Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[bearpaw]

I didn't read the bill so I'm not sure specifically what's in it.

I support access to all public lands by the citizens. I would fully support legislation that funds purchases of permanent easements to access landlocked or inaccessible public lands as long as those purchases are a voluntary sale by the landowner. We should not erode landowner rights.

To be fair and equitable, the same legislation should also include language preventing destruction of roads to currently accessible public lands. What good is it to spend millions on easements to x number of acres if at the same time agencies are closing access to a greater number of acres. Sometimes it seems people walk past a dollar to pick up a penny.

There should also be language encouraging agencies to trade or sell landlocked public lands and replace them with "an equal number of acres or equivalent valued" lands that are accessible to the public. This would also help eliminate the problem of landlocked public lands.

[TommyH]

^ 

[Bean Counter]

The first map you showed it looks like there is plenty of access to the public land? I'm assuming the smaller boxes are the private? If so the public land is not at all landlocked. Doesn't look like one rancher controls any public land in that map. And if I got that backwards and the small boxes are public then the public pieces are very small compared to the private surrounding it.

The small pieces are the "public" land.  The smallest square parcel is likely 1/4 x 1/4 mile or 40 acres.  I see a lot of property that does not have access.  Also, just because there is a little squiggly line to it, does not mean that is an accessible road. 

^ Nailed it.

[grundy53]

I didn't read the bill so I'm not sure specifically what's in it.

I support access to all public lands by the citizens. I would fully support legislation that funds purchases of permanent easements to access landlocked or inaccessible public lands as long as those purchases are a voluntary sale by the landowner. We should not erode landowner rights.

To be fair and equitable, the same legislation should also include language preventing destruction of roads to currently accessible public lands. What good is it to spend millions on easements to x number of acres if at the same time agencies are closing access to a greater number of acres. Sometimes it seems people walk past a dollar to pick up a penny.

There should also be language encouraging agencies to trade or sell landlocked public lands and replace them with "an equal number of acres or equivalent valued" lands that are accessible to the public. This would also help eliminate the problem of landlocked public lands.

Exactly!

[bearpaw]

I don't see anything I disagree with. The langauge specifies:

BILL LANGUAGE
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s405pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s405pcs.pdf

page 42
‘‘§ 200303. Availability of funds for certain projects
24 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
25 Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure

•S 405 PCS
1 that, of the amounts appropriated for the fund for each
2 fiscal year, not less than the greater of 1.5 percent of the
3 amounts or $10,000,000 shall be made available for
4 projects that secure public access to Federal land for hunt-
5 ing, fishing, and other recreational purposes through ease-
6 ments, rights-of-way, or fee title acquisitions from willing
7 sellers.’’.

SUMMARY
The Sportsmen’s Act would:

 - Direct the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to identify federal lands where hunting, fishing and other kinds of recreation are permitted but access is nonexistent or significantly restricted, and then to develop plans to provide public access.

 - Dedicate $10 million or 1.5 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund annually to pay willing landowners for easements to access public land.

 - Reauthorize several conservation programs that have expired or are about to expire. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which expired in 2011, lets the government sell BLM lands and use the revenue to buy higher-priority parcels such as inholdings in national parks and national forests. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act provides funds to buy or enhance wetlands that are critical for migratory birds.

The BLM and Forest Service support the overarching goals of the legislation but have concerns about some provisions. For instance, the agencies testified that a measure designed to open access to film crews for a $200 fee doesn’t give them enough control over possible impacts the crews might have on federal lands. They also expressed concerns that provisions of the measure could consume too much of their already-stretched staffs’ time. For instance, federal land managers would have to report how much environmental groups’ lawyers are reimbursed after successfully suing the federal government. Steven Ellis, BLM’s deputy director, said that would take time away from those managers’ other responsibilities.

Hunting and fishing groups support the legislation. In general, conservation groups do too. But some of them oppose particular provisions, such as the one exempting lead ammunition and tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act. “(That would) allow for something we know is harmful to the health of birds, wildlife and maybe in some cases people,” said Brian Moore, the National Audubon Society’s legislative director.

[Bean Counter]

Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....

C'mon man.. These statements are getting tiring. Let the public own public land and let landowners own private land.

[Bean Counter]

The small Tetris sized piece near the tip of the pencil is private. The vast swaths behind it are public.

