Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[Jingles]

We aren't talking about a land owner excluding a person from public land we are talking about a land owner prohibiting trespassers.  You can use that public land all you want you just can't trespass on my property to get there

 OBTW precedence is NOT LAW it is a judges interpretation

[Bean Counter]

If the FFs were opposed to eminent domain they would have stopped it right there. Eminent domain began long before our nation did and even long before our English forefathers. The 5th Amendment wasn't even the first time these property rights were recognized. The Magna Carta in 1215 stipulated rights of the nobility (property owners) and that the King must obey the law.

[grundy53]

You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...

[Bean Counter]

 

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...

Again disingenuous.

A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"

[grundy53]

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...

Again disingenuous.

A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"

Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?

[KFhunter]

If the FFs were opposed to eminent domain they would have stopped it right there. Eminent domain began long before our nation did and even long before our English forefathers. The 5th Amendment wasn't even the first time these property rights were recognized. The Magna Carta in 1215 stipulated rights of the nobility (property owners) and that the King must obey the law.

agreed, the FF's also said it was despotism.  It's a necessary tool for building things like railroads and highways.  I'm way ahead of you here,  as I've said it's metastasized into something that the FF's warned against vehemently.  Now we have developers using this powerful tool to remove little old ladies from their home for a parking lot.

Do you think the FF's ever envisioned this?
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2501119/Womans-fight-against-City-of-Seattle-will-continue-even-in-death

[Bean Counter]

You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...

I want  to end their B.S. monopoly on land that is already public. Calling it taking their land just to build a public road isn't going to convince people on the fence that your opinions are fair and reasonable. I've met landowners with 20,000 acres who don't landlock public land and I fully support their right to be left the hell alone.

A lot of the positions you elitists are taking aren't very honest.

[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. 

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.

No KF, we're not talking wilderness.  Landing a fixed wing aircraft requires an adequate landing and takeoff strip, which prohibits access by air in many circumstances. 

[Bean Counter]

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...

Again disingenuous.

A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"

Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?

I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.

[grundy53]

You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...

I want  to end their B.S. monopoly on land that is already public. Calling it taking their land just to build a public road isn't going to convince people on the fence that your opinions are fair and reasonable. I've met landowners with 20,000 acres who don't landlock public land and I fully support their right to be left the hell alone.

A lot of the positions you elitists are taking aren't very honest.

I'm an elitist because I'm for property rights? Hilarious. How am dishonest?

[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.

No KF, we're not talking wilderness.  Landing a fixed wing aircraft requires an adequate landing and takeoff strip, which prohibits access by air in many circumstances.

Just about as difficult for a disabled hunter to access public land via a rough trail easement or a flagged trail I'd say.



J

[grundy53]

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...

Again disingenuous.

A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"

Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?

I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.

So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.

[stevemiller]

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...

Again disingenuous.

A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"

Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?

I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.

funny bean im waiting for them numbers as we speak. 

[idahohuntr]

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...

Again disingenuous.

A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"

Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?

I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.

So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.

You need to read up on this issue. You are beyond naive if you think this is true. 

Lets be honest here, this isn't about a private landowners concerns of public trashing their private lands...this is private landowners not wanting to give up their welfare checks.  Hunting access fees are sky high and many of these folks can get big $$$ selling limited and exclusive access to PUBLIC LANDS!  Or its about them wanting to keep those public lands to themselves...either way it has nothing to do with protecting their private lands...its all about keeping their exclusive control of PUBLIC lands. 

[KFhunter]

You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...

I want  to end their B.S. monopoly on land that is already public. Calling it taking their land just to build a public road isn't going to convince people on the fence that your opinions are fair and reasonable. I've met landowners with 20,000 acres who don't landlock public land and I fully support their right to be left the hell alone.

A lot of the positions you elitists are taking aren't very honest.

I totally get your frustration at the 20,000 acre landowner blocking access to their land thereby preventing you from accessing a government property beyond, but the easements won't stop at your desired hunting paradise. 

For every 20,000 acre "a-hole" as you so eloquently put;  there's a 1000 small acreage holders that would be affected by this.   

For example I'm three acreages away from land locked state land, acreages I do not have permission to cross myself, but the DNR holds an easement literally through my front yard and maintain a lock on my gate.  Under your plan I would have to allow everyone to cross my yard,  and put up with vehicles flying down that road, leaving gates open and all the lovely things that come with public access.
 
I could high fence it, but then the deer wouldn't be able to access water as freely and instead would have to go all the way around creating easy depredation pinch points. My property value would decline, my pleasure at having that property would decline a great deal.  That cannot be compensated at FMV.