This land is no longer your land

[Humptulips]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/this-land-is-no-longer-your-land/ar-AAu3Cko?li=BBnb7Kz

[huntingfool7]

Thanks Bruce.

[zwickeyman]

Sad but true. Happening all over this state also. One of my favorite places in Idaho is landlocked by private/big ranches

[JDHasty]

I hope the backlash against this is enormous.

[pianoman9701]

Kind of tough being the little guy. My $50 political contribution means nothing but emails clogging up my inbox asking for more. When someone can donate $200K to a candidate, they get what they want out of our government.

[JDHasty]

There is a guy in Montana who had everyone buffaloed into thinking a public road through his ranch was private.  I looked at the County Assessor's map, contacted the State, got the confirmation that it was public right of way and had an email from the County Sheriff in my wallet.

When he was still being a jerk about me using the road to access public land I told him:  keep it up and I will copy this info and post it in front of every convenience store on the county. 

He has a two-bit outfitting schtick that without him having almost exclusive use of this land wouldn't be worth two-bits. 

[hunter399]

These are the reasons why I won't buy a discover pass in Washington state,cause when I look at maps and see all the state land that is land lock by private property without access,when you pay for access pass you should be able to access all state land.

[baldopepper]

I know others and myself have been saying it for quite some time, but this loss of access is the biggest threat we have as hunters.  Seems every year we see more examples of closed areas or areas that require such a high fee to hunt the average hunter is locked out. I can see the opening for an outfitter who simply helicopters you over closed land into public land for a fee. I think we average hunters don't really realize how many hunters out there find paying $5000.00 or more for a hunt to be no problem. Getting to be more and more like Europe where big game hunting is pretty much a rich mans sport.

[Netminder01]

Such an important topic!! I sure hope not a single foot of protected land is reduced for any reason much less commercial use. 

I'd argue a larger threat to hunting than reducing land for commercial use is emerging technology. Those that have access to emerging tech right now generally aren't in love with hunting & firearms. Technology (imo) will be weaponized to stomp out hunting land access as a strategic means to reduce hunting.

Properly used, it would increase the force behind a common anti-gun argument for firearms (in their view) - hunting. Fewer hunters having access will reduce hunter success thereby reducing new hunters coming into the sport, lower DFW revenues via licenses, etc, etc...

[NoBark]

I would love to see a national law that the Federal Government would be required to provide public access to ANY public land that was at least 1000 acres or more.    Start there and then work down to the 640 acre checkerboard pieces across the west. 

[JimmyHoffa]

I seem to remember it sure wasn't my land during gov shutdowns from 0 either.

[Atroxus]

That is an interesting and disheartening read. On the flip side though I wonder how many of the people complaining about this, if in the position of these landowners would be happy with being told "You need to let the public cross your land so that they can can get to a piece of public land." Or how many people on here would just take advantage of having exclusive access to a parcel of "public" land?

[KFhunter]

That is an interesting and disheartening read. On the flip side though I wonder how many of the people complaining about this, if in the position of these landowners would be happy with being told "You need to let the public cross your land so that they can can get to a piece of public land." Or how many people on here would just take advantage of having exclusive access to a parcel of "public" land?

 

and some of these trails they're talking about may be old, very old, but aren't used and grown over, washed out or slid over.  The gent in the article is an activist make no mistake.  He wishes to trod on private property where some historical map has a squiggly line but no one has used it in years. 

People suck, they leave trash, shoot trees, crap on the land, widen trails, use their ATV's on foot paths and make a nuisance of themselves so I don't blame a landowner for trying to keep out the vermin.  If people didn't suck so bad maybe more trails would stay open? but the other angle is landowners profiting off preventing access to public lands, and that sucks too. 

There's no answer I can see, I can't square my belief in strong property rights and my belief that public land should be accessible - and it gets even muddier when people trash others' land and landowners get greedy (prevent access) in getting trespass fees for a public resource like big bull elk.

Then to top it off the .gov bullying landowners to gain access while they're closing gates left and right where we used to have access without any contention from landowners.

what a mess, I default to keeping strong private property rights. 

[elkboy]

To paraphrase Cormac McCarthy, "If it ain't a mess, it'll do until one gets here."

As the West gets more populated, the more these two strongly held Western values will conflict: property rights on one hand, and access to public land on the other. 

And, just looking at the map, a lot of this has its roots in the alternating-section method of land disposition- the "checkerboard" patchwork of public and private land.  And also the fact that fertile valley bottoms hold the farms and ranches (and access roads), while the mountains above may have wound up staying in federal hands.  Yup, a mess...

[Stein]

There are several groups like RMEF as well as some of the state departments that are doing good work both preserving as well as gaining access to new pieces that were landlocked before.  I'm all for making trades, deals and purchases, but I also respect private landowners.  If they don't want to give the public access through a deal of some sort, then nobody should trespass.  Landlocked public land is a bummer, it is essentially private, but that was the deal when the guy bought all the pieces around it and I have no right to trespass to get to something I can use.

The checkerboard layout is hardly a new phenomenon, it has been around in some form for much longer than anyone reading this post.

