Post by: bigtex on October 01, 2014, 09:17:35 PM
Rumors that a new fence built by the Wilks brothers around Bureau of Land Management acreage in the Durfee Hills encroached on federal property have been stifled after an agency investigation.
In a BLM press release, the agency said its staff was granted permission last week by the owners of the surrounding N Bar Ranch in Fergus County to investigate the encroachment reports. After BLM staff conducted a flyover and ground visits using a survey-grade GPS, no encroachment was found.
BLM staff found that in some instances when a personal-use recreational GPS was compared to the more accurate survey-grade GPS, the recreational GPS errantly showed some areas to be on BLM-managed land.
The Wilks brothers, who purchased the N Bar Ranch in 2011, had proposed a land exchange earlier this year with the BLM that would have given the brothers the landlocked Durfee Hills in exchange for other tracts they owned. The BLM denied the request after local hunters decried the offer and petitioned the agency to reject the exchange.
Since then, the Wilks brothers have offered another exchange proposal, but the BLM said that pursuing any such measure is too expensive and requires too much manpower, and rejected it without consideration.
The only way for public hunters to access the Durfee Hills is by airplane or helicopter, which limits public access. Since the area was featured in a television hunting show a couple years ago, it has drawn more attention and use. This archery season, unsubstantiated reports from hunters accused the Wilkses of building a fence that blocked elk from entering the public land, patrolling the boundary on ATVs to scare elk away from the property as well as allowing hand-picked hunters access to the federal property where they parked RVs on the BLM roads used by pilots to land, escalating tensions between public hunters and the landowners.
Fly-in hunters use the Durfee Hills to hunt one of the state’s largest elk herds, which Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks considers over its population management objectives for the hunting district. During the BLM investigation, aircraft landing and take-off tracks were found off-road on BLM-managed lands in the area, caused by fly-in hunters not affiliated with the landowners.
“No permanent damage was caused, but the BLM is stepping up our efforts to educate pilots and others on our travel management policies, which require motorized vehicles to stay on existing roads and trails with few exceptions,” explained Geoff Beyersdorf, field manager of the BLM Lewistown Field Office.
With increased visitation expected during hunting season, BLM law enforcement rangers have increased patrols in the area.
For more information, contact Beyersdorf at 406-538-1918.
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/blm-durfee-hills-fence-built-by-wilks-brothers-is-ok/article_2f1e5ea8-06e3-50ae-a350-deeabfb42cd4.html#ixzz3ExRmWEQh (http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/blm-durfee-hills-fence-built-by-wilks-brothers-is-ok/article_2f1e5ea8-06e3-50ae-a350-deeabfb42cd4.html#ixzz3ExRmWEQh)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 09:38:00 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 01, 2014, 09:44:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on October 01, 2014, 09:48:59 PM
I thought BLM was concerned with minerals and grazing, so if a land exchanged was offered up wouldn't the consideration be based on those equivalences?BLM is concerned with everything, they don't just care about minerals and grazing.
Post by: deerslyr on October 02, 2014, 04:25:19 PM
Post by: Special T on October 03, 2014, 01:05:31 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 03, 2014, 01:12:41 PM
Post by: zike on October 03, 2014, 03:18:06 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2014, 03:24:15 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 03, 2014, 07:05:25 PM
Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.:yeah: :chuckle:
Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? :bash::yeah: Amen!
I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street. All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 03, 2014, 08:40:53 PM
Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.:yeah: :chuckle:Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? :bash::yeah: Amen!
I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street. All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.
You do have a right to access the land
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2014, 09:08:10 PM
Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.:yeah: :chuckle:Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? :bash::yeah: Amen!
I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street. All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.
You do have a right to access the land
Exactly, and if the land is made inaccessible to those without the means to do so, then their rights are being violated. Thank you for pointing that out! :tup: Access to public lands should never be available only to the highest bidder. It should be available to all.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 03, 2014, 09:33:07 PM
I'm not sure what you mean here :dunno: In this specific case, yes, folks with airplanes can access it. There are many other chunks of land that are similarly landlocked, but have no air access...and thus no way to access legally.Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.:yeah: :chuckle:Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? :bash::yeah: Amen!
