BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access

[Oh Mah]

This is an excellent place for hunters and outdoors men to learn just about everything there is on numerous issues.People with the same values learn here and people with different values learn here.As has been said so many times by so many members on here and just brought up again by bearpaw,it is important to all of us on the pro side of all these issues to be cautious in our posts so not to give ideas to those that would hinder our way of life.Both of the members in the main debate in this thread are 100% correct in their own ways.  We all need to work together for the common good in all these issues as i have said so many times pitting user groups against user groups that are basically in it for the same reasons just with differing tools is defeating us.
 

GREAT READ BY THE WAY. 

[idahohuntr]

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! 

Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about.  Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim.  And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.

To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere?  I don't believe it will.  The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore.  Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game.  So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.

[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! 

Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about.  Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim.  And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.

To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere?  I don't believe it will.  The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore.  Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game.  So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.

You may not have had any access or perhaps that was simply your way of trying to cover BHA for their blunder? I'm really not sure what to believe.

I have had plenty of access just by asking if i could hunt and some of it has been in the last year and some of it has been in Montana. A lot of getting access has to do with how you approach landowners. But I guarantee you this, filing lawsuits trying to force permanent easements based on historically giving free access will be the nail in the coffin when landowners discuss what is happening. Almost no landowner wants to give free permanent easements for strangers through their property! That's one of the first questions I ask before I will even consider buying a property, what easements are there?

[idahohuntr]

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! 

Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about.  Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim.  And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.

To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere?  I don't believe it will.  The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore.  Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game.  So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.

You may not have had any access or perhaps that was simply your way of trying to cover BHA for their blunder? I'm really not sure what to believe.

I have had plenty of access just by asking if i could hunt and some of it has been in the last year and some of it has been in Montana. A lot of getting access has to do with how you approach landowners. But I guarantee you this, filing lawsuits trying to force permanent easements based on historically giving free access will be the nail in the coffin when landowners discuss what is happening. Almost no landowner wants to give free permanent easements for strangers through their property! That's one of the first questions I ask before I will even consider buying a property, what easements are there?

You're not understanding what a prescriptive easement is...if the hunters are seeking and the landowner is granting permission it invalidates any sort of adverse possession claim.  End of story.

Also, I have no doubt you and others get access for hunting in various places...we all do...thats not what I said though.  The point I made is there is not any significant amount of free access to large blocks of landlocked (or hard to access) public land by simply knocking on a door - outside state access programs, pay to play, or a friends/family deal.  Chances are better if its antlerless hunting or small game...but any land that holds big bucks and bulls...no way.  Which again, this is why I see no downside to BHA suing the FS if necessary to keep them from giving away public access.     

[KFhunter]

I could show you a pic of not one but 6 huge mules all taken off a door knock access request.  That's just one example, I have many other examples as well. 

Getting permission is alive and well in MT, so I reject the notion that: "it's a lost cause already so why bother working with land owners?"  you'd rather trample them underfoot,  I can't get on that bandwagon. 

but you are correct, MT is sliding down hill as land owners get attacked from all sides and worse, sell out to a rich out of state people looking for a slice of heaven and wish to keep everyone else out!

[idaho guy]

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! 

Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about.  Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim.  And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.

To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere?  I don't believe it will.  The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore.  Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game.  So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.

I feel like I am repeating myself here, oh wait I am. I have family that ranches this exact part of Montana. The conversations and reactions Bearpaw describes is EXACTLY what is occurring. Again all for gaining and preserving access but this appears to be wrong approach here.

[idaho guy]

I think biggest question here,at least for me,is would bha be involved at all if these were five roads allowing vehicles? It seems to me bha is active in shutting down motorized access. And in the process shutting down access to large groups of public users. I have and will continue to hunt wilderness areas so this is not because I personally want to drive a 4 wheeler on every inch of public ground. It’s a serious question and I don’t think they would be involved at all if it was vehicle access. As has been stated crazies have vehicle access already so definitely not an issue of landlocked public land.

[KFhunter]

step 1:  identify any old trails, typically made years ago for mining purposes (its ironic huh)
step 2:  promote usage of old trails, post signs telling people to NOT ask for permission
step 3:  sue landowners for prescriptive easements after documented trespassing has occurred over a time period
step 4:  remove all motorized access to the area as a whole
step 5:  petition for wilderness designation

[idahohuntr]

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! 

Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about.  Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim.  And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.

To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere?  I don't believe it will.  The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore.  Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game.  So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.

I feel like I am repeating myself here, oh wait I am. I have family that ranches this exact part of Montana. The conversations and reactions Bearpaw describes is EXACTLY what is occurring. Again all for gaining and preserving access but this appears to be wrong approach here.

Well, I guess we will see.  If this is going to have a massive reduction in public access as ranchers become concerned I presume we will see a big drop in block management access this year.  I don't think it will matter, but one way or the other we will have an objective measure of change in access by looking at this next years block management enrollment.

The more I read on this issue - it is pretty clear the 5 trails have indisputable public access.  Landowners are illegally blocking and signing the trails in an attempt to extinguish the public access.  If landowners want to stop providing access in support of illegal actions by other landowners...that is their prerogative.  I still support the threat of litigation to protect public access.

[idaho guy]

step 1:  identify any old trails, typically made years ago for mining purposes (its ironic huh)
step 2:  promote usage of old trails, post signs telling people to NOT ask for permission
step 3:  sue landowners for prescriptive easements after documented trespassing has occurred over a time period
step 4:  remove all motorized access to the area as a whole
step 5:  petition for wilderness designation

that actually makes sense if you look at past actions  That’s what scares me. I want to hear from advocates for bha would they be fighting this if it was for vehicle access ? Serious question and I am not an expert on bha but have read some things good and bad.

[Stein]

The other thing to consider is magnitude.  There are places that allow a few people access to relatively modest access, friends, neighbors, people with MT plates.  There are other places that are gating access that block thousands of acres.  What I'm saying is there are hills we should be prepared to die on and some that don't really matter.

Montana hunting is big business.  If you have exclusive land with bulls on it you can get $7,500 a week.  A guide can run two guys a week and the season is 11 weeks long.  That is the potential of $100-150k a year if you are running the business well with only two hunters.  I have a college buddy who ranches on family land.  They book 15 people a week at $5k and probably have 85% occupancy and no problems filling tags because they own the winter grounds for a huge herd.

It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out.  If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access.  This is exactly what is happening out there.

Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money.  Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF.  They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters.  Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning.  I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season.  Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.

We're not talking about mom and pop ranches here, we're talking about losing amazing amounts of public land access to the highest bidder.  If you think a guy from Texas rolling in with a billion bucks to spend is going to answer the door when you come knocking for access, we have good examples over the last decade that tell the story.

I wish it were different, but I truly fear the day where I look back and wish we were more aggressive and did more to protect what we have.

[idaho guy]

I could show you a pic of not one but 6 huge mules all taken off a door knock access request.  That's just one example, I have many other examples as well. 

Getting permission is alive and well in MT, so I reject the notion that: "it's a lost cause already so why bother working with land owners?"  you'd rather trample them underfoot,  I can't get on that bandwagon. 

but you are correct, MT is sliding down hill as land owners get attacked from all sides and worse, sell out to a rich out of state people looking for a slice of heaven and wish to keep everyone else out!

I would like to see the 6 dead mule’s wondering how access was after he took some mules out. Guessing it was

[idaho guy]

The other thing to consider is magnitude.  There are places that allow a few people access to relatively modest access, friends, neighbors, people with MT plates.  There are other places that are gating access that block thousands of acres.  What I'm saying is there are hills we should be prepared to die on and some that don't really matter.

Montana hunting is big business.  If you have exclusive land with bulls on it you can get $7,500 a week.  A guide can run two guys a week and the season is 11 weeks long.  That is the potential of $100-150k a year if you are running the business well with only two hunters.  I have a college buddy who ranches on family land.  They book 15 people a week at $5k and probably have 85% occupancy and no problems filling tags because they own the winter grounds for a huge herd.

It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out.  If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access.  This is exactly what is happening out there.

Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money.  Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF.  They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters.  Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning.  I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season.  Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.

We're not talking about mom and pop ranches here, we're talking about losing amazing amounts of public land access to the highest bidder.  If you think a guy from Texas rolling in with a billion bucks to spend is going to answer the door when you come knocking for access, we have good examples over the last decade that tell the story.

