Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[Gringo31]

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

People have access to public property.  Some might require a helicopter.  You can't blame the guy for not wanting to create a road through his property.  We have property rights in this country.  I can't cut across your yard to get to mine.  It is what it is.  I understand people wanting it, but I respect our rights over some peoples wants.

[Colville]

Gringo,

This isn't about covetting.  If I want to simply hunt his land because I have none, that's tough crap. 

Forcing him to give me an access route to other land, tough crap as well. What's his is his and we shouldn't try to force it from him.

However the land we are talking about is public land. It's no more his than mine.  There's nothing unreasonable about saying when public land can't be accessed by the public that we won't permit a lucky few to make use of it.  I don't think there should be eminent domain, no penalty on the land owners.  Just that if it's not available to all, it's available to none.  I'm pretty sure a change like that would lead to a miraculous new sense of can-do by the land owners. All of the troubles they say make it ridiculous to consider would go poof and they'd figure out an agreable solution, go figure.

Why would anyone let people in if they essentially have large, private, federally owned ranches with exclusivity. I'm not surprised at the owner's actions. I'm surprised we haven't said that's totally cool land owners, but you're trespassing if you step foot on 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.

People have access to public property.  Some might require a helicopter.  You can't blame the guy for not wanting to create a road through his property.  We have property rights in this country.  I can't cut across your yard to get to mine.  It is what it is.  I understand people wanting it, but I respect our rights over some peoples wants.

I agree. Private property is private. Though I'm sure they're happy to let law enforcement on there when they want something fixed on their private preserve. If a landowner doesn't want a road on their land, they shouldn't be forced to have one. They should be forced to pay exorbitant taxes through the nose if they prevent access to public lands though. I'd also have no problem with them being given an offer to buy said public land, pay the land taxes on it, and manage it themselves.

I'll team up with socialists and wolf huggers before seeing it the other way. 

[Jingles]

Consider it this way when the Government either acquired this land or sold the adjoining land should it not of been their responsibility to ensure access?  You purchase property and you make sure you can get to it before you buy it don't you?  If you don't I have some property here in the Methow for sale

[stevemiller]

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.

If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?

[Colville]

Consider it this way when the Government either acquired this land or sold the adjoining land should it not of been their responsibility to ensure access? 

Consider it this way, did the feds ever gaurantee that land owner's access to the public block when they bought their parcel? No? Huh. Guess things could change since the idiot land owner didn't negotiate permanent access. See, this kind of argument cuts both ways. 

[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.

If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?

What lands are city folks having to provide access to?  What's being landlocked that the public really wants to get to?

[KFhunter]

Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone.  Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers.  Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging.  I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered.  Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps.  The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.   

translation:  We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation. 

I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything.  I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature. 
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all. 

thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale.  The current leadership wants less people on less land.

[Gringo31]

I think you need to think about the purpose of these lands.  It isn't for recreation.  Many are revenue generators.  (specifically DNR)  Easements and access come secondary to return on investment. 

I don't understand the increased taxes concept. 

So you're saying that if a bunch of rich guys paid more but still didn't allow access then you would be ok with it?  I believe that this same argument would take place or the tax increase would have to be a number that would only bankrupt them.......that anything else would be unacceptable.

I've looked for certain hunting property for many years.  Mostly its just dreaming.  I'd love to buy a piece some day that has land locked access.  The "public" also has the right to look at property with the same perks.

There are enough things in this world to have our gov't working on that this one shouldn't make the list.   

[stevemiller]

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.

If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?

What lands are city folks having to provide access to?  What's being landlocked that the public really wants to get to?

Any alley behind someones home,every road in front of the home any sidewalk.This isnt just an arguement to get to land locked land but the easment.All homeowners in the city have easments.

[KFhunter]

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.

most of it is restricted "not for recreational use" 

the problem with access goes back a long ways, and it's mostly the gov's problem they've developed by trading property around regardless of public access.  The state holds lot's of timber lands that was never meant to be public use property.

[stevemiller]

Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone.  Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers.  Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging.  I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered.  Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps.  The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.   

translation:  We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation. 

I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything.  I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature. 
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all. 

thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale.  The current leadership wants less people on less land.

They do it all the time.Build hiways through private property,If you own it thats great there are laws that give the gov. the right to buy your land at fare market value whether you like it or not.No i wont site you the rcw. look it up yourself.

[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.

If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?

What lands are city folks having to provide access to?  What's being landlocked that the public really wants to get to?

Any alley behind someones home,every road in front of the home any sidewalk.This isnt just an arguement to get to land locked land but the easment.All homeowners in the city have easments.

The gov usually keeps an easement to their own property, but only for official use.  The city easements are also for official use.  I don't know of special easements in the city for the public.

[JimmyHoffa]

Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone.  Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers.  Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging.  I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered.  Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps.  The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.   

translation:  We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation. 

I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything.  I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature. 
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all. 

thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale.  The current leadership wants less people on less land.

They do it all the time.Build hiways through private property,If you own it thats great there are laws that give the gov. the right to buy your land at fare market value whether you like it or not.No i wont site you the rcw. look it up yourself.

But they have to show a strong enough need for the population overall.  Taking 8 feet off your yard and paying you accordingly for a highway widening project is different than building a big road through your ranch so some guys can go fishing or hunting.

[stevemiller]

Like i said the state can do it if they want period its in the eminent domain laws.Theres a lot of them that pertain so if you want to read them be my guest