I think one of Randy Newberg's episodes had him hiring a helicopter.  I think it ended up being pretty reasonable, something like $300 for a short trip.  I believe he did have a run in with the adjacent landowner that was pretty used to having the public land to himself.

[fireweed]

I've doing some research on "prescriptive easements" in Washington state.  Funny thing is, at least here, if your neighbor lets you cross his property (say a driveway corner) and there are no problems with that neighborly agreement, even for years and nothing in writing, then you have a falling out, there is NO prescriptive easement for all that neighborly past use.  However, if the use is hostile, and your neighbor tells you not to cross, but you still do and fight it for ten years, an easement may be present.  The law rewards the neighborly landowner, and not the hostile landowner. 

Now we have these massive landowners that are wholesale acting unneighborly (by posting and charging) and they may be setting them selves up for prescriptive easement cases.  Too bad it doesn't appear to work this way in Montana.

[Mudman]

Should be laws allowing access to public land period.

[bigtex]

I would love to see a national law that the Federal Government would be required to provide public access to ANY public land that was at least 1000 acres or more.    Start there and then work down to the 640 acre checkerboard pieces across the west.

Your statement makes it sound like it's the government's fault they have land that is landlocked, when in reality its the private citizens who don't allow others to use their land to access the public lands.

[bigtex]

Should be laws allowing access to public land period.

I have a feeling you'd feel different if people had to cross your land at your expense to get to those landlocked areas.

[Skillet]

As a strong believer of private property rights as well as access to publicly owned lands, I'm torn on this one.  I'd like to think if I came to own a section in checkerboard country that had an historic trail used to access landlocked public land, I'd allow continued free use if people minded their manners.  Inevitably, however, I believe there would be some entitled-minded idiots with lawyers on speed dial that would ruin it for everybody else... And I would still end up being the jerk that locked everybody out.  So why put myself at risk waiting for the idiot to sue me?

As much as it stinks, I'd lock my gates too. 

Out of control tort law - and the ambulance chasers that suck the blood out of hard working people - has RUINED this country, imho.

[SemperFidelis97]

As a strong believer of private property rights as well as access to publicly owned lands, I'm torn on this one.  I'd like to think if I came to own a section in checkerboard country that had an historic trail used to access landlocked public land, I'd allow continued free use if people minded their manners.  Inevitably, however, I believe there would be some entitled-minded idiots with lawyers on speed dial that would ruin it for everybody else... And I would still end up being the jerk that locked everybody out.  So why put myself at risk waiting for the idiot to sue me?

As much as it stinks, I'd lock my gates too. 

Out of control tort law - and the ambulance chasers that suck the blood out of hard working people - has RUINED this country, imho.

I have to agree with you, in case many didn't notice most of this land is being locked up as people become more aware of their vulnerability to frivolous lawsuits.  When someone can break into your home, and sue you for injuries sustained in the process the law is no longer on the side of the property owner.  If someone has the financial resources to aquire, and maintain some of these large tracts you bet your ass they are talking to a lawyer about possible exposure to lawsuits if someone accessing through their land is somehow injured. 

[Humptulips]

Has nothing to do with lawsuits. It has everything to do with people finding out they can lease land they don't own and make a bunch of money.
Show me a case where a landowner was sued while someone was using one of these public easements.

[KFhunter]

I would love to see a national law that the Federal Government would be required to provide public access to ANY public land that was at least 1000 acres or more.    Start there and then work down to the 640 acre checkerboard pieces across the west.

Your statement makes it sound like it's the government's fault they have land that is landlocked, when in reality its the private citizens who don't allow others to use their land to access the public lands.

it is the governments fault in a lot of cases, you cannot fault the landowner for disallowing access as each landowner is different and private property changes hands often.  If there's a change it must be at the government level.  I hold the government responsible for not even trying to secure public easements when a land swap is done which would be the best time to do it.  "not for recreational use" is the DNR mantra, they've never cared if the general public had access or not, other public lands agencies just look for excuses to put a gate in and close it up denying vehicle access to millions of acres which adversely affects people with mobility issues yet we get all in an uproar if a private property owner disallows access to a trail that hasn't been maintained in years? 

What happens if some sue happy lawyer falls off a trail that hasn't been maintained? Will they sue government (it's not our property!) ??
Or will they sue the landowner?

[JimmyHoffa]

Should be laws allowing access to public land period.

eminent domain?  I don't know if the gov could make the case for taking the land for purposes that doesn't really include some sort of 'improvements'. 

[Stein]

Honestly, if it was my land I would post it.  Look at any place where hunters, fisherman and other outdoorsman have access and you will find piles of garbage, tire tracks where there shouldn't be, parking in the wrong places, bullet holes in signs, tp flapping in the wind and the like.  We like to consider ourselves stewards of the land, but the truth is wherever we go there is unsightly stuff.  It may only be a few percent, but they more than make up for others who do the right thing.

[Special T]

This isnt any different that a trail that runs through your yard that kids havenused to go to school...