I wish it were different, but I truly fear the day where I look back and wish we were more aggressive and did more to protect what we have.

l

I agree with fighting what you just described and have personally seen it happen.You will never knock on the door of the rich Texan you described and get anything other than maybe shot at. I don’t think this is that situation at all. I am not familiar with all the trails here though. I did get “kicked” off a small ranch/tree farm in Idaho because the son in law scared the owners about getting sued by hunters! Cuts both ways and I knew the owners for a long time. They ended up shutting it down to everyone. I think I was probably the last or one of the last to hunt that property. They used to let everybody hunt And drive through to state land they probably had a prescriptive easement!They got scared out by the threat of lawsuits so it happens.

[Alan K]

It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out.  If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access.  This is exactly what is happening out there.

Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money.  Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF.  They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters.  Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning.  I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season.  Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.

I don't think that would be much of a concern here in Washington with everything blocked up so well. There are certainly places around foreign ownerships that private industry a lot of times has to build a long road up and around to get access to, but it can be done.  Of course not as easy as just buying access through a neighbor with the road in the bottom, but it's an option most of the time.  If the USFS would sell even 1% of their timber they'd have top of the line road systems and could tie road systems together to get around any previous access points that didn't allow the public through.   The problem is the USFS is beholden to all of the environmentalist groups who sue them into oblivion if they try and do anything.  They literally have to go through years of analysis to build a permanent spur road.  The USFS is so far from competent anymore that I don't know if there is any getting back to being a working forest.  Most of the actual foresters at the USFS (pre-spotted owl foresters) have moved on or retired, and we're left with a bunch of folks who think a logging shovel is literally a hand shovel used for logging somehow. . . It's soooooo frustrating that all of these problems can be solved with money, and the USFS is sitting on billions and billions of dollars they won't tap into.  Never mind the jobs and dollars it would bring to rural communities. 

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any land trading going on between private and USFS, or for that matter the DNR and private.  I know the DNR buys occasionally, but I don't know about trading.  Anyways, swaps to block up ownerships better happens all the time with private industry, there is no reason it shouldn't be able to happen elsewhere too.  Both parties are better off.  I would bet that land trades could alleviate a lot of this tension, particularly if the USFS was proactive about it rather than waiting until the pot boils over between the public and landowners who dig in their heels.

Private property rights are private property rights.  We have to figure out ways to get around those blocking access, and generally speaking it's not that hard, just takes the dollars to build a new road.  And unfortunately private lands are being closed to the public (free of charge anyway) more and more, and that trend isn't going to slow down any time soon.  That's what makes fighting for our public lands to be managed in a way that maintains or EXPANDS access so important.  Active management will generate habitat to support the animals we pursue as well.  Private timberlands may as well be written off for access free of charge in the next 5-10 years, so the masses will need somewhere to go.  That's also what makes wilderness expansion so frustrating.  Close millions of acres so that less than 1% of the public heck less than 1% of hunters, nevermind the general public will enjoy.  We should be pushing the USFS to sell some timber so they can afford to maintain and build road into these areas so that the public can enjoy them.  On the one side we're losing access to hundreds of thousands of acres of private timberlands, and on the other we're losing hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands (millions in some cases, mentioned in another thread) to road less areas and wilderness.

[Stein]

I fully agree NF should be allowed to sell more timber.

Regarding access in MT, it isn't a problem of building roads.  Many people here don't understand what is going on.  People are spending tens or hundreds of millions to buy up thousands of acres and blocking access.  They buy all of the land that the gravel roads go through and gate them off.  They aren't county roads and the public loses access forever.

Here is an image, 2,745 acres completely shut off by a single landowner who bought up all the surrounding land.  This is prime elk habitat, incredible.  People were taking helicopters in there it was so good, so he built 15' fences to keep the elk out of public.  There was no option but to get aggressive as the fences were even built on public land.  They were removed, but that is 2,745 acres the average guy will never hunt.

For reference, that donut hole of private in the middle of the BLM is a section, 1 mile by 1 mile.  Huge amount of land all locked up for private use by Texas billionaires that are working to make Montana privately owned just like Texas.