Montana BLM Determines Fence Built Around Landlocked Public Land is Legal

[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. 

   

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.

The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground.  If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west.  In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare. 

[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.

The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground.  If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west.  In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.

The government will access "your" land on your behalf, even through private property if needed; but that doesn't mean you have the right to trek through private land to get there for your own personal benefit when millions of other people who share that property with you don't even want hunters on there.

Watch this whole video, if you make it to the very end with the volume on high then you'll find enlightenment.
Mine Mine Mine for 10 Hours

[bigtex]

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.

The DNR portion of the Discover Pass funding goes into the DNR "park land trust revolving fun" which funds DNR  public/recreational facilites.

So the $ you spend on a Discover Pass is not going to fund/maintain some type of publicly inaccessible DNR land.

[KFhunter]

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.

The DNR portion of the Discover Pass funding goes into the DNR "park land trust revolving fun" which funds DNR  public/recreational facilites.

So the $ you spend on a Discover Pass is not going to fund/maintain some type of publicly inaccessible DNR land.

Imagine how much more funding would be needed if all non recreational lands were forcibly turned into recreational lands with public access 

[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. 

   

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.

The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground.  If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west.  In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.

The government will access "your" land on your behalf, even through private property if needed; but that doesn't mean you have the right to trek through private land to get there for your own personal benefit when millions of other people who share that property with you don't even want hunters on there.

Watch this whole video, if you make it to the very end with the volume on high then you'll find enlightenment.
Mine Mine Mine for 10 Hours

So you are against hunting on public land.  Fair enough.  I do believe the public should have access to their property, equal to any private land owner.  I will never advocate for unequal rights for any situation. 

 

[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.

The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground.  If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west.  In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.

The government will access "your" land on your behalf, even through private property if needed; but that doesn't mean you have the right to trek through private land to get there for your own personal benefit when millions of other people who share that property with you don't even want hunters on there.

Watch this whole video, if you make it to the very end with the volume on high then you'll find enlightenment.
Mine Mine Mine for 10 Hours

So you are against hunting on public land.  Fair enough.  I do believe the public should have access to their property, equal to any private land owner.  I will never advocate for unequal rights for any situation. 

No IDH,  I'm not against hunting on public land.  99% of my hunting is on public recreational use lands.  I suspect you know this but can't refrain from snippety remarks    Usually it's a sign you've nothing more to add to a debate.  It's pretty common for the opposition to resort to attacks when they're loosing.  Watch some presidential debates, the looser is always resorting to attacks and slander.

I will never advocate for unequal rights for any situation.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing when you advocate blazing roads through private property so you can hunt public lands regardless if they're for public recreational use or not.  I'll never advocate that your privilege to hunt is greater than a landowners right to do exclude you from their lands.

[idahohuntr]

Private landowners have the right to access their land even if it is surrounded by private land.  All such inholdings of private ground have de facto ingress/egress easements.  If property rights were equal, public land would have the same.  Again, you continue to suggest a road is needed...and that is simply not true.  I don't think you know what an easement is.  Furthermore, BLM land is not "zoned recreational v. non-recreation land"...so that argument doesn't even apply except possibly to some trivial amount of state land you like to harp about...I could care less what WA does with DNR ground...BLM land is the majority of the issue and is the subject of this thread.

Also, you continue to suggest I only want public access to public lands so that I personally benefit.  Guess what?  I am fortunate enough to be able to pay trespass fees, hire pilots etc. to access landlocked ground if I choose.  It would actually be to my detriment for my own personal hunting if all hunters had access to the public ground that is landlocked where I might hunt.  I simply refuse to accept that it is acceptable for the public to not have access to their resources and property any more than a private landowner should not have access to their property.

[KFhunter]

Private landowners have the right to access their land even if it is surrounded by private land.  All such inholdings of private ground have de facto ingress/egress easements.  If property rights were equal, public land would have the same.  Again, you continue to suggest a road is needed...and that is simply not true.  I don't think you know what an easement is.  Furthermore, BLM land is not "zoned recreational v. non-recreation land"...so that argument doesn't even apply except possibly to some trivial amount of state land you like to harp about...I could care less what WA does with DNR ground...BLM land is the majority of the issue and is the subject of this thread.