I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street. All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.
You do have a right to access the land
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 04, 2014, 07:09:18 AM
I'm not sure what you mean here :dunno: In this specific case, yes, folks with airplanes can access it. There are many other chunks of land that are similarly landlocked, but have no air access...and thus no way to access legally.Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.:yeah: :chuckle:Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? :bash::yeah: Amen!
I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street. All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.
You do have a right to access the land
What I mean is, no rights are being violated in this case. Absolutley no one is stopping you or anyone from accessing this land. It's an unfortunete set of circumstances that you can't walk or drive to it.
Post by: Hilltop123 on October 04, 2014, 08:23:15 AM
On a more serious note, would it not behoove the surrounding private property owners to fence their land, to keep cattle off BLM, especially after this grazing issue with the Bundy's in Nevada, this past summer. Besides, why are you worried about Montana, when this same thing goes on here in Washington?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 04, 2014, 09:24:30 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2014, 12:48:44 PM
And it sounds like in this case it wasn't the landowners keeping the public out as much as other public land hunters keeping people out. The landowners (from what I've read) are mostly trying to keep people off the private land and wanted a trade. But sounds like hunters that have the means (air travel) wanted to keep it locked up as their de facto private preserve.
That's exactly what I was getting at.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2014, 12:55:11 PM
I'm not sure what you mean here :dunno: In this specific case, yes, folks with airplanes can access it. There are many other chunks of land that are similarly landlocked, but have no air access...and thus no way to access legally.Then again the BLM could inform the ranchers, there is no hunting, treaspassing or cattle grazing on those lands. Two can play games. Durfee Hills is a sanctuary.:yeah: :chuckle:Sounds all too familiar with like lands in our state. It's ridiculous that we don't have rights to access public land through private parcels by right of way/easement. A few rich hunters objected to a land trade to secure what is essentially publicly-funded private hunts. To all of those who can't afford to fly in, screw you, right? :bash::yeah: Amen!
I'm all for property rights...but property rights aren't a one way street. All owners, public and private, should have equal rights to access their land.
You do have a right to access the land
What I mean is, no rights are being violated in this case. Absolutley no one is stopping you or anyone from accessing this land. It's an unfortunete set of circumstances that you can't walk or drive to it.
It's more than circumstances if the government abandoned the land swap (a swap which would have made public lands accessible to anyone by ground) in favor of a few rich hunters' wishes to have land only accessible by air. Whether it be in MT or WA, public land is bought and maintained by public dollars. That means that everyone who has paid anything in taxes should have access to it. That's not currently the case and laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.
Post by: bigtex on October 04, 2014, 08:56:24 PM
laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.So essentially hell with private property rights?
If my land borders landlocked DNR land why should I be forced to allow citizens cross my land to get to DNR land? Shouldn't DNR be at fault for acquiring landlocked land? Or for failing to puchase lands which will then create access to those lands? Why should private property owners incur damage to their lands by citizens because some agency has failed to create access?
Post by: Bean Counter on October 04, 2014, 08:59:21 PM
Post by: zike on October 04, 2014, 09:31:16 PM
there lands.They must have had access in the past
to build roads on those lands. I'm sure they didn't fly in equipment to build roads in an area with no landing strip. And since this started after the land was sold, there was probably access for the general public til then. I don't know if there was a deeded easement, but there was some sort of easement. I say if the public cannot access their lands then no one should. CLOSE IT TO EVERYONE.
Post by: fireweed on October 05, 2014, 09:39:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 05, 2014, 09:51:19 AM
laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.So essentially hell with private property rights?
If my land borders landlocked DNR land why should I be forced to allow citizens cross my land to get to DNR land? Shouldn't DNR be at fault for acquiring landlocked land? Or for failing to puchase lands which will then create access to those lands? Why should private property owners incur damage to their lands by citizens because some agency has failed to create access?
