Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[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.

It says no such thing.

no such thing,really.It says that they cant do it without comp. That is saying that they can with comp.And after all this bs I hope they do big time.

[grundy53]

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.

It says no such thing.

no such thing,really.It says that they cant do it without comp. That is saying that they can with comp.And after all this bs I hope they do big time.

I hope they start with your house. Since you're all for it.

[Bean Counter]

Id be fine with blm, G&F, etc paying to construct and maintain the easement road as well as the fence. I'm guessing most landowner wouldn't want a fence or vehicle barrier, just those who obsess about people "trampling over their land."

Id be fine with all adjacent property owners being taxed 100% the value of such a land. Any that want out can allow for the easement. I'm sure the gocenrment wouldn't be opposed To such an arrangement either!

[Bean Counter]

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?

I agree with you. Just because there is precedent, doesn't mean it's right.

There is precedent for private land to exclude the public from public land. However, just because there is precedent for it, doesn't mean it's right.

[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.

It says no such thing.

no such thing,really.It says that they cant do it without comp. That is saying that they can with comp.And after all this bs I hope they do big time.

I hope they start with your house. Since you're all for it.

I hope they start with yours since your against it. How that work out for you?

[KFhunter]

Id be fine with blm, G&F, etc paying to construct and maintain the easement road as well as the fence. I'm guessing most landowner wouldn't want a fence or vehicle barrier, just those who obsess about people "trampling over their land."

Id be fine with all adjacent property owners being taxed 100% the value of such a land. Any that want out can allow for the easement. I'm sure the gocenrment wouldn't be opposed To such an arrangement either!

So the next property owner, who may or may not have allowed an easement had they been there when it happened, now has to suffer a punitive tax while the easement road resides on the adjacent property?

[stevemiller]

Thats like saying its not fair that you have to pay school taxes because you owned the property before the school,Or your taxes got raised because you got annexed into the city or etc wah wah wah.

[KFhunter]

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?

I agree with you. Just because there is precedent, doesn't mean it's right.

There is precedent for private land to exclude the public from public land. However, just because there is precedent for it, doesn't mean it's right.

wrong

There is precedent for private land owners to exclude the public from private land.  Private land owners cannot exclude the public from publically owned lands.
If you find someone posting public land as private please turn them in.

[grundy53]

Thats like saying its not fair that you have to pay school taxes because you owned the property before the school,Or your taxes got raised because you got annexed into the city or etc wah wah wah.

Actually, no it isn't...

[idahohuntr]

We need equal property rights.  No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law.  You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access.  Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land?  Why is the public less deserving than another owner?  Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?

To those who say...just fly in?  In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.

To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.

Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is.  Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement.  You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.

Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.  I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt.  However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands.  Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters.   

[Bean Counter]

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.

It says no such thing.

Uh, dude?  Steve is 100% on this point.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[grundy53]

We need equal property rights.  No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law.  You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access.  Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land?  Why is the public less deserving than another owner?  Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?

To those who say...just fly in?  In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.

To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.

Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is.  Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement.  You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.

Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.  I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt.  However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands.  Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. 

Wow. What complete BS.  I never said any of that.   you know dang well what I said.  But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...

[KFhunter]

We need equal property rights.  No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law.  You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access.  Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land?  Why is the public less deserving than another owner?  Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?

To those who say...just fly in?  In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.

To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.

Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is.  Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement.  You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.

Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.  I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt.  However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands.  Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. 

You're argument fails because the landowner is the government in cases where the property is for investment purposes rather than recreational use.  The .gov enjoys equal property rights. 

There is no truly landlocked land, there is only land that the general public doesn't have access.  DNR/BLM etc will have an easement and if necessary will force an easement to gain access if so desired.   

To those who say...just fly in?  In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.

Are we talking about wilderness areas now?  How many access points does a wilderness need?  It's totally contrary to what a wilderness even is.

[Bean Counter]

wrong

There is precedent for private land owners to exclude the public from private land.  Private land owners cannot exclude the public from publically owned lands.
If you find someone posting public land as private please turn them in.

Can't argue with that.

 The more my position is challenged, the more I think I had it wrong. Private landowners shouldn't be forced into easement. They should have a portion of their land confiscated via eminent domain. There--it's not yours anymore.

[grundy53]

wrong

There is precedent for private land owners to exclude the public from private land.  Private land owners cannot exclude the public from publically owned lands.
If you find someone posting public land as private please turn them in.

Can't argue with that.

 The more my position is challenged, the more I think I had it wrong. Private landowners shouldn't be forced into easement. They should have a portion of their land confiscated via eminent domain. There--it's not yours anymore.

So it should just be taken by the crown? Sounds like you'll be "voting" for Obama's 3rd term....