Also, you continue to suggest I only want public access to public lands so that I personally benefit.  Guess what?  I am fortunate enough to be able to pay trespass fees, hire pilots etc. to access landlocked ground if I choose.  It would actually be to my detriment for my own personal hunting if all hunters had access to the public ground that is landlocked where I might hunt.  I simply refuse to accept that it is acceptable for the public to not have access to their resources and property any more than a private landowner should not have access to their property.

blah blah blah  -  all of those points have been addressed and soundly defeated.   

Do you have anything else to add to your pointless pontificating?

[idahohuntr]

Ahhh...the sound of someone who realizes they don't understand the issues   

[KFhunter]

 

[idahohuntr]

  

[KFhunter]

So while you're crying a river this thread will give you a little insight to some of the problems DNR has with public access.


http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79996.0.html

From: DNR RE Recreation E-News <RecreationENews@dnr.wa.gov>

Date: July 14, 2011 12:31:38 PM PDT

Subject: Mitchell Peak trail access closure



Hi, folks:
 
I just wanted to let you know of a developing situation in southwest Washington. As of last week, access to the northern trailhead for Mitchell Peak is closed. Mitchell Peak is located in the Siouxon Forest Block, south of Swift Reservoir. The forest spans Clark and Skamania counties.
 
While the forestland is managed by DNR, the only access road to the trailhead—10 Road—cuts across private landownership, and the new landowner has gated and closed access to the road just east of the intersection with the S-1000 Road.
 
DNR does not have a recreation easement for recreation access across this road. DNR land managers are working on a solution.

In the meantime, the only access to Mitchell Peak trail is from the North Siouxon Creek Trailhead, in the southern part of the Siouxon Block. The distance from this trailhead to the top of Mitchell Peak is about 13 miles.
 
I will keep you informed of any new developments.
 
 
Mark R. Mauren
Assistant Division Manager
Recreation, Public Access and WCC Programs
Asset Management and Recreation Division
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
360-902-1047
mark.mauren@dnr.wa.gov
www.dnr.wa.gov

Like I said,  easements are usually very specific.  In this case they have an easement for DNR use, but not for public use.

I've no idea why the property owner decided to shut down the trail, perhaps he wasn't fairly compensated for selling a DNR only easement that morphed into a public easement and decided to shut it down so he can be properly compensated...just a guess on my part though, purely speculative.

[idahohuntr]

KF- Below are my thoughts about DNR land in WA...TRIVIAL and I could care less.  Its the BLM ground that is the subject of this thread and what constitutes the major access problem in the Western US.  Your continued harping about some piddly little DNR land is what makes me think you really don't have a very good grasp of this issue.

Furthermore, BLM land is not "zoned recreational v. non-recreation land"...so that argument doesn't even apply except possibly to some trivial amount of state land you like to harp about...I could care less what WA does with DNR ground...BLM land is the majority of the issue and is the subject of this thread.

[KFhunter]

Piddly?      lol,  you've no clue how much WA DNR land is locked up do you?    

I assumed you cared about Washington public land access by quoting RCW's,  that's what got me sucked in to this thread when you brought Washington into the mix,  which is understandable since this is a forum about hunting in Washington

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)?

And we do have BLM land in WA too, just not so much as most other western states.   Still, public access is a relevant topic to HW so we all value your expertise in this matter. 

[idahohuntr]

Piddly?      lol,  you've no clue how much WA DNR land is locked up do you?    

I assumed you cared about Washington public land access by quoting RCW's,  that's what got me sucked in to this thread when you brought Washington into the mix,  which is understandable since this is a forum about hunting in Washington

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)?

And we do have BLM land in WA too, just not so much as most other western states.   Still, public access is a relevant topic to HW so we all value your expertise in this matter. 

Baby steps.  Wa DNR land is inconsequential to the 6 million acres (or 9,375 square miles) of landlocked ground in other western states that a good portion of Hunt-wa folks hunt in.  WDFW implementing something beyond their joke of a private lands access program would be a better focus for hunt-wa folks concerned about hunting access specific to WA IMO.  Ok, the seahawks won and the game is over...I have to go back to packing my hunting gear.