I didn't say to hell with private property rights. I said that public land should be available to the public. In the above example, the existing landowner was willing to make a land trade which would have opened up land to unfettered public access, but because of the objections of a few hunters, hunters who had no stake in any of the private land, the BLM decided to keep the public property land-locked. Had the trade gone through, this would not have been "to hell with private property rights", but a win for the general public. As it played out, it took the public land use out of the hands of anyone who couldn't afford to access that land by air.
There should be a law put in place that disallows public land being completely surrounded without right of way/easement for public access. Many people buy land which has easements or rights of way that have to be honored. People purchasing that land have the right not to purchase it if they don't like the rules. Why should I have to pay taxes for property to which I have no access? In the case of existing parcels of landlocked public land, the government should make every effort to either get the land owner to agree to access through some kind of consideration (payment), or to make trades which will then allow public access.
Post by: zike on October 05, 2014, 01:31:57 PM
BTW There is a timber company in ID wanting to trade some clear cut property on the MT border for good timbered, recreation and hunting property near Lewiston. So far it hasn't happened but I think there still trying.
Post by: snowpack on October 05, 2014, 01:48:17 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 06, 2014, 06:16:12 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 08:59:28 AM
Its asking for equal property rights bigtex. In Washington and I believe every other state, a private landowner can not be landlocked out of his property. Why should a public landowner be subject to such a restriction? Property rights should not be a one way street :twocents:laws need to be changed so that we all have access to land paid for by all of us. There should be rights of way to public parcels surrounded by private land.So essentially hell with private property rights?
If my land borders landlocked DNR land why should I be forced to allow citizens cross my land to get to DNR land? Shouldn't DNR be at fault for acquiring landlocked land? Or for failing to puchase lands which will then create access to those lands? Why should private property owners incur damage to their lands by citizens because some agency has failed to create access?
Post by: zike on October 06, 2014, 09:37:16 AM
Quote from: idahohuntr l
[/quote
[/quote
Its asking for equal property rights bigtex. In Washington and I believe every other state, a private landowner can not be landlocked out of his property. Why should a public landowner be subject to such a restriction? Property rights should not be a one way street :twocents:
No you can be landlocked in WA, ID, and I guess MT. I had a broker who bought land locked parcels in town (WA) and then bought an adjoining house. Gave himself an easement and resold the house, I can remember riding in his big Caddy and he'd turn in some guys yard and drive to his property. He explained he had to use the easement so it wouldn't be seen as abandon.
BLM might be able to get an easement by eminent domain, thats the way the govt takes peoples land who don't want to sell.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2014, 09:40:57 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 09:55:11 AM
Im not sure of the specifics of your example, but that is not correct in WA. You can not landlock a private parcel. You must have ingress/egress to the property. If necessary a forceable easement can be granted.Quote from: idahohuntr l
[/quoteIts asking for equal property rights bigtex. In Washington and I believe every other state, a private landowner can not be landlocked out of his property. Why should a public landowner be subject to such a restriction? Property rights should not be a one way street :twocents:
No you can be landlocked in WA, ID, and I guess MT. I had a broker who bought land locked parcels in town (WA) and then bought an adjoining house. Gave himself an easement and resold the house, I can remember riding in his big Caddy and he'd turn in some guys yard and drive to his property. He explained he had to use the easement so it wouldn't be seen as abandon.
BLM might be able to get an easement by eminent domain, thats the way the govt takes peoples land who don't want to sell.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010)
This law, unfortunately, does not extend to public lands...thats what I mean by equal property rights. Why should this law be provided for private property holders but not public property holders (i.e., us taxpayers)?
Alternatively, if a private landowner won't grant access to landlocked public land...fine...why should the public allow that specific landowner to cross our land to get to his? Sorry bud...you travel on BLM ground and a BLM road to get to your private ranch that landlocks 4 square miles of public BLM ground...well, we are going to be as neighborly as you... :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 10:29:28 AM
There are plenty of "not for recreational use" DNR lands though, but rest assured DNR has access to all of the state's holdings.
