Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[wsmnut]

Problem I see is they get access to the public land then are all over the private property as well, and if it is a road lane or trail it is going to and from the Public land it will look like a land fill after the first season of granting access.  All he CIVILIZED hunters dumping their trash on the way out.....

  This is exactly how it panned out for some neighbors and I south of Twisp.
We gave permission to some hunters to access some "landlocked" BLM and DNR land.
The road in wound through several pieces of private property.  We were rewarded by trash, wild shooting, one wounded deer, and trespassing/hunting on private property that was NOT part of the deal.  Needless to say that permission was rescinded and access posted closed. 

Wsmnut

[bobcat]

Unethical and illegal activities can happen on public land anywhere. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have access to it. That would be like saying some people drive over the speed limit on public roads- therefore all the public roads should be closed.

[JimmyHoffa]

But that was on the private used to access the public.
I think they should use land trades as an incentive.  Some might go for it, others might not and want the cash incentive.

[floatinghat]

I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property.  The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS.    But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around. 

[Jacque]

It seems that things could be made easier with required easements to land locked public property.

[Jingles]

Having been on numerous trails in the area and seeing as how "CIVILIZED" people take care of public land if I had private property that was the only access to public lands at this stage I'd tell those that want to use it  public property to grow wings.....

[NumaJohn]

Hello, all.

I am sympathetic with the landowners' concerns and their interests in preserving their properties and avoiding inevitable disruptions to their way of life, but at the same time, it does seem short-sighted for anyone--governments, landowners, you name it--to restrict access to lands owned by the public.

It's just too bad it got to this point. More foresight by land planners in the past could have avoided this big mess. Checkerboarding and the like could have had more stipulations that preserved the liberty of citizens and allowed them to access their own land.

Along the same vein, I cannot get behind individual states taking over federal lands. As much as I agree that the U.S. Government has mis-managed much of the land under its stewardship, I think there is something special about always having places that all of us can go for recreation. If states take over lands, then get in a pinch for money, or if they get a hankering for more money, they could (and, I believe, often would) sell off public lands to the highest bidders.

That land would likely be gone forever, then. Our hunting and fishing heritage is intricately linked to our tradition of having land to access. Polls have indicated that the biggest reason people stop hunting is because of lack of access. If you ask me, we hunters need to do everything we can to keep as much land open for hunting as possible. We reap what we sow, including through our tacit endorsements that come from remaining silent about the pressing issues of our time.

My two bits,

John

[wolfbait]

Hello, all.

I am sympathetic with the landowners' concerns and their interests in preserving their properties and avoiding inevitable disruptions to their way of life, but at the same time, it does seem short-sighted for anyone--governments, landowners, you name it--to restrict access to lands owned by the public.

It's just too bad it got to this point. More foresight by land planners in the past could have avoided this big mess. Checkerboarding and the like could have had more stipulations that preserved the liberty of citizens and allowed them to access their own land.

Along the same vein, I cannot get behind individual states taking over federal lands. As much as I agree that the U.S. Government has mis-managed much of the land under its stewardship, I think there is something special about always having places that all of us can go for recreation. If states take over lands, then get in a pinch for money, or if they get a hankering for more money, they could (and, I believe, often would) sell off public lands to the highest bidders.

That land would likely be gone forever, then. Our hunting and fishing heritage is intricately linked to our tradition of having land to access. Polls have indicated that the biggest reason people stop hunting is because of lack of access. If you ask me, we hunters need to do everything we can to keep as much land open for hunting as possible. We reap what we sow, including through our tacit endorsements that come from remaining silent about the pressing issues of our time.

My two bits,

John

What good will access be if there is nothing left to hunt? If we don't get some predator/wolf control WA won't have to worry about hunting period.

[JimmyHoffa]

I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property.  The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS.    But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around.

So you don't think a land owner should be compensated for an easement he will have to maintain? Its not the land owners fault the government was dumb enough to end up with landlocked lands.

The gov did the checkboarding and lost the access.  I would not support eminent domain for something like this. 

[Bean Counter]

If they can't buy access, restrict it to all.  They should add another provision in this law:   Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED.  Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything.  I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it.  Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.

x1,000 

Its absolute that a private landowner can own a small strip of land and block public access to a ton of BLM or other public property behind it.     

Another easy way to open up access would be to tax the crap out of the landowners who pull this crap. 

[Jingles]

If they can't buy access, restrict it to all.  They should add another provision in this law:   Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED.  Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything.  I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it.  Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.

x1,000 

Its absolute that a private landowner can own a small strip of land and block public access to a ton of BLM or other public property behind it.     

Another easy way to open up access would be to tax the crap out of the landowners who pull this crap. 

What you are suggesting would violate Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution  " The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes,Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" emphasis added

Taxing that landowner more would be a clear violation of uniformity throughout the United States

[Gringo31]

I understand why people want this access to private land.  Rent a helicopter and access it.


What this really boils down to is someone else has something I want (access), and I'm going to cry it's not fair.    I may go as far to force or demand that I DESERVE it and THEY might have to deal with all of the negative consequences of my want.......but that's their problem.


Remember what our parents said.....Life isn't fair.  Some are tall, athletic, good looking, smart etc.  Some may have property that allows them to walk onto public land that others don't.

Deal with it 
 

[Bean Counter]

It's not a cry for socialism, but public access to public property. Saying that life isn't fair is a cop out. 

[Bean Counter]

If they can't buy access, restrict it to all.  They should add another provision in this law:   Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED.  Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything.  I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it.  Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.

x1,000 

Its absolute that a private landowner can own a small strip of land and block public access to a ton of BLM or other public property behind it.     

Another easy way to open up access would be to tax the crap out of the landowners who pull this crap. 

What you are suggesting would violate Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution  " The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes,Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" emphasis added

Taxing that landowner more would be a clear violation of uniformity throughout the United States

No problem.  We'll uniformly tax all landowners whose property touches landlocked public land.

[logger]

I would have a hard time dropping the hammer on a landowner due to the the goverments own stupidity.