BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access

[idahohuntr]

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.

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

The 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.

I agree with you on protecting and pursuing public access wherever possible. We are all progressively losing access to some ground in most states. I hate that.We will just have to disagree on how to handle this specific situation I think the approach bha is taking is wrong and will do more harm than good

Understood.  I think federal agencies need to be reminded the other side will sue too...otherwise these bureaucrats get too complacent and end up giving away the farm.  I'm betting this specific issue gets resolved without litigation...but putting feds on notice that it is an option won't hurt IMO.  In the end - I'm all for whatever solution protects public access.   

[jmscon]

@KFhunter
Do you mean the limits to access that companies such as Cambel Globel, Ryonier, Hancock Investments, Inland Empire and Weyerhaeuser have done in the last 10 years is all a part of the liberal agenda?

When a land owner tries to take away a public easement we should look at it the same as poaching, they are taking away from the people of the country and it seems as though the USFS either doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care. I think because of their lack of funds it might be the latter.

[jmscon]

This is also where the anti BHA slander is coming from. There are a lot of private property owners who want them to not exist and are willing to buy and publish slanderous articles to help discredit and dismantle them.

[KFhunter]

Again with this public easement thing   


There's a lot of different kinds of easements,  the one's we're talking about here are prospective easements, which means it's a hostile easement, taken by force where no previous easement has existed.  It's contentious, by definition it means there was no public right to access across the property.   

People make a trail and use it without permission, then the landowner blocks access, then they sue the landowner, then a judge determines if a prospective easement exists. 

It can be done anywhere by anyone.

for example:

The guy in the city where kids were running through his yard in a shortcut to catch a school bus, the landowner put up a fence, parents sued, the courts made a prospective easement and the landowner had to take down his fence and let the kids continue to run through his yard.  There was no previous easement or trail or right for the kids to run though his yard, but because he waited too long to block access the kids won a whole new easement from nothing. 

that's a prospective easement!   

Definition of prospective. 1 : relating to or effective in the future. 2a : likely to come about : expected the prospective benefits of this law. b : likely to be or become a prospective mother. Other Words from prospective More Example Sentences Learn More about prospective.

[KFhunter]

@KFhunter
Do you mean the limits to access that companies such as Cambel Globel, Ryonier, Hancock Investments, Inland Empire and Weyerhaeuser have done in the last 10 years is all a part of the liberal agenda?

When a land owner tries to take away a public easement we should look at it the same as poaching, they are taking away from the people of the country and it seems as though the USFS either doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care. I think because of their lack of funds it might be the latter.

That's a straw man,  what the timber companies do has nothing to do with BHA.   Timber companies block land because slobs dump garbage, drive up on muddy roads leaving ruts, shoot trees and a whole slew of other things. 

[jmscon]

@KFhunter
Do you mean the limits to access that companies such as Cambel Globel, Ryonier, Hancock Investments, Inland Empire and Weyerhaeuser have done in the last 10 years is all a part of the liberal agenda?

When a land owner tries to take away a public easement we should look at it the same as poaching, they are taking away from the people of the country and it seems as though the USFS either doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care. I think because of their lack of funds it might be the latter.

That's a straw man,  what the timber companies do has nothing to do with BHA.   Timber companies block land because slobs dump garbage, drive up on muddy roads leaving ruts, shoot trees and a whole slew of other things. 

No it doesn’t have anything to do wit BHA but it does have to do with recreational access.
There is tons of access to public land through private timber that has been closed off via the pay to play programs that these companies use. We also used to be able to hunt these properties for no fee.
Not like the 1950’s, ha it’s not even like the 2000’s
In the article it doesn’t state anything about prospective easements that was brought up later. But it does talk about a hunter in 2016 that tried to access lands via a USFS easement and was cited for trespassing. It was later thrown out.

[KFhunter]

Timber companies blocking access is a whole other topic for another thread,  I don't think timber companies should be equal to private property as a person would own, if they block access then loose their timber tax breaks.  I'm also against different rules for timber such as baiting bears and running hounds while other people can't. 

it's for another thread though

[jmscon]

How about the PCT? Doesn’t lay entirely on public property but does that mean one of the private land owners can shut it down at their will? I’d like to see the number of plaintiffs on that lawsuit!

[CementFinisher]

KFhunter while I agree about timber companys and access, yourthought on depredation make me laugh. so do you think nothing should be done to wolves on behalf of cattle man? prarrie dogs? Deer elk on farms? large flocks of birds? Or is it just thing you want to hunt?

[idahohuntr]

Again with this public easement thing   


There's a lot of different kinds of easements,  the one's we're talking about here are prospective easements

For those that actually have familiarity with easements, we are discussing prescriptive easements, not 'prospective' easements...whatever those are supposed to be. 

[KFhunter]

 

My bad I used the wrong word, same thing though.   It's a hostile easement that comes about when people trespass long enough it becomes an easement. 

[fireweed]

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.   

Again, you mislead everyone who doesn't know better.  A prescriptive easement is assumed, there is nothing on the property deed saying there is an easement. 
BHA is lying in saying that the land owners are doing something illegal by blocking these "assumed" or prescriptive easements, there's nothing illegal about blocking a prescriptive easement UNTIL IT IS SETTLED IN COURT and turned into a proper easement.  BHA is trying to force USFS to sue landowners over these assumed easements that isn't anywhere on the property deed, USFS has been working with landowners trying to come to a mutual agreement but BHA wants to pull the rug out and force USFS to put their boots on property owners' necks like a bunch of jack booted thugs.

Quit lying to fellow hunters trying to garner support for BHA through this misleading wordsmithing.  It's a lie and sham.

As you pointed out,  contested prescriptive easements MUST be litigated if neither party disagrees agrees that the easement exists or its specifics.  The same is true for ANY contested easement--written down or not.  All the BHA and other groups are asking is that the process move forward.   

The same thing is true for navigable rivers--each river, individually, must be judged by a court to be navigable--which is a long, expensive process..so guidelines and precedent are used but disagreements on specific rivers still end in court. 

Short term mutual agreements are worthless in securing long term access, as we have seen here in Washington. Haven't we been lied to and "bait-and-switched" enough by the big timber companies to see necessity of written (or adjudicated) easements?  If the USFS moved forward with the process (haven't these trails been contested for decades) the courts will rule, and then the precedent set, either way, will give some sort of direction for the future and other cases. 

[bearpaw]

You always need to consider what the reaction will be on the other side. If I was a landowner in Montana or anywhere who is currently allowing access across my property to hunters or anyone for that matter I would seriously consider refusing access to anyone except people I personally know for the express reason that allowing continued access may cause you to lose some of your property rights and be forced into having a public easement across your property.

Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! 

[Oh Mah]

  Great point bearpaw.We get caught educating people on the other side of issues all the time. 

[KFhunter]

Great point bearpaw.We get caught educating people on the other side of issues all the time. 

Excellent point Oh Mah!  all 17801 of my posts are exactly as you describe,  educational!