Same holds for any other public lands not for recreation, the agency holding that property has access.
You're gripe is that you cannot use the government easement/s for your personal use. The government can't make non-recreational use lands into recreational use either due to many different factors but a big one is patrolling it. Simply can't afford to put on large amount of new officer hours to patrol all the states holdings if they were suddenly made to be recreational use lands. The state is probably against that anyways, the current trend is to further restrict accesses rather than encourage it.
I don't see anything moving anytime soon on the state making more land available for public use :sry:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2014, 10:59:54 AM
There is no land locked public lands in WA, it's a misleading phrase to say so.
There are plenty of "not for recreational use" DNR lands though, but rest assured DNR has access to all of the state's holdings.
Same holds for any other public lands not for recreation, the agency holding that property has access.
You're gripe is that you cannot use the government easement/s for your personal use. The government can't make non-recreational use lands into recreational use either due to many different factors but a big one is patrolling it. Simply can't afford to put on large amount of new officer hours to patrol all the states holdings if they were suddenly made to be recreational use lands. The state is probably against that anyways, the current trend is to further restrict accesses rather than encourage it.
I don't see anything moving anytime soon on the state making more land available for public use :sry:
I'm unsure your statement is true. There have been many threads on HuntWA about DNR land that's completely surrounded by timber company land with no access. Do you know this to be false, KF?
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 11:05:40 AM
There is no land locked public lands in WA, it's a misleading phrase to say so.
There are plenty of "not for recreational use" DNR lands though, but rest assured DNR has access to all of the state's holdings.
Same holds for any other public lands not for recreation, the agency holding that property has access.
You're gripe is that you cannot use the government easement/s for your personal use. The government can't make non-recreational use lands into recreational use either due to many different factors but a big one is patrolling it. Simply can't afford to put on large amount of new officer hours to patrol all the states holdings if they were suddenly made to be recreational use lands. The state is probably against that anyways, the current trend is to further restrict accesses rather than encourage it.
I don't see anything moving anytime soon on the state making more land available for public use :sry:
I'm unsure your statement is true. There have been many threads on HuntWA about DNR land that's completely surrounded by timber company land with no access. Do you know this to be false, KF?
by access you mean no roads period? Or just no pubic access?
Per the law already quoted the state can doze a trail for logging, mining etc etc. May not be cost feasible to do so - thus no roads. Or maybe it's some protected area. Doesn't take much for the state to take lands off the table for logging. Doesn't mean they can't force access if they desired.
I'm no expert in land use issues, so I'm kind of talking out both ends here. I won't have an argument about it and am open to corrections.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2014, 11:13:44 AM
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 11:24:07 AM
Yeah, not looking to argue at all. I understand that there is land locked public land that can't be accessed without landowner permission, by foot or otherwise.
Oh ya I'm sure there's a bunch of it. I know of some DNR land that's locked behind gates, but the DNR has their locks on the gate so they can get through...but I can't.
Lot's of that over here. Some of it is surrounded by timber corperation land that doesn't allow public access. Very frustrating.
I think the timber companies need to pay their share of property taxes. I know they pay a very low rate for timber lands, perhaps there needs to be further incentive for them to allow public access. I would support a tax incentive to allow low cost permits or open public access. Even if the incentive reclassifies timber use lands into a higher category of taxation unless they allow access. That would be like a tax penalty, almost.
I won't support any abuse of private property rights though, especially for private ownership where the property owner legally lives on the property in question full time. I'm less inclined to protect cooperate lands, LLC's etc etc, especially held by foreign interests or foreigners owning vacation property.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 11:58:20 AM
Again...I don't see it is a private property rights infringement to require the same rights as would be granted if those land-locked public BLM parcels were held in private ownership. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 01:57:17 PM
Drive up through their compound, right past their barns, livestock, pets and dogs, opening and closing gates - what you advocate for would make one heck of a mess and get people hurt.
no thanks!
