Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 05:58:06 PMQuote from: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 05:41:56 PMQuote from: idahohuntr on March 17, 2015, 09:36:28 PMSome 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.
Quote from: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 05:41:56 PMQuote from: idahohuntr on March 17, 2015, 09:36:28 PMSome 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.
Quote from: idahohuntr on March 17, 2015, 09:36:28 PMSome 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.
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.
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.
]Why is it diff.?Or why do you think it is?
I know they are there, but the state or county or city...has to have enough of a valid reason for it. If someone had a 100 yard wide strip of private surrounding a million acre wilderness, maybe it would be ruled in public benefit. But a lot of the cases I hear about are things like a 640 acre square in the middle of a 60,000 acre ranch in Montana. Guys want to hunt the piece of property (it is public) and expect landowners to just throw open gates and let them drive 8 miles of ranch road to get there. And then get tiffed when landowners tell them to push a rope.
It would have to be bought at fare market value as well.Most of these landowners bought these properties for the reason of being able to lock everyone out of these huge public lands,I say they get what they get when Roads start getting put up.You dont like it dont try to screw the public when you buy the land
]no one said anything about being able to hunt the private land and no matter hoiw you feel about it it is in the best interests of the public to use public land no matter where that land is.A road to access only need be say 40-50 feet wide to get to the public property.
Quote from: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:29:02 PMIt would have to be bought at fare market value as well.Most of these landowners bought these properties for the reason of being able to lock everyone out of these huge public lands,I say they get what they get when Roads start getting put up.You dont like it dont try to screw the public when you buy the landSo if I buy a piece of property that borders landlocked public land I'm screwing the public if I don't let them tromp through my property? I will never understand this type of thinking and disregard for property rights. Like has been mentioned before, you want on that public land buy or rent a helicopter. Leave the private property owners alone.
For those who don't think acquiring access to landlocked public land is a good thing, what if many of the current easements into blocks of public land were eliminated? How would you feel about that? Because it seems like some prefer to let private landowners have exclusive access to public lands. So let's get rid of all the access we now enjoy. There's no need for it, correct?
