Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[Bean Counter]

Uh, I said I don't have a problem with the guy who owns 20,000 acres (whose poetry isn't land locking public land) fthat doesn't let me hunt free on his land.

It's the tird with a small strip of land who blocks public land, regardless of how much land he owns. 

[bobcat]

Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.

[KFhunter]

Uh, I said I don't have a problem with the guy who owns 20,000 acres (whose poetry isn't land locking public land) fthat doesn't let me hunt free on his land.

It's the tird with a small strip of land who blocks public land, regardless of how much land he owns.

In the words of your favorite politician,  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE

[Bean Counter]

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.

Continuing further down our rabbit hole..

Let's say there was a million acres of NF on a peninsula behind your land. I'm pretty sure that in a court case that the argument could be made that just compensation requires the ".gov" to construct a road on a manner befitting your property, such as on one extreme end.

I am sensitive to your privacy and family safety concerns with drunks, as well as foreign born poachers driving though your property but I have seen myself that most cases are exactly as Idahohtr described it. It's all about protecting their monopoly and that's needs to be ended one way or the next.

[KFhunter]

Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.

No one is against more access.  No one has said such a thing.

[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.

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.

I'm well aware of the issue. I'm just not willing to trample our property rights because of some bad apples. Maybe you should try to expand your narrow little view. If we do this to the few bad apples where does it stop? There are a lot of property owners in this great nation. Who's property do we take next? And for what reason?

I would like to see them negotiate an easement. Failing that I would rather see them shut down landlocked public land to everyone as opposed to confiscating private land.

[bobcat]

Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.

No one is against more access.  No one has said such a thing.

Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands.   

[stevemiller]

Uh, I said I don't have a problem with the guy who owns 20,000 acres (whose poetry isn't land locking public land) fthat doesn't let me hunt free on his land.

It's the tird with a small strip of land who blocks public land, regardless of how much land he owns.

In the words of your favorite politician,  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE

ok lets start over,How much land do you have.

[grundy53]

Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.

No one is against more access.  No one has said such a thing.

Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands.   

Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.

[stevemiller]

Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.

No one is against more access.  No one has said such a thing.

Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands.   

Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.

Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.

[KFhunter]

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.

Continuing further down our rabbit hole..

Let's say there was a million acres of NF on a peninsula behind your land. I'm pretty sure that in a court case that the argument could be made that just compensation requires the ".gov" to construct a road on a manner befitting your property, such as on one extreme end.

I am sensitive to your privacy and family safety concerns with drunks, as well as foreign born poachers driving though your property but I have seen myself that most cases are exactly as Idahohtr described it. It's all about protecting their monopoly and that's needs to be ended one way or the next.

I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on.  I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR. 

It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything.  Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch,  it's politi' speak.  It's a lie.

[grundy53]

Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.

No one is against more access.  No one has said such a thing.

Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands.   

Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.

Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.

No they weren't.

[Bean Counter]

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

Yes, yes I think they did. Some were quite "progressive."


"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

  --  Thomas Jefferson

Kind of tacky for the media To pimp that story. It's really about the fact that it was an 103 year old lady. Justice being blind as it should be is no respecter of such emotional manipulations.

[grundy53]

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.

Continuing further down our rabbit hole..

Let's say there was a million acres of NF on a peninsula behind your land. I'm pretty sure that in a court case that the argument could be made that just compensation requires the ".gov" to construct a road on a manner befitting your property, such as on one extreme end.

I am sensitive to your privacy and family safety concerns with drunks, as well as foreign born poachers driving though your property but I have seen myself that most cases are exactly as Idahohtr described it. It's all about protecting their monopoly and that's needs to be ended one way or the next.

I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on.  I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR. 

It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything.  Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch,  it's politi' speak.  It's a lie.

It's what he's good at.

[bobcat]

Stealing land? I doubt that would happen. Most likely the landowner would make an agreement with the government for a public easement across their property. The government would pay whatever the rate is for the type of easement they acquire. The landowner isn't giving up ownership. The public would only be driving across the private land to get to the public land. No theft of private land would be required.