Court reinforced many times over you cannot gate the trail.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[olyguy79]

I would love to see a national law that the Federal Government would be required to provide public access to ANY public land that was at least 1000 acres or more.    Start there and then work down to the 640 acre checkerboard pieces across the west.

Your statement makes it sound like it's the government's fault they have land that is landlocked, when in reality its the private citizens who don't allow others to use their land to access the public lands.

it is the governments fault in a lot of cases, you cannot fault the landowner for disallowing access as each landowner is different and private property changes hands often.  If there's a change it must be at the government level.  I hold the government responsible for not even trying to secure public easements when a land swap is done which would be the best time to do it.  "not for recreational use" is the DNR mantra, they've never cared if the general public had access or not, other public lands agencies just look for excuses to put a gate in and close it up denying vehicle access to millions of acres which adversely affects people with mobility issues yet we get all in an uproar if a private property owner disallows access to a trail that hasn't been maintained in years? 

What happens if some sue happy lawyer falls off a trail that hasn't been maintained? Will they sue government (it's not our property!) ??
Or will they sue the landowner?

You're making an assumption that easements aren't attempted. I've worked with public land easements a lot in my career and there has been a big shift over the past 20 years or so.

Most of the landlocked public land in WA was acquired decades ago, when private landowners weren't as territorial with their lands and let public access the public land via their private lands. As time went on people have become more territorial and have blocked access to such lands.

A big part of realty specialists for government agencies is actually working on easements both for official (government) and public use, but it's not an automatic thing, the private landowner still has to agree to it. Landowners ask for all types of stipulations in exchange for an easement. A chunk of DNR land I hunted in eastern WA has always been landlocked and suddenly the private property owner blocked access, I talked to him as he's always been cordial and put him in contact with the DNR realty people. Several months later I contacted him and DNR, the landowner wanted DNR to pay him $500,000 per YEAR for public use of a quarter mile section of gravel road on his property. Other stipulations I've seen/been involved with are automatic/timer gates, daily law enforcement patrols, fee usage per vehicle use, 24/7 staffing of a entrance booth, etc. If the government declines the stipulations, the public loses out on the ability to access land and look inept, if they give in to the stipulations it's seen as a waste of $.

What is the agency supposed to do? Sell off all landlocked land? Personally, I would rather see landlocked land held in public domain for the possibility of an easement some years down the road then sold to private hands and lost forever.

I do know its now in DNR and WDFW policy in WA to only acquire publicly accessible lands in WA with a few exceptions. BLM in WA has written it in their state policy to rid themselves of landlocked land and use those funds to acquire accessible lands, which is one reason they have been getting rid of their lands in NE WA.

[Humptulips]

Olyguy,
Thanks for that post, enlightening.
So, I take it eminent domain is never used to acquire an easement.

[KFhunter]

A lot of those lands are going to big timber, and in the case of timber around where I live it goes to places like Vaagans where they disallow public access and post everything. 
They'll let you in if you own adjacent land, or if you're related to the family or one of their cronies, but if you're not in their fold - it's go pound sand.  Some of the best Elk hunting in the NE corner is on Vaagans timber and I can't hunt them.

[CAMPMEAT]

A lot of those lands are going to big timber, and in the case of timber around where I live it goes to places like Vaagans where they disallow public access and post everything. 
They'll let you in if you own adjacent land, or if you're related to the family or one of their cronies, but if you're not in their fold - it's go pound sand.  Some of the best Elk hunting in the NE corner is on Vaagans timber and I can't hunt them.

I know a place where the elk go from Vaagans to public land and then back. Just set up a lawn chair and wait...

[fireweed]

I think a lot of these big timber companies are in large part also bluffing with their access permits.   In my county, a citizen needs a permit to walk or touch half the land in the county.   First off, state law required forestland to be conspicuously posted, and I doubt slapping a few signs on gates is legally sufficient when you own half a county with hundreds of miles of property line.   Do you really think a company has exclusive use of half of all the land--every road, every driveway, every acre? 

Behind the scenes these main logging roads have all sorts of easements on them with the state DNR.  Publically companies say those are for "forestry use only" but have they gone back and read them all?   I know where companies have had to roll back their permit areas because they were requiring permits on roads controlled by someone else.  Dig deeper and more of that is bound to be found.
My county auditor and assessor are putting those old documents online right now.  I've found one easement that crosses a couple miles of Big W and access a landlocked section of DNR.  Guess what, that easement (from the early 70's when they didn't care about regular folks using roads) says nothing about limiting the public or only being for "forestry use".  It says it is for "purposes of providing access to and from lands now owned or hereafter acquired by the state."   Nowadays companies make sure that they exclude the public specifically from new easements, but not older ones.  If you've got a landlocked piece you want to hunt, take a trip to the courthouse, check for any state or federal easements and carry a copy with you. 

[OutHouse]

I'll just add that here in the US we put such a high premium on unfettered, unrestricted fee ownership of land that the natural end result will be that in a couple hundred years (maybe even just 100) there will be much, much less public land and even worse access than what's happening now. The problem really has to do with us; humans are greedy and power hungry.