Those properties were bought and sold, easements looked over and agreed upon. People bought those places with privacy in mind. To open a little used DNR easement to the general public for whatever is a pretty large change on the conditions in which those properties were purchased. I see it as a huge infringement upon private property rights, you'd advocate to lessen privacy, let anyone tromp through their lands and in cases blaze a trail through private land. This is a bigger disagreement than the wolf threads. Liberal socialist ideology at its worst.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 03:54:01 PM
When you say "what I would advocate for" you are not back to suggesting that an access easement requires a road or trail or even any alteration to the subject private parcel are you?
Public land access is not a liberal socialist ideology...its an American value that transcends trivial 2 party political ideologies. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 04:29:22 PM
Foot access wouldn't ever work because people are too lazy to keep it foot access, they'd wallow out a trail with ATV's and trucks, and worse new roads would be blazed across private property because why not? The state if forced to put in public access isn't going to just settle for a foot path, they'll build a road so they can log, fight fires etc.
Not only that but essentially you're a 3rd party suing for access non-recreational state/federal lands, as I'm sure this would have to go through the court system.
Quote
Public land access is not a liberal socialist ideology...its an American value that transcends trivial 2 party political ideologies. :twocents:Private property rights IS an American value that transcends any political ideology and is one of the founding priciples of this country.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 04:36:33 PM
Most of what your asking for would be opening existing established roads that are in disrepair and would have to be brought back up to specs.Your assumptions are incorrect. I suspect you are simply not familiar with public land issues in most western states. No road, no alteration, no motorized access is necessary. As far as lawbreakers...they could do that now so that is a moot point.
Foot access wouldn't ever work because people are too lazy to keep it foot access, they'd wallow out a trail with ATV's and trucks, and worse new roads would be blazed across private property because why not? The state if forced to put in public access isn't going to just settle for a foot path, they'll build a road so they can log, fight fires etc.
Not only that but essentially you're a 3rd party suing for access non-recreational state/federal lands, as I'm sure this would have to go through the court system.
I'm not suing anyone...nor am I a 3rd party. I am part owner of the land in interest though.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 04:50:35 PM
So yes, you'd be a 3rd party suing the government. That case would go all the way to SCOTUS, you might find a ruling in a lesser district court but they'd stay their decision pending appeal - from either party- and eventually SCOTUS would have to see it.
A decision from SCOTUS would have massive implications all across the USA.
And YES - roads would be put in as a result, you can't convince me that any litigation would remain small enough to stipulate some foot path or non-motorized access through a private holding.
Quote
I suspect you are simply not familiar with public land issues in most western states. No road, no alteration, no motorized access is necessary.I suspect you just aren't looking far enough down the tracks, too focused on the tree - and not seeing the forest.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 05:55:52 PM
Post by: Humptulips on October 06, 2014, 06:00:05 PM
Another point I think needs to be, when the State started charging for use of DNR land for recreation (Discover Pass) it became an income producing activity. That put it in the same boat with mining, logging ,grazing etc. when it comes to access. If the State has an easement for income producing activities, recreation should now be included.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
If the property were to be "rezoned" for public recreational use then we'd have some upset property owners, and roads previously only used intermittently for government purposes by government employees...now becomes public use roads, right through people's front yards.
Along with that comes a big increase in patrolling those recreational lands, road improvements, user impact studies...blah blah blah etc etc
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 06:20:20 PM
You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property? Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. :twocents:
They don't have inferior rights, that's ludicrous. You just don't always have the right to access government property through private lands, but the .gov does if it chooses to do so.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 06:27:45 PM
The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground. If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west. In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property? Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. :twocents:
They don't have inferior rights, that's ludicrous. You just don't always have the right to access government property through private lands, but the .gov does if it chooses to do so.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 06:36:22 PM
The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground. If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west. In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property? Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. :twocents:
They don't have inferior rights, that's ludicrous. You just don't always have the right to access government property through private lands, but the .gov does if it chooses to do so.
The government will access "your" land on your behalf, even through private property if needed; but that doesn't mean you have the right to trek through private land to get there for your own personal benefit when millions of other people who share that property with you don't even want hunters on there.
