Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[grundy53]

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.

I actually never said that.

[KFhunter]

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.

I got ahead of myself      I'm a few steps ahead on the chess board.

DNR would be next should this come to pass.

[Bean Counter]

Ok I stand corrected. 

That line is being thrown sound a lot and I like to truncate quotes to make conversions easier to follow. I know it's not fair to lump all posters of similarly voiced I opinions into one so again

[idahohuntr]

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.

Land ownership, easements, real estate in general...not really KF's strong suit.

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.

Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall?  I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands.  This is not about a multitude of landowners surrounding a small chunk of state ground which is probably the extent of the problem in Wa.  The core of the issue is large, single landowners, surrounding square miles of public land, using it for themselves for free.  Of the estimated millions of acres that are landlocked, what Bean and I are describing is not just a small slice of the issue...its the vast majority.  It is not the 1% as KF describes it...again, it is pretty apparent to me that a few folks just are not up to speed on this issue based on their statements.  I would probably be more in line with their thinking if this issue was about finding access to a 500 acre block of land that has 15 landowners surrounding it.

I don't care as much about the 500 or 1000 acre pieces that have a myriad of landowners surrounding the property...I am concerned about the millions of acres in several square mile blocks that are completely surrounded by 1 or 2 landowners.  My experience...when you have a dozen landowners that have access to the public property...access is pretty easy.  When you only have 1 guy that controls access...he can get a premium.

[stevemiller]

some of you arguing here have in the past advocated for property rights to the airspace over your property as well.sounds pretty entitled to me.(some of the drone threads)

[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.

I got ahead of myself      I'm a few steps ahead on the chess board.

DNR would be next should this come to pass.

Well, I don't know if that's the case, but I'd be all for it. There's a large block of state land not far from me that used to be accessible 25 years ago. But now, some selfish private landowner, put up a gate, where the road crosses a corner of the private property. It's less than 100 yards and then the road is back on DNR. It wouldn't harm this landowner at all to leave this road open to the public, like it was for decades. But they choose to lock us out so they can have their own private playground.

[KFhunter]

I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.

Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.


 

[Bean Counter]

Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall?  I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands.

Yes, yes, and yes. Later tonight I'm  going to post up some pictures from maps so it's blatantly obvious what this charade is. A. Picture is worth a 1,000 words.

[stevemiller]

I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.

Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.


 

thats the one thing that you seem to be missing in this argument entirely  it would be legal. Now if I were to build a hover craft and cross all that private to get to the public how would that make you feel?

[KFhunter]

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.

I got ahead of myself      I'm a few steps ahead on the chess board.

DNR would be next should this come to pass.

Well, I don't know if that's the case, but I'd be all for it. There's a large block of state land not far from me that used to be accessible 25 years ago. But now, some selfish private landowner, put up a gate, where the road crosses a corner of the private property. It's less than 100 yards and then the road is back on DNR. It wouldn't harm this landowner at all to leave this road open to the public, like it was for decades. But they choose to lock us out so they can have their own private playground.

Thanks for being honest,  I was under no delusions this was only a federal issue nor that it would stay there.  DNR will be involved, then the 1% comment I made would be validated. 

[KFhunter]

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.

Land ownership, easements, real estate in general...not really KF's strong suit.

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.

Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall?  I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands.  This is not about a multitude of landowners surrounding a small chunk of state ground which is probably the extent of the problem in Wa.  The core of the issue is large, single landowners, surrounding square miles of public land, using it for themselves for free.  Of the estimated millions of acres that are landlocked, what Bean and I are describing is not just a small slice of the issue...its the vast majority.  It is not the 1% as KF describes it...again, it is pretty apparent to me that a few folks just are not up to speed on this issue based on their statements.  I would probably be more in line with their thinking if this issue was about finding access to a 500 acre block of land that has 15 landowners surrounding it.

I don't care as much about the 500 or 1000 acre pieces that have a myriad of landowners surrounding the property...I am concerned about the millions of acres in several square mile blocks that are completely surrounded by 1 or 2 landowners.  My experience...when you have a dozen landowners that have access to the public property...access is pretty easy.  When you only have 1 guy that controls access...he can get a premium.

I don't believe for a second you'd be wholly satisfied with your egregious example,  and if it's true then so be it..
Plenty of other people would be interested in obtaining access to a whole patchwork of state and other federal lands.  This opens the floodgates.

[stevemiller]

I hope so 

[KFhunter]

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.

The welfare thing has been usually applied to ranchers with public land grazing leases.  "welfare rancher" is a term used by the pro-wolf and/or eco warrior crowd a lot.

[idahohuntr]

I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.

Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.
 

That is somewhat in line with folks who have suggested closing lands to everyone if there is not public access.  It may provide the leverage to incentivize more cooperation from all sides  ...if the kids can't play nice the toys all get put away 

Thanks for being honest,  I was under no delusions this was only a federal issue nor that it would stay there.  DNR will be involved, then the 1% comment I made would be validated. 

Even if DNR land was involved, your 1% comment is still way off base.  All the landlocked DNR land in all of WA state would not amount to a pimple on the backside of the monstrosity of federal lands off limits.

[KFhunter]

I hope so 

two fine examples showing the falseness of IDH's examples used in politicizing this issue.  They truly are the 1% of bad apples.

It's a lot like the baiting issue currently being discussed.  1 or 2 groups of baiters dumping massive amounts of bait on the ground are going to get baiting taken away for everyone.