Bill to Open inaccessible, landlocked federal lands

[Bean Counter]

I have a nice pond on the back part of my property. I sit out there and listen to the owls and other critter at night sometimes. Also have deer and bear among many other critters on it. Its actually a great spot to ride atv's, fly a kite, shoot photos. I'm sure if I opened it up for pubic use it would get used plenty. Why don't they just take the hole place with ED? It sure would fit your definition of pubic use. Your place probably has things some of the public would like to have access to as well. You good with them taking anything they want from people in the name of public use? Or do you draw the line at taking part of somebody's land so you have access to a new place to hunt?

reductio ad absurdum... ad nauseum

A materiality threshold could reasonably be applied here. Its not just about places I want to hunt. In the case of federal lands, if this is going on in another state that I never have plans to set foot in, it should still be battled there, too.

[WAcoyotehunter]

that's one of the more ridiculous ideas on this thread. People should absolutely vote and argue their issues regardless of partisanism.  People that think or vote straight ticket need to seriously reconsider their critical thinking skills.

[fireweed]

Doesn't isn't eminent domain use or the public good go back to the beginning of this country?  If it isn't used judiciously, then how do we build roads? Bridges? Widen highways?  Not everyone is a willing seller when the county road crew says they are adding a shoulder or sidewalk.  It would be impossible to have the country where you can move from point A to Point B without some "government taking my land".  The county keeps me from building 20 feet from the property line and so far from the county road, basically "taking" this land.

The idea that we own our land is really a myth if you think about it.  Nobody really owns their land anyway....they just RENT it from the county.  Don't pay rent, they will take it away.

[Bean Counter]

Doesn't isn't eminent domain use or the public good go back to the beginning of this country? If it isn't used judiciously, then how do we build roads? Bridges? Widen highways?  Not everyone is a willing seller when the county road crew says they are adding a shoulder or sidewalk.  It would be impossible to have the country where you can move from point A to Point B without some "government taking my land".  The county keeps me from building 20 feet from the property line and so far from the county road, basically "taking" this land.

The idea that we own our land is really a myth if you think about it.  Nobody really owns their land anyway....they just RENT it from the county.  Don't pay rent, they will take it away.

no. It predates our country. By miliennia. Acting like the Framers are rolling in their grave is obtuse. They said: Congress cannot form a state church, cannot take your guns away, they cannot force troops into your homes in peacetime, you have the right to an attorney, and WHEN land is seized for public good, you must be paid for it. I guess this is really hard for some people.

As to your 20 foot line, courts have even held that such restrictions can merit the payment of compensation for 'fpublic use.'

[Jarhead Chase]

Just going to throw my own two cents out there. More than anything I am just tagging.

Two points:

1) After reading through the post it seems like the most widely accepted solution to private control of public lands is to close those public lands to all use unless an easement can be established or an agreement for access can be negotiated.

2) I never in a million years thought that I would see anyone, under any circumstances, ever, call Bean Counter a liberal. 

[Bean Counter]

I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. 

[idahohuntr]

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.

I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. 

I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. 

I'm as much "pro-wolf" as BC is liberal.

Anyways, 10 pages later it sounds like we are all in complete agreement with my original post...this is a bill all sportsmen should support.   

[Jarhead Chase]

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.

I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. 

I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. 

I'm as much "pro-wolf" as BC is liberal.

Anyways, 10 pages later it sounds like we are all in complete agreement with my original post...this is a bill all sportsmen should support.   

Agreed.

[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)

I am a landowner and don't want to bully anybody. I just ask you to stay off may land unless you have permission to be there. If you or the public owns land good for you I sure don't want to keep you off your property. But if you bought it without access, or sold part of your property that provided access to you that wasn't very smart. And no you can't have some of mine to correct your mistake. Unless you come to me with an offer I'm good with.

you just dont want to accept the fact that if it comes down to it you dont have a choice as has allready been explained.Its been that way since the founding of this country here in the U.S and a 100 years or more before that elsewhere.Its in the Constitution for a reason,a good reason.Just like the ones we are discussing right here.

[stevemiller]

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.

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.

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.

here i will explain it to you,Fare market value would be,should be what you are claiming its worth when paying property taxes,No more no less.If you want to argue its worth more fine be my guest but you should pay taxes on that much more.If you truly believe your land is worth more you should understand why you should pay more in taxes.

[stevemiller]

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

No its not and I'm all for this bill. I just got worked up with the comments earlier that said we should have access though any private land to get to public lands against the landowners will. One guy even said private owners should be forced to let people through without any compensation.

I get worked up also.What you read was that if they dont want to or if they want to strong arm and try to make a fortune because of this then we the public can pull the eminent domain card.no need to pull it if everything goes fairly but with some of the landowner comments like if they want to its ok if they dont then push a rope,thats where the E/D card should be played.Not just because.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Barring any unforeseen shenanigans hiding in this Bill, I support this concept. ie negotiating and buying access to public property. It should really be a priority to hunters and outdoorsmen in general , because now that large land owners are locking up their land and limiting the number of people who can hunt/recreate on their land, access to public land is all the more critical.

To me, access is the #1 issue facing hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Without access, hunting will be reduced to a few well off people with the right connections. The common man will have to save for many years to be able to afford to "hunt" some game ranch.

[stevemiller]

Barring any unforeseen shenanigans hiding in this Bill, I support this concept. ie negotiating and buying access to public property. It should really be a priority to hunters and outdoorsmen in general , because now that large land owners are locking up their land and limiting the number of people who can hunt/recreate on their land, access to public land is all the more critical.

To me, access is the #1 issue facing hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Without access, hunting will be reduced to a few well off people with the right connections. The common man will have to save for many years to be able to afford to "hunt" some game ranch.

I couldnt agree more. 

[KFhunter]

I don't support cooperate personhood,  so I'd hang the timber companies out to dry and let Bean Counter punitive tax the heck out of them for blocking access to public lands.  That's something that affects WA hunters a great deal.

I also think it's unfair a rancher can profit off public lands by merely situational presence (surrounding it blocking access) so I'd be all for a bill that prevents making a profit in this way.  Outfitter territories is one thing,  surrounding public lands is like a business monopoly and needs to cease.  Aggressively pursue and shut down these unfair business practices and encourage public easements and mutually acceptable arrangements.

Never trample an already eroding right.  No matter how hard or frustrating I hold that position even when the rubber meets the road.  Same with 2a rights and every other right we as a citizen enjoy and fight for...I fight it all the way tooth and nail, not just when it's convenient to do so.

[Jingles]

To me, access is the #1 issue facing hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Without access, hunting will be reduced to a few well off people with the right connections. The common man will have to save for many years to be able to afford to "hunt" some game ranch.

If a person looks at it honestly the prices of tags are almost making it rich mans sport already then throw in the special permits that require repeated purchase of chances before getting drawn No wonder some folks are saying f it and just poach