, logging ,grazing etc. when it comes to access. If the State has an easement for income producing activities, recreation should now be included.

[KFhunter]

It's not for recreational use.

If the property were to be "rezoned" for public recreational use then we'd have some upset property owners, and roads previously only used intermittently for government purposes by government employees...now becomes public use roads, right through people's front yards.

Along with that comes a big increase in patrolling those recreational lands, road improvements, user impact studies...blah blah blah etc etc

[KFhunter]

You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property?  Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. 

   

They don't have inferior rights, that's ludicrous.  You just don't always have the right to access government property through private lands,  but the .gov does if it chooses to do so.