Watch this whole video, if you make it to the very end with the volume on high then you'll find enlightenment.
Mine Mine Mine for 10 Hours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLZ5LTix3Q#ws)
Post by: bigtex on October 06, 2014, 06:38:04 PM
Another point I think needs to be, when the State started charging for use of DNR land for recreation (Discover Pass) it became an income producing activity. That put it in the same boat with mining, logging ,grazing etc. when it comes to access. If the State has an easement for income producing activities, recreation should now be included.The DNR portion of the Discover Pass funding goes into the DNR "park land trust revolving fun" which funds DNR public/recreational facilites.
So the $ you spend on a Discover Pass is not going to fund/maintain some type of publicly inaccessible DNR land.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 06:42:32 PM
Another point I think needs to be, when the State started charging for use of DNR land for recreation (Discover Pass) it became an income producing activity. That put it in the same boat with mining, logging ,grazing etc. when it comes to access. If the State has an easement for income producing activities, recreation should now be included.The DNR portion of the Discover Pass funding goes into the DNR "park land trust revolving fun" which funds DNR public/recreational facilites.
So the $ you spend on a Discover Pass is not going to fund/maintain some type of publicly inaccessible DNR land.
Imagine how much more funding would be needed if all non recreational lands were forcibly turned into recreational lands with public access :yike:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 06:48:29 PM
So you are against hunting on public land. Fair enough. I do believe the public should have access to their property, equal to any private land owner. I will never advocate for unequal rights for any situation. :twocents:The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground. If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west. In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property? Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. :twocents:
They don't have inferior rights, that's ludicrous. You just don't always have the right to access government property through private lands, but the .gov does if it chooses to do so.
The government will access "your" land on your behalf, even through private property if needed; but that doesn't mean you have the right to trek through private land to get there for your own personal benefit when millions of other people who share that property with you don't even want hunters on there.
Watch this whole video, if you make it to the very end with the volume on high then you'll find enlightenment.
Mine Mine Mine for 10 Hours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLZ5LTix3Q#ws)
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 07:03:57 PM
So you are against hunting on public land. Fair enough. I do believe the public should have access to their property, equal to any private land owner. I will never advocate for unequal rights for any situation. :twocents:The public land owner does not have the same rights as a private property owner when it comes to accessing land locked ground. If that were the case, there would not be 6 million + acres of landlocked public ground in the west. In rare instances like this montana issue, the public is able to access it by plane...but that is rare.You still have not answered my question: Why should public property have unequal and inferior rights to private property? Property rights are not a one way street where the government (read: taxpayers) should get fleeced. :twocents:
They don't have inferior rights, that's ludicrous. You just don't always have the right to access government property through private lands, but the .gov does if it chooses to do so.
The government will access "your" land on your behalf, even through private property if needed; but that doesn't mean you have the right to trek through private land to get there for your own personal benefit when millions of other people who share that property with you don't even want hunters on there.
Watch this whole video, if you make it to the very end with the volume on high then you'll find enlightenment.
Mine Mine Mine for 10 Hours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLZ5LTix3Q#ws)
No IDH, I'm not against hunting on public land. 99% of my hunting is on public recreational use lands. I suspect you know this but can't refrain from snippety remarks :dunno: Usually it's a sign you've nothing more to add to a debate. It's pretty common for the opposition to resort to attacks when they're loosing. Watch some presidential debates, the looser is always resorting to attacks and slander.
Quote
I will never advocate for unequal rights for any situation.
