Supremes to hear how Forest Service hit landowners with 'bait-and-switch' scheme

[wolfbait]

Supremes to hear how Forest Service hit landowners with 'bait-and-switch' scheme

https://www.wnd.com/2022/06/supremes-hear-forest-service-hit-landowners-bait-switch-scheme/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-newsletter&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=newsletter&ats_es=%5B-MD5-%5D

[LDennis24]

Hmmm.... This is exactly what some of us tried saying would happen in the Wyoming corner crossing thread. They could just get a small easement and nothing bad would come of that right!? Well here it is. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!

[huntnphool]

Hmmm.... This is exactly what some of us tried saying would happen in the Wyoming corner crossing thread. They could just get a small easement and nothing bad would come of that right!? Well here it is. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!

 Jumping a corner is apples to oranges different than a road going through…but thanks for the chuckle.

[Bigshooter]

Hmmm.... This is exactly what some of us tried saying would happen in the Wyoming corner crossing thread. They could just get a small easement and nothing bad would come of that right!? Well here it is. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!

 Jumping a corner is apples to oranges different than a road going through…but thanks for the chuckle.

[Bigshooter]

I think or hope that more public land gets opened up using eminent domain. 

[Platensek-po]

I think or hope that more public land gets opened up using eminent domain.

[509]

Supremes to hear how Forest Service hit landowners with 'bait-and-switch' scheme

https://www.wnd.com/2022/06/supremes-hear-forest-service-hit-landowners-bait-switch-scheme/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-newsletter&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=newsletter&ats_es=%5B-MD5-%5D

I worked for the Forest Service for 25 years. 

ALL FOREST SERVICE easements were PUBLIC EASEMENTS.  The easement granted access not only to the Federal government, but also the general public.  The Forest Service policy was that they would NOT accept a limited access easement.  PERIOD.

I worked for the Bureau of Land Managment for 2 years.

The BLM DID get limited access easements, where only the Federal government had access, but not the public to the easement.

I suspect there is much, much more going on with this lawsuit than the title implies. 

I did manage the summer home program for the Forest Service, and you cannot believe the number of people that told  me  the Forest Service promised us these were 99-year leases.  NONE of them showed me a document, letter , lease anything with the 99-year language.

People are funny.  They believe what they want to believe and over time in their minds, the beliefs become facts.  Unfortunately, for them it is only in their minds.

I suspect the person writing the article had no clue.

[highcountry_hunter]

I think or hope that more public land gets opened up using eminent domain.

I’m very torn on the subject. I am all about public access, believe you me. But I’m also very pro individual’s property rights.

Let’s say I owned 100 acres that bordered land locked FS ground and I have a road that runs through the center of my property that would grant access to said landlocked FS ground. If the government came to me with eminent domain to allow public access through my property I would come unglued. We’re talking Ruby Ridge style.

Now if a road happened to run right on top of bordering property lines and would grant access, that could possibly be another story.

[Alan K]

The answer is in land purchases and swaps.

[509]

I think or hope that more public land gets opened up using eminent domain.

I’m very torn on the subject. I am all about public access, believe you me. But I’m also very pro individual’s property rights.

Let’s say I owned 100 acres that bordered land locked FS ground and I have a road that runs through the center of my property that would grant access to said landlocked FS ground. If the government came to me with eminent domain to allow public access through my property I would come unglued. We’re talking Ruby Ridge style.

Now if a road happened to run right on top of bordering property lines and would grant access, that could possibly be another story.

You do know that the Federal government is REQUIRED to give private owners "reasonable access" to their private lands across public land.  AND that includes building roads across public land.

There are ten of thousands of acres of public land "locked" behind private gates in Montana, Wyoming, and even in Washington state.  Why shouldn't the public have access to to THEIR land?? 

If the private landowners get access to their land across public land, shouldn't the public have access to their land across private land???

The private landowners rip off the public ALL THE TIME.  Particularly, the rich and famous.   Check out the ranch listing in the Wall Street Journal and how the listing speak to "public land surrounding the ranches".

Here is a classic.  Hearst Castle in California.  The family lets the state of California maintain their "Castle" and give public tours and the Hearst family gets to use it whenever they want.  Yeah, the state of California maintains their second home!!!

Worst yet,  the taxpayers paid 95 million to the Hearst family to "preserve" it in open space.  For another, 15 million the public could have owned it....and taken down all the NO TRESSPASSING signs put up the family to keep the public away from the 95 million dollar "investment".

https://usbackroads.blogspot.com/2012/03/hearst-castle-san-simeon-california.html?m=1

Rich people have no respect for public rights.

[fireweed]

https://ballotpedia.org/Wilkins_v._United_States#Background                                                               
     quite different and more official description of case.  It looks like it is more about Timing of challenging the easement because there is a statute of limitations (proper time to challenge this stuff). Basically, the Quiet Title law says these folks only had a certain amount of time (12 years) to challenge the easement, not forever.  The 9th circuit didn't look at "merits" of the case, just at jurisdiction/timing.  The Supreme court will only look at: Whether the Quiet Title Act's Statute of Limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule?   Some more background    https://bitterrootstar.com/2019/02/trial-date-set-for-robbins-gulch-road-lawsuit/