[bearpaw]

Take Action Today

Here is the link to the pre-written email message via National Shooting Sports Foundation to your Senators.  After you fill in your contact information, you can send the messages.  You might want to edit the first line of the message to say you are one of thousands of hunters and anglers in your state versus indicating membership in NSSF; that is, unless you are an NSSF member.  For example, Washington has approximately 275,000 hunters and 1.1 million anglers.

"Urge support for S.405, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015"
https://www.nssf.org/GovRel/takeAction.cfm?alertID=80650

Link to the bill:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s405pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s405pcs.pdf


Related-Supporting articles:

"CSF President Jeff Crane Testifies Before Congress on the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015"
http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/csf-president-jeff-crane-testifies-before-congress-on-the-bipartisan-sports

"Round 2: CSF President Jeff Crane Returns to Testify on the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act"
http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/round-2-csf-president-jeff-crane-returns-to-testify-on-the-bipartisan-sport

"NRA Backs Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150205/nra-backs-bipartisan-sportsmens-act-of-2015

[bobcat]

The pro-wolf crowd is excited about this? 

He's implying of course that Idahohntr is pro wolf.

I think Idahohntr has made that pretty clear.

I don't think that's true at all. He simply accepts that they're here and that we need to learn to deal with it. The difference in opinion mainly comes in the form of being anti-WDFW or pro-WDFW. Not pro-wolf or anti-wolf.

[Bean Counter]

These large chunks are a big concern. It pisses me off our governments ever let it happen. And no I don't think the government should do nothing, I am all for them trying to secure access just like what this bill is trying to do. They are trying to purchase it from willing sellers. I get worked up when I see people saying we should just take it basically take it by force. Funny thing is these are the same people that talk like conservatives when people are trying to take rights away they care about. But are instant turncoats when somebody else's rights are violated and it benefits them.  I can think of a lot of things in this country I would like to snap my finger and make law. But in reality would never really be for, or campaign for because it would be selfish of me and would take rights away from others......

If the government pays you fair market value for the amount of land it takes and resultant loss of value to your property, your rights have not been violated. Unless you're someone special, you don't have immunity from eminent domain. Fathom this: The Founding Fathers, who talked all about  everyone owning guns to shoot (liberal) politicians, never attempted to take away eminent domain .Only that you should be paid when your possessory interest is reduced or taken for public benefit. Not Bean Counters benefit--the public at large... This relentless obfuscation reveals far more greed than whatever you're attempting to ascribe to Idahohunter or myself. 

[Bob33]

And I will be the first to admit I'm not sure what the law is on corners. It would seem like if you jumped from one public piece to the other that would not be trespassing?

It's a hot topic, particularly in Montana.

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/its-every-montanans-land/Content?oid=1668136

[Jonathan_S]

What's up with you guys crying about eminent domain and forced easements.  That is not close to what this bill describes?   

[bobcat]

This probably won't apply very often to someone who owns a little 5 acre parcel. It's more likely going to affect those who own 5 THOUSAND acres, or more.

[stevemiller]

What's up with you guys crying about eminent domain and forced easements.  That is not close to what this bill describes?   

basically what we are saying is we dont have to let these landowners bully us any more than we can bully them if they dont want to allow access to us on our property which is in our best interest then we have the right to emenent domain and make them allow us on our property. (Public roperty)

[Bean Counter]

The number one problem with this is what is fair market value? Somebody has a nice private 5 acres of land that is worth 200K. They want to pull the eminent domain card and say they are going to take a 1/4 of an acre for a road and pay $10,000. Now the person has 4.5 acres worth $100k-$150k depending on location of the road and their private quiet place is that no longer. I'm not all good with this. Fortunately the government has been sued and lost cases like this and have had to make big payouts. And it has made them think twice trying to strong arm people.

Correct & agreed.

In the case of many properties it could be that most of the value of the land is destroyed. I would think "just" compensation in the case of a small property owner could mean not only paying him or her 100% of the property value, but also a reasonable amount for moving costs, time off work, attorneys fees, finding a new property, etc. This is an issue for realtors and attorneys to settle. HOW eminent domain is used is a reflection of the kinds of administrators we elect to government, but our emotional attachment won't settle whether or not it CAN be used.

And I believe we both know why eminent domain was put in place in our founding documents. It was to have it as a tool of necessity, not to take land away from people for special interests groups wants.

Well again if you read the 5th Amendment there is an acknowledgment of why ED would be used. "private property to be taken for public use."  What's hard about that? Calling it a "special interest" is again disingenuous. If I'm looking for a place to go hunt, fish, trap, ride ATV, fly a kite, shoot photos, and anybody can go, its public use. How ELSE could "public use" be defined??