BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access

[idahohuntr]

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) threatening to sue USFS for not doing its job to protect public access...in short, it sounds like the USFS has been too friendly to private landowners who BHA contends are illegally blocking easements to public lands.  Good to see an organization fighting for access and not letting agencies off the hook when they try to take the easy way out. 

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_fights_for_public_access_in_montana_s_crazy_mountains

[Mtnwalker]

Impossible, BHA wants to lock up all the public ground!

[Mudman]

I can think of several roads leading to landlocked state land which is blocked by private landowners on the road.  Sheriff says it is a civil matter....  Very frustrating.

[CementFinisher]

     Not a fan of all their stances, but this is a win for all outdoorsman.

[cbond3318]

  

[X-Force]

 

[huntnfmly]

Good deal glad to hear I know they've been working on this type of access issues

[KFhunter]

The title is misleading, the landowners in MT in question aren't "blocking legal access", that has to be settled in court on a case by case basis. 


The problem is these landowners have had old trails on their property and it was a live and let live situation, then someone sued and a land owner all the sudden had an easement through their property because the USFS was able to show that it was used continually and no permission was needed, so they got an easment. 

Now everyone owning property with a possible trail through it has gone out of their way to deny access so USFS couldn't show continued access without permission.   I said this would happen years ago when it initially brought to light here on HW,  I said all the landowners would clamp down on access...and now here we are.


BHA is misleading you all, I'm all for access, but using the courts to do it has obviously been the wrong approach and will continue to be the wrong approach.

[idahohuntr]

The title is misleading, the landowners in MT in question aren't "blocking legal access", that has to be settled in court on a case by case basis. 


The problem is these landowners have had old trails on their property and it was a live and let live situation, then someone sued and a land owner all the sudden had an easement through their property because the USFS was able to show that it was used continually and no permission was needed, so they got an easment. 

Now everyone owning property with a possible trail through it has gone out of their way to deny access so USFS couldn't show continued access without permission.   I said this would happen years ago when it initially brought to light here on HW,  I said all the landowners would clamp down on access...and now here we are.


BHA is misleading you all, I'm all for access, but using the courts to do it has obviously been the wrong approach and will continue to be the wrong approach.

Yea - you are all for public access...unless it might actually lead to public access 

Sad to see your hatred for BHA blind you to what is a good thing for sportsmen.  The reality is, if BHA or others don't fight this these landowners will lock up everything they can...this is not 1950s rural America anymore.  We need federal agencies and others to know they face threats from public lands advocates...not just private landowners. 

I'm all for using the courts here - because I think it absolutely will have landowners looking for ways to better collaborate on access knowing that taking their chances in court could result in something very undesirable to them.

[KFhunter]

I don't agree with you, making it an "us vs them" (hunters vs landowners) is not ever going to be a good idea.

[Stein]

Some of it is pretty bogus, I was shut out after a ranch changed hands and the new owners fenced and posted a trail cutting through their property to NF.  It was a numbered and signed NF maintained trail that was on maps back at least to the 50s.

They know they can’t chase all of these things through the courts.

The choice is sue or lose it forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

Yea - you are all for public access...unless it might actually lead to public access 

Sad to see your hatred for BHA blind you to what is a good thing for sportsmen.  The reality is, if BHA or others don't fight this these landowners will lock up everything they can...this is not 1950s rural America anymore.  We need federal agencies and others to know they face threats from public lands advocates...not just private landowners. 

I'm all for using the courts here - because I think it absolutely will have landowners looking for ways to better collaborate on access knowing that taking their chances in court could result in something very undesirable to them.

Once I filter through all the garbage and attacks, there isn't much to respond too.   You want to use the courts to gain easements but more often than not the strong private property rights wins out in the end, you'll loose far more than you gain.   If you knew any thing about Montana you'd know there is a long history of not posting land and allowing hunters access when asked properly,  but now with more big money coming in and groups like BHA threatening legal action more and more land is being posted. 

It's this thinking that is ruining Montana for everyone.

[idahohuntr]

Yea - you are all for public access...unless it might actually lead to public access 

Sad to see your hatred for BHA blind you to what is a good thing for sportsmen.  The reality is, if BHA or others don't fight this these landowners will lock up everything they can...this is not 1950s rural America anymore.  We need federal agencies and others to know they face threats from public lands advocates...not just private landowners. 

I'm all for using the courts here - because I think it absolutely will have landowners looking for ways to better collaborate on access knowing that taking their chances in court could result in something very undesirable to them.

Once I filter through all the garbage and attacks, there isn't much to respond too.   You want to use the courts to gain easements but more often than not the strong private property rights wins out in the end, you'll loose far more than you gain.   If you knew any thing about Montana you'd know there is a long history of not posting land and allowing hunters access when asked properly,  but now with more big money coming in and groups like BHA threatening legal action more and more land is being posted. 

It's this thinking that is ruining Montana for everyone.

Don't try and conflate private land access with public land access.  BHA is not suing over access to private lands - they are suing the FOREST SERVICE - A FEDERAL AGENCY - if they try to relinquish public access in negotiations with landowners who have acted illegally. 

Most everyone, especially hunters, are strong supporters of respecting private property and property rights.  Its our collective passion for property rights that has many of us supporting BHA on this effort - public lands need property rights advocates too...now more than ever. 

[banishd]

Well look what happened in Idaho....billionaires from texas come in, buy up private forest and close off access through the property to public land that had been open before. I see a need for this type of action fron BHA in some circumstances. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ktvb.com/amp/article%3fsection=news&subsection=local&headline=billionaire-wilks-brothers-own-tens-of-thousands-of-acres-in-boise-county&contentId=277-601060237

[KFhunter]

Again, very misleading!

It's not illegal to prevent access to private property unless there's an easement and the conditions of that easement are met whatever it might be.   
BHA is saying the actions of the landowners are illegal even though there's no easement in place currently, there can't be an easement until it's settled in court or one is purchased.
thus no illegal activity has occured,  BHA is misleading it's members (again)
 

BHA actually wants USFS to stop working with landowners for access and put their boots on their necks instead, but USFS knows it won't win in court in most circumstances.