Yet that's exactly what you're doing when you advocate blazing roads through private property so you can hunt public lands regardless if they're for public recreational use or not. I'll never advocate that your privilege to hunt is greater than a landowners right to do exclude you from their lands.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 07:19:42 PM
Also, you continue to suggest I only want public access to public lands so that I personally benefit. Guess what? I am fortunate enough to be able to pay trespass fees, hire pilots etc. to access landlocked ground if I choose. It would actually be to my detriment for my own personal hunting if all hunters had access to the public ground that is landlocked where I might hunt. I simply refuse to accept that it is acceptable for the public to not have access to their resources and property any more than a private landowner should not have access to their property.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 07:30:32 PM
Private landowners have the right to access their land even if it is surrounded by private land. All such inholdings of private ground have de facto ingress/egress easements. If property rights were equal, public land would have the same. Again, you continue to suggest a road is needed...and that is simply not true. I don't think you know what an easement is. Furthermore, BLM land is not "zoned recreational v. non-recreation land"...so that argument doesn't even apply except possibly to some trivial amount of state land you like to harp about...I could care less what WA does with DNR ground...BLM land is the majority of the issue and is the subject of this thread.
Also, you continue to suggest I only want public access to public lands so that I personally benefit. Guess what? I am fortunate enough to be able to pay trespass fees, hire pilots etc. to access landlocked ground if I choose. It would actually be to my detriment for my own personal hunting if all hunters had access to the public ground that is landlocked where I might hunt. I simply refuse to accept that it is acceptable for the public to not have access to their resources and property any more than a private landowner should not have access to their property.
blah blah blah - all of those points have been addressed and soundly defeated.
Do you have anything else to add to your pointless pontificating?
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 07:32:46 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 07:36:13 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 08:15:11 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 08:20:19 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79996.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,79996.0.html)
From: DNR RE Recreation E-News <RecreationENews@dnr.wa.gov>
Date: July 14, 2011 12:31:38 PM PDT
Subject: Mitchell Peak trail access closure
Hi, folks:
I just wanted to let you know of a developing situation in southwest Washington. As of last week, access to the northern trailhead for Mitchell Peak is closed. Mitchell Peak is located in the Siouxon Forest Block, south of Swift Reservoir. The forest spans Clark and Skamania counties.
While the forestland is managed by DNR, the only access road to the trailhead—10 Road—cuts across private landownership, and the new landowner has gated and closed access to the road just east of the intersection with the S-1000 Road.
DNR does not have a recreation easement for recreation access across this road. DNR land managers are working on a solution.
In the meantime, the only access to Mitchell Peak trail is from the North Siouxon Creek Trailhead, in the southern part of the Siouxon Block. The distance from this trailhead to the top of Mitchell Peak is about 13 miles.
I will keep you informed of any new developments.
Mark R. Mauren
Assistant Division Manager
Recreation, Public Access and WCC Programs
Asset Management and Recreation Division
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
360-902-1047
mark.mauren@dnr.wa.gov
www.dnr.wa.gov (http://www.dnr.wa.gov)
Like I said, easements are usually very specific. In this case they have an easement for DNR use, but not for public use.
I've no idea why the property owner decided to shut down the trail, perhaps he wasn't fairly compensated for selling a DNR only easement that morphed into a public easement and decided to shut it down so he can be properly compensated...just a guess on my part though, purely speculative.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 08:25:19 PM
Furthermore, BLM land is not "zoned recreational v. non-recreation land"...so that argument doesn't even apply except possibly to some trivial amount of state land you like to harp about...I could care less what WA does with DNR ground...BLM land is the majority of the issue and is the subject of this thread.
Post by: KFhunter on October 06, 2014, 08:33:29 PM
I assumed you cared about Washington public land access by quoting RCW's, that's what got me sucked in to this thread when you brought Washington into the mix, which is understandable since this is a forum about hunting in Washington
Quote
Im not sure of the specifics of your example, but that is not correct in WA. You can not landlock a private parcel. You must have ingress/egress to the property. If necessary a forceable easement can be granted.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010)
This law, unfortunately, does not extend to public lands...thats what I mean by equal property rights. Why should this law be provided for private property holders but not public property holders (i.e., us taxpayers)?
