Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[Ridgeratt]

There are a few folks I would pay good money to watch you explain this to when you try to cross. They feel the road to the gate is private and after that it's a private road.

[KFhunter]

There's NO need to force easements. None.  Just close federal lands that are land locked and no general access can be found.  No one has to give up an inch of dirt, they just can't use those blocks of land either. Their home is still their castle and the landlocked blocks treat all the public the same too, no access for anyone.

Im pro choice. The way i see it, there are several options.

1. Allow the landowner to buy the property at FMV, pay the same taxes on it as the rest of his land, and manage it himself.
2. Grant a public easement to access the locked land.
3. Be taxed through the nose
4. Government exercises eminent domain and confiscates a portion of land for easement and reimburses the landowner.

I couldn't be further away from your position, strange to find myself so at odds with your position.  Even a trifle angry.

[stevemiller]

looks to me like the entitlement part of your thinking belongs to the landowners.The Constitution protects us average joes from land grabbers blocking general public from its own lands for their own use.

[grundy53]

Wow. How quickly you shed your conservative skin and hop in bed with the socialists...

Plenty of good legislation is passed with bipartisan support. As they say: politics makes for strange bedfellows. That doesn't necessarily mean one has to shed their "conservative skin" as you put it. The greenies would get something they want like wolves or watching a hillbilly rancher get screwed, and i would  get the pleasure of watching an a-hole get whats coming to him.

I appreciate you finding humor in a tense discussion but unfortunately I'm not joking. Im very much serious.

I wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting  tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they  may feel.

[grundy53]

So just because a guy owns land that happens to border public land you think he should be taxed more if he doesn't want a bunch of strangers on his property?  That is one of the most un-American things I have ever read on here. How the heck should it be the land owners problem that the government ended up with landlocked land? 

Nobody said that landowners should be punished extra just for being landowners. I personally am advocating punitive taxes for landowners whose property landlocks public land who don't grant a public easement. It's not about remaining on their land, it's about passing though.

"Trample all over their land" is likewise disingenuous. I don't think any of the hunters here who are advocating for an easement would object to a road that is lined on big sides by a 15 foot high fence with razor wire at the top.

Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance.  High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water.  It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds.  It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.

I also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas?  Candy bar tax?  Cigs, booze etc etc  Are you really for this style of taxation?

his plan sounds like something Bloomberg would come up with.

[stevemiller]

Please show me where it says this.

Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.

[Bean Counter]

I wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting  tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they  may feel.

There is tons of precedent for this in our tax code. And yes, I'll call it what it really is: punitive. For the sake of discussion if they cashed the landowners check and then burned all that money on principle I would be fine with it. Likewise if I saw someone dragging a deer across 10 yards of private land marked as we have discussed I wouldn't report him. Heck I might even give him a hand when he gets back to public land.

[grundy53]

I find it amazing how easy it is for some to villainize land owners whom they know nothing about. Why not blame the government for not securing an easement when the land was bought.

[Bean Counter]

Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance.  High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water.  It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds.  It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.

I wasn't talking about a high fence around an entire property, only lining the easement road, which in many cases is only a few hundred yards. This hypothetical point was made only because someone else made the reduction to the absurd about strangers "trampling all over their land." What I was saying was that you could create a very structured, limited access route straight to public land and back.

I also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas?  Candy bar tax?  Cigs, booze etc etc  Are you really for this style of taxation?

No, I am for a flat tax at worst and a sales tax at best 

As long as the IRC and related state revenue boards and property taxes exist in their current form, I have no problem with them being used in this manner. Otherwise one could say that if I support a flat tax, I should just take my income, not claim any deductions, and multiply it by the marginal rate without claiming any tax credits. Just because I legally claim my child tax credits doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

[KFhunter]

I wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting  tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they  may feel.

There is tons of precedent for this in our tax code. And yes, I'll call it what it really is: punitive. For the sake of discussion if they cashed the landowners check and then burned all that money on principle I would be fine with it. Likewise if I saw someone dragging a deer across 10 yards of private land marked as we have discussed I wouldn't report him. Heck I might even give him a hand when he gets back to public land.

when the rubber meet the road, being conservative isn't any fun..

Now you condone trespassing to retrieve a deer.  Do you stop at 11 yards or is that OK too?

[grundy53]

I wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting  tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they  may feel.

There is tons of precedent for this in our tax code. And yes, I'll call it what it really is: punitive. For the sake of discussion if they cashed the landowners check and then burned all that money on principle I would be fine with it. Likewise if I saw someone dragging a deer across 10 yards of private land marked as we have discussed I wouldn't report him. Heck I might even give him a hand when he gets back to public land.

Just because there is precedent doesn't make it right. Most of that precedent was set by the very people you claim to be against in every other argument (progressive liberals). Why do you want want to punish landowners for exercising their rights? Why do you want to punish them for YOUR own greed? Why do you want to punish them for the government's screw up?

[Bean Counter]

I find it amazing how easy it is for some to villainize land owners whom they know nothing about. Why not blame the government for not securing an easement when the land was bought.

Well that isn't me, because I met one such landowner. I introduced myself in person and respectfully requested permission to drive across their road, all 300 yards of it, to access public land behind. They told me to go jump in a creek and against my butt hurt feelings, I respected their wishes.

[stevemiller]

Please show me where it says this.

Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.

You lost me there? I asked you to show me where the constitution says the pubic has the right to access landlocked lands through private property.

oh sorry,the 5th.

[grundy53]

I find it amazing how easy it is for some to villainize land owners whom they know nothing about. Why not blame the government for not securing an easement when the land was bought.

Well that isn't me, because I met one such landowner. I introduced myself in person and respectfully requested permission to drive across their road, all 300 yards of it, to access public land behind. They told me to go jump in a creek and against my butt hurt feelings, I respected their wishes.

One? That's a large focus group you are drawing from....

[KFhunter]

Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance.  High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water.  It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds.  It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.

I wasn't talking about a high fence around an entire property, only lining the easement road, which in many cases is only a few hundred yards. This hypothetical point was made only because someone else made the reduction to the absurd about strangers "trampling all over their land." What I was saying was that you could create a very structured, limited access route straight to public land and back.

I also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas?  Candy bar tax?  Cigs, booze etc etc  Are you really for this style of taxation?

No, I am for a flat tax at worst and a sales tax at best 

As long as the IRC and related state revenue boards and property taxes exist in their current form, I have no problem with them being used in this manner. Otherwise one could say that if I support a flat tax, I should just take my income, not claim any deductions, and multiply it by the marginal rate without claiming any tax credits. Just because I legally claim my child tax credits doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

The article itself gave a fine example of why a high fence with razor wire wouldn't work, the road that got this all started crisscrossed canyons  (natural funnels).  Some of these roads would be miles long. 

Curious, who would pay for the high fence with razor wire?  The landowner?  Perhaps this falls in line with your punitive tax idea?

If 4 landowners all surround 1 blocked property, how does the .gov decide which landowner to screw with an easement road?  Maybe go in a circuitous route to encompass them all huh