Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

  And if the land is to be stolen, I'd hope process of eminent domain was appropriate.  Like logging the area for schools or mining it for large tax revenue.  To throw the full weight of eminent domain for a handful of guys seems and overreach. 

[grundy53]

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.

Bobcat, you should try actually reading the thread. I'm all for what you just described 100% . The opposition wants to claim eminent domain on these land owners.

[bobcat]

KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

Originally....meaning tribe from another tribe, or French from the tribes, or Brits from the Spanish, or railroads from settlers, or banks/taxman from ranchers?

[Bean Counter]

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.

Yes you are. A road for an average rancher that were talking about is what? 0.0001% of their land area? It's all about access, and laughing it all the way to the bank. 

[Bean Counter]

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.

^ BOOM!

[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.

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.

by the .gov that is

let's look at lake communities like Coeur d'Alene, where they've used punitive property taxes to literally steal land from old families who've lived there,  usually older folks who with their pensions could no longer afford to keep their house due to massive property taxes.  It's well known the taxes were punitive in nature and used as a tool.  Now the ultra wealthy come in and bulldoze the houses and erect some monstrosity in it's place.

We all know about Bundy that rancher in NV,  well he's no saint but that's the only reason we've heard about him.  What we don't hear about is the other ranchers who've been driven off their ranches and forced to sell out by reid et all.  They use the BLM as a tool to force out the landowers.  ESA, Spotted Owl, desert tortoise,  wolves....all tools to drive out existing landowners for one reason or another.  Developments or Cascade corridor.

[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.

No they weren't.

yes they were,you just want to argue so its whatever you lost this to begin with.

[Bean Counter]

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.

I've got one instance of a landowner I requested permission from and whose "no" I respected.

I have hundreds if not thousands of hours of looking at maps and seeing one single strip of private land blocking huge swaths of public land as running into the locked gate plus posting signs on said gate. Very rarely do I see a multitude of small landowners blocking any material amount of public land. Yes there's a square mile here and there but not what most of us are complaining about.

[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.

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.

You are trampling "our" property rights.  You are trampling on the property rights of the 300 million americans who own that land and should have access to it just like if it were owned by 1 individual. No more and no less, but EQUAL property rights. 

You are not at all aware of the issue based on your statements.  Nobody gives a darn about tiny chunks of DNR land in KFs back yard.  This is predominantly about millions of acres of public land, usually in several square mile blocks, that have no public access.  In many instances the surrounding landowner absolutely does not live on the surrounding land.  Google the Wilks Brothers.

[KFhunter]

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.

An agreement under duress or coercion is not an agreement at all.  The .gov will use tools like "punitive taxation" to force an agreement years down the road.  It's been done with things like spotted owls, desert tortoise, sage grouse and excessive property taxes.  Cozy lawsuits are another big tool to use.

EPA tried to seize everything bigger than a mud puddle recently, thankfully that didn't come to pass, that would have been a huge tool.

[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.

You are trampling "our" property rights.  You are trampling on the property rights of the 300 million americans who own that land and should have access to it just like if it were owned by 1 individual. No more and no less, but EQUAL property rights. 

You are not at all aware of the issue based on your statements.  Nobody gives a darn about tiny chunks of DNR land in KFs back yard.  This is predominantly about millions of acres of public land, usually in several square mile blocks, that have no public access.  In many instances the surrounding landowner absolutely does not live on the surrounding land.  Google the Wilks Brothers.

Yes, The Wilks are are some of the bad apples. Doesn't disqualify my argument.

[Bean Counter]

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.

I don't think he meant "welfare" like the Obamaphone lady. I think he meant that it's become a cash cow because of the big money that's in hunting that might make owning such joke strips of land more profitable that any other legitimate operation that such a land could traditionally been used for.

[Bean Counter]

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

I'm not calling you a liar. But you're not "telling it how it is."  Saying that I want to drive all over someone's land when it's about about a strip of land to drive though is a shining and repeated example.

[JimmyHoffa]

Didn't Wilks bros try to amend by doing a land swap?  So they could maintain a continuity of their property?