Free: Contests & Raffles.
You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right? (you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
QuoteI think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.You lost me here funniest crap I've read in a long time! Thanks for the chuckle
Quote from: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 09:34:53 PMQuote from: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 09:05:47 PMQuote from: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 08:53:30 PMA 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 slopeNot 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.
Quote from: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 09:05:47 PMQuote from: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 08:53:30 PMA 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 slopeNot 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?
Quote from: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 08:53:30 PMA 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
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.
Quote from: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 10:02:39 PMQuote from: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 09:34:53 PMQuote from: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 09:05:47 PMQuote from: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 08:53:30 PMA 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 slopeNot 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. You know the crazy Mountains are NOT landlocked right? Private property also CAN be landlocked without an easement to access private property the option is to go through the courts and prove no other access exists and then maybe you can force an easement and pay for it. Applying private property rights to the crazies wouldn’t work because THERE IS reasonable access already! You can drive a truck up there
Quote from: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:41:30 PMYou do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right? (you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands. More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West.
If you think the east Crazies have good access, we define the term differently.How many public trails should we allow private landowners to take?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 06:59:34 PMQuote from: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:41:30 PMYou do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right? (you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands. More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West. I have hunted Montana for 35 plus years as a resident and a non resident I don’t think hunting a lot of western states makes anyone more informed on this particular issue.There is still lots of private land you can get permission to hunt or cross. Perhaps it’s your personality? :chuckle:Has a lot of land been locked down. You bet but that’s mainly from outfitters leasing up large ranches. Picking fights with long time landowners is creating less access with just a conversation. I know that people are buying land to lock up public lands( usually out of staters)and I think this is the better fight. The most important part of this conversation is that the crazies are not landlocked public access already exists. Why piss off the landowners so you can take an easier way in kind of opposite of what bha usually advocates
Quote from: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 08:29:27 PMQuote from: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 06:59:34 PMQuote from: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:41:30 PMYou do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right? (you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands. More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West. I have hunted Montana for 35 plus years as a resident and a non resident I don’t think hunting a lot of western states makes anyone more informed on this particular issue.There is still lots of private land you can get permission to hunt or cross. Perhaps it’s your personality? :chuckle:Has a lot of land been locked down. You bet but that’s mainly from outfitters leasing up large ranches. Picking fights with long time landowners is creating less access with just a conversation. I know that people are buying land to lock up public lands( usually out of staters)and I think this is the better fight. The most important part of this conversation is that the crazies are not landlocked public access already exists. Why piss off the landowners so you can take an easier way in kind of opposite of what bha usually advocatesThe public has legal access that needs to be protected...pretty simple. If there were not legal public access via a prescriptive easement there would be no issue here...it would just be private property and that's it...stay off. But when property laws convey access to the public, that public access must be protected by the public agencies managing those lands and access points. If those agencies don't want to serve the public interest...then I fully support BHA litigating to get them to do their job. If you want to roll over and give up public access to private landowners thats your prerogative.
