BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access

[hunter399]

Happens all the time here in Washington.Sometimes it may be better that it is blocked off .There are many timber company's gates that are on a tiny chunk of private property maybe a 100 yards inside the gate is start of timber land.But that property owner can block everybody besides timber company.Also so much state land that is land locked.Yet they wanna sell ya discover pass that you can wipe your a$$  with.Acess just sucks I don't think sueing USFS or property owners is gonna help situation.

[idahohuntr]

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.

Many of these specific trail issues are prescriptive easements - having been used for decades by the public.  Its clear based on your statements above you don't understand what a prescriptive easement is...I suggest you read up before commenting any further. 

Its also pretty clear to me you have not hunted in Montana for big game anywhere that private land exists in big chunks...you think a little nock on the door used to get you access thru private ground to hunt public land back before BHA?  That's very naive...probably worked in 1950...not for the last several decades.  The only major success related to hunting access in MT has been the Block Management program run by the State...if the lands are not involved in that program (for which there can be incentives and payments) you are almost certainly not getting access...and that isn't some new trend - its been that way for a long, long time.  There are of course exceptions, and hunting less desirable antlerless animals or small game increases your odds a tiny bit.   

[idaho guy]

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

This is right and I hunt on a family run ranch in the area. This has been going on for a while and is not a clear cut prescriptive easement. If you talk to my cousin he will tell you that all the local ranchers are pissed. It is creating and us vs them mentality and accelerating the end of the good old days and getting permission by just knocking on doors. Wrong approach to start suing ranchers. If a billionaire buys property with the main purpose to lock up public ground then yes sue them or do what you legally can. Someone bought 100 yards on the side of the road in Idaho and locked me and others out of my best deer hunting spot and 1000s of acres so I understand that side of it too. This is just going to make ranchers to think of hunters as enemies instead of allies

[idahohuntr]

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

This is right and I hunt on a family run ranch in the area. This has been going on for a while and is not a clear cut prescriptive easement. If you talk to my cousin he will tell you that all the local ranchers are pissed. It is creating and us vs them mentality and accelerating the end of the good old days and getting permission by just knocking on doors. Wrong approach to start suing ranchers. If a billionaire buys property with the main purpose to lock up public ground then yes sue them or do what you legally can. Someone bought 100 yards on the side of the road in Idaho and locked me and others out of my best deer hunting spot and 1000s of acres so I understand that side of it too. This is just going to make ranchers to think of hunters as enemies instead of allies

Its not an us vs. them issue.  This issue is about holding a public agency accountable.  They are not threatening to sue landowners, rather it is the Forest Service they may go after.  Furthermore, if there are not prescriptive easements then the landowner has absolutely nothing to worry about, this issue does not concern them as nobody is suggesting any infringement on private lands.   

I don't agree with your sentiment that the finances of the landowner should dictate how/if the public seeks to protect public access to public lands.  This country should not continually look down on successful people...a billionaire landowner or a poor land owner...treat them all the same.  If there is a prescriptive easement to public lands, then it should be preserved for the public.  If there is not, stay the hell off their property...billionaire or poor guy. 

[j_h_nimrod]

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

[idaho guy]

I agree with you on not suing the “rich” guy and giving a poor landowner a pass. That’s not what I meant and a lot of ranchers are wealthy anyways. Most ranchers are stewards of the land and it’s their livelihood. I was referring situations where someone usually with a lot of money buys property with the main goal of shutting down public access to large pieces of public land. I love to see people succeed and I never got a job from a poor guy either  I have hunted this area for a long time but not on any of the private ground in question. One of the trails is not too far from where I hunt and that trail having a prescriptive easement is very questionable and the result of a few guys being belligerent and trying to bring a trail back that had not been used forever. Bha is hurting hunters in this area regardless of who they sue ultimately they are fighting with the ranchers and taking away their property rights. This area and others you can still get permission to hunt with a door knock or just knowing a few people this kind of action will put a premature end to that. It’s the wrong approach in this situation and area but probably a good idea in others. I like everyone want more public access

[idaho guy]

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope

[idahohuntr]

I agree with you on not suing the “rich” guy and giving a poor landowner a pass. That’s not what I meant and a lot of ranchers are wealthy anyways. Most ranchers are stewards of the land and it’s their livelihood. I was referring situations where someone usually with a lot of money buys property with the main goal of shutting down public access to large pieces of public land. I love to see people succeed and I never got a job from a poor guy either  I have hunted this area for a long time but not on any of the private ground in question. One of the trails is not too far from where I hunt and that trail having a prescriptive easement is very questionable and the result of a few guys being belligerent and trying to bring a trail back that had not been used forever. Bha is hurting hunters in this area regardless of who they sue ultimately they are fighting with the ranchers and taking away their property rights. This area and others you can still get permission to hunt with a door knock or just knowing a few people this kind of action will put a premature end to that. It’s the wrong approach in this situation and area but probably a good idea in others. I like everyone want more public access