And we do have BLM land in WA too, just not so much as most other western states. Still, public access is a relevant topic to HW so we all value your expertise in this matter. 8)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 06, 2014, 08:42:45 PM
Piddly? :o lol, you've no clue how much WA DNR land is locked up do you? :chuckle: :DOH:Baby steps. Wa DNR land is inconsequential to the 6 million acres (or 9,375 square miles) of landlocked ground in other western states that a good portion of Hunt-wa folks hunt in. WDFW implementing something beyond their joke of a private lands access program would be a better focus for hunt-wa folks concerned about hunting access specific to WA IMO. Ok, the seahawks won and the game is over...I have to go back to packing my hunting gear.
I assumed you cared about Washington public land access by quoting RCW's, that's what got me sucked in to this thread when you brought Washington into the mix, which is understandable since this is a forum about hunting in WashingtonQuoteIm not sure of the specifics of your example, but that is not correct in WA. You can not landlock a private parcel. You must have ingress/egress to the property. If necessary a forceable easement can be granted.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=8.24.010)
This law, unfortunately, does not extend to public lands...thats what I mean by equal property rights. Why should this law be provided for private property holders but not public property holders (i.e., us taxpayers)?
And we do have BLM land in WA too, just not so much as most other western states. Still, public access is a relevant topic to HW so we all value your expertise in this matter. 8)
Post by: Humptulips on October 06, 2014, 09:10:39 PM
Another point I think needs to be, when the State started charging for use of DNR land for recreation (Discover Pass) it became an income producing activity. That put it in the same boat with mining, logging ,grazing etc. when it comes to access. If the State has an easement for income producing activities, recreation should now be included.The DNR portion of the Discover Pass funding goes into the DNR "park land trust revolving fun" which funds DNR public/recreational facilites.
So the $ you spend on a Discover Pass is not going to fund/maintain some type of publicly inaccessible DNR land.
It makes no difference where the money goes. It matters what you are being charged for. You are being charged for driving on any DNR road so those DNR roads are producing income. That makes the use of any DNR road by someone with a Discover Pass a money maker for the DNR.
So what kind of easement do they have on these roads? Be interesting to know what the terms of the easements are.
Post by: stuckalot on October 06, 2014, 09:26:20 PM
Post by: fireweed on October 10, 2014, 11:19:53 AM
most easements between DNR/timber companies/agencies are "forestry use only" or "administrative". I have one such easement on land landlocked 360 degrees by Weyco. and it says "forestry use". Of course, is hunting a forestry use?? Animal damage control, after all. And now weyco has leased all the land around my acreage for hunting. In forestry it is also very common for temporary road use agreements, and road maintenance cost sharing based on tributary acres.Another point I think needs to be, when the State started charging for use of DNR land for recreation (Discover Pass) it became an income producing activity. That put it in the same boat with mining, logging ,grazing etc. when it comes to access. If the State has an easement for income producing activities, recreation should now be included.The DNR portion of the Discover Pass funding goes into the DNR "park land trust revolving fun" which funds DNR public/recreational facilites.
So the $ you spend on a Discover Pass is not going to fund/maintain some type of publicly inaccessible DNR land.
It makes no difference where the money goes. It matters what you are being charged for. You are being charged for driving on any DNR road so those DNR roads are producing income. That makes the use of any DNR road by someone with a Discover Pass a money maker for the DNR.
So what kind of easement do they have on these roads? Be interesting to know what the terms of the easements are.
The St. Helens wildlife area of 7,000 acres to the mudflow has a WDFW "administrative" easement, although they asked for a public use easement. Weyco said no and a mere 200 feet separates this entire wildlife area from a public road.
Bottom line, to ensure public access (and NOVA grant funding) agencies need easements for "public use". I believe the state/feds need to prioritize high value areas and acquire easements for public use to these areas. Examples would be landlocked trailheads, or blocked up acreage over 5,000 acres. If the area is particularly important to the public (such as the entire Toutle DNR forest of 35,000 acres or a state/forest trailhead) use of eminent domain would be justified. Currently in state law, WDFW can use eminent domain for right-of-way acquisition for public use and the DNR cannot.
Post by: Stein on October 14, 2014, 08:46:12 AM
The real question is how much was Newberg's chopper ride? I still have that episode on DVR with the plans of figuring out where it is. Sounds like that problem has been solved.