Understood 

If I thought this was just a couple zealots causing trouble I wouldn't support it either.  But the negotiating has been going on long enough - and the temporary removal of the FS employee - all lead me to believe there are legitimate access points here that the public needs to defend...and if our agencies want to take the easy way out - they need to be taken to task. 

[Oh Mah]

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

  I made these exact statements before.We that understand the problem need to get behind them in the fight for access to our land.Remember the thread on corner crossings.There are a few of these types of threads in this forum. 

[j_h_nimrod]

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope

Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access.  In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?

[idaho guy]

I agree with you on not suing the “rich” guy and giving a poor landowner a pass. That’s not what I meant and a lot of ranchers are wealthy anyways. Most ranchers are stewards of the land and it’s their livelihood. I was referring situations where someone usually with a lot of money buys property with the main goal of shutting down public access to large pieces of public land. I love to see people succeed and I never got a job from a poor guy either  I have hunted this area for a long time but not on any of the private ground in question. One of the trails is not too far from where I hunt and that trail having a prescriptive easement is very questionable and the result of a few guys being belligerent and trying to bring a trail back that had not been used forever. Bha is hurting hunters in this area regardless of who they sue ultimately they are fighting with the ranchers and taking away their property rights. This area and others you can still get permission to hunt with a door knock or just knowing a few people this kind of action will put a premature end to that. It’s the wrong approach in this situation and area but probably a good idea in others. I like everyone want more public access

Understood 

If I thought this was just a couple zealots causing trouble I wouldn't support it either.  But the negotiating has been going on long enough - and the temporary removal of the FS employee - all lead me to believe there are legitimate access points here that the public needs to defend...and if our agencies want to take the easy way out - they need to be taken to task.

  I only have local knowledge of 1 trail in question. I read the article in a little more detail and there is obviously more traitthan what I am familiar with. There are roads that you can drive into the crazies so there is some reasonable access already. I am still not sure this is best approach as it could give hunters a black eye with local landowners. I am all for keeping forest service accountable! Maybe they should add clearing public marked horse trails too. We used to have to clear our favorite trails every year ha ha

[idahohuntr]

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope

Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access.  In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?

I think the best argument one can make on these landlocked public lands is what I posted above regarding public property rights needing advocates too.  In most States (perhaps all?) - it is illegal to landlock private land.  I can't surround private land and not provide that surrounded landowner legal access to their property...those same rights should be afforded to public property.

I find it extremely hypocritical for people to advocate for private property rights...but then balk and scoff if you suggest those same property rights be applied to public lands.  The landlocking issue is a big one - I'm nearly 100% certain there is not one piece of private land in this country that is inaccessible to the landowner due to being surrounded by a different private landowner...this should not be tolerated for public land either. 

[idaho guy]

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.


If you lived on 100 acres would you want a stream of strangers wandering through your place at all hours to “access “ public grounds. Probably leaving garbage and relieving  themselves along the access to said public ground. I was locked out of my favorite deer hunting spot by 100 yards of private that no one lives on.I hate that.but it all comes back to  private property right for ourselves but then it extends to everyone else too. I think tribal rights are good generally but a lot of that crap has gone way overboard

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope

Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access.  In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?

[j_h_nimrod]

 

A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.

I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point.  Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.  Public land should have public access.

Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.

That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope

Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access.  In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?

I think the best argument one can make on these landlocked public lands is what I posted above regarding public property rights needing advocates too.  In most States (perhaps all?) - it is illegal to landlock private land.  I can't surround private land and not provide that surrounded landowner legal access to their property...those same rights should be afforded to public property.

I find it extremely hypocritical for people to advocate for private property rights...but then balk and scoff if you suggest those same property rights be applied to public lands.  The landlocking issue is a big one - I'm nearly 100% certain there is not one piece of private land in this country that is inaccessible to the landowner due to being surrounded by a different private landowner...this should not be tolerated for public land either.

[bbarnes]

It all comes down to greed,one person blocks access to keep others from getting to the resources,that the public ownS the WILDLIFE and FISH.There are many issues one of them being garbage  left on these lands ,people need to be accountable for there actions.