Post by: idahohuntr on March 17, 2015, 01:23:36 PM
A bill every sportsmen should support. :tup:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2015, 01:35:07 PM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on March 17, 2015, 02:07:36 PM
"Dedicate $10 million or 1.5 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund annually to pay willing landowners for easements to access public land."
Most landowners are not going to be willing to do this. I know I would not.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Paying foe the public to access the public land sucks, but if that's what it takes to create legal access I hope we can get there.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 17, 2015, 03:18:55 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 17, 2015, 03:57:55 PM
I don't expect this to really get anywhere....
:yeah:
Post by: Colville on March 17, 2015, 04:04:04 PM
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2015, 04:13:26 PM
Some times with the kids we tell them to get along or ALL the toys go away!
Post by: floatinghat on March 17, 2015, 05:26:29 PM
If they can't buy access, restrict it to all. They should add another provision in this law: Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED. Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything. I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it. Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.
:yeah:
Should stand for State land as well. They don't have to allow motorized access just access through the shortest path/road/trail, etc.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 17, 2015, 09:36:28 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 17, 2015, 09:47:59 PM
If they can't buy access, restrict it to all. They should add another provision in this law: Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED. Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything. I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it. Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.
Another :yeah:
Post by: stevemiller on March 17, 2015, 10:01:53 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 18, 2015, 08:49:28 AM
Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/sportsmens-bill-aims-to-open-inaccessible-public-lands?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email (http://www.hcn.org/articles/sportsmens-bill-aims-to-open-inaccessible-public-lands?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email)
A bill every sportsmen should support. :tup:
Anytime the pro-wolf crowd gets excited about new access through private lands for "hunting" I like to look into it a bit more. Kind of reminds me of the environmentalist etc. buying up easements, ranches etc..
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 09:17:08 AM
Post by: Jingles on March 18, 2015, 09:26:49 AM
Post by: wsmnut on March 18, 2015, 10:20:55 AM
Problem I see is they get access to the public land then are all over the private property as well, and if it is a road lane or trail it is going to and from the Public land it will look like a land fill after the first season of granting access. All he CIVILIZED hunters dumping their trash on the way out.....
:yeah: This is exactly how it panned out for some neighbors and I south of Twisp.
We gave permission to some hunters to access some "landlocked" BLM and DNR land.
The road in wound through several pieces of private property. We were rewarded by trash, wild shooting, one wounded deer, and trespassing/hunting on private property that was NOT part of the deal. Needless to say that permission was rescinded and access posted closed.
Wsmnut
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 10:28:48 AM
I think they should use land trades as an incentive. Some might go for it, others might not and want the cash incentive.
Post by: floatinghat on March 18, 2015, 12:48:10 PM
Post by: Jacque on March 18, 2015, 01:00:32 PM
Post by: Jingles on March 18, 2015, 01:37:32 PM
Post by: NumaJohn on March 18, 2015, 01:54:03 PM
I am sympathetic with the landowners' concerns and their interests in preserving their properties and avoiding inevitable disruptions to their way of life, but at the same time, it does seem short-sighted for anyone--governments, landowners, you name it--to restrict access to lands owned by the public.
It's just too bad it got to this point. More foresight by land planners in the past could have avoided this big mess. Checkerboarding and the like could have had more stipulations that preserved the liberty of citizens and allowed them to access their own land.
Along the same vein, I cannot get behind individual states taking over federal lands. As much as I agree that the U.S. Government has mis-managed much of the land under its stewardship, I think there is something special about always having places that all of us can go for recreation. If states take over lands, then get in a pinch for money, or if they get a hankering for more money, they could (and, I believe, often would) sell off public lands to the highest bidders.
That land would likely be gone forever, then. Our hunting and fishing heritage is intricately linked to our tradition of having land to access. Polls have indicated that the biggest reason people stop hunting is because of lack of access. If you ask me, we hunters need to do everything we can to keep as much land open for hunting as possible. We reap what we sow, including through our tacit endorsements that come from remaining silent about the pressing issues of our time.
My two bits,
John
Post by: wolfbait on March 18, 2015, 03:51:11 PM
Hello, all.
I am sympathetic with the landowners' concerns and their interests in preserving their properties and avoiding inevitable disruptions to their way of life, but at the same time, it does seem short-sighted for anyone--governments, landowners, you name it--to restrict access to lands owned by the public.
It's just too bad it got to this point. More foresight by land planners in the past could have avoided this big mess. Checkerboarding and the like could have had more stipulations that preserved the liberty of citizens and allowed them to access their own land.
Along the same vein, I cannot get behind individual states taking over federal lands. As much as I agree that the U.S. Government has mis-managed much of the land under its stewardship, I think there is something special about always having places that all of us can go for recreation. If states take over lands, then get in a pinch for money, or if they get a hankering for more money, they could (and, I believe, often would) sell off public lands to the highest bidders.
That land would likely be gone forever, then. Our hunting and fishing heritage is intricately linked to our tradition of having land to access. Polls have indicated that the biggest reason people stop hunting is because of lack of access. If you ask me, we hunters need to do everything we can to keep as much land open for hunting as possible. We reap what we sow, including through our tacit endorsements that come from remaining silent about the pressing issues of our time.
My two bits,
John
What good will access be if there is nothing left to hunt? If we don't get some predator/wolf control WA won't have to worry about hunting period.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 04:04:05 PM
:yeah:I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property. The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS. But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around.
So you don't think a land owner should be compensated for an easement he will have to maintain? Its not the land owners fault the government was dumb enough to end up with landlocked lands.
The gov did the checkboarding and lost the access. I would not support eminent domain for something like this.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 04:07:05 PM
If they can't buy access, restrict it to all. They should add another provision in this law: Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED. Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything. I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it. Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.
x1,000 :yeah:
Its absolute :bs: that a private landowner can own a small strip of land and block public access to a ton of BLM or other public property behind it. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Another easy way to open up access would be to tax the crap out of the landowners who pull this crap. :IBCOOL: :tung:
Post by: Jingles on March 18, 2015, 04:19:34 PM
If they can't buy access, restrict it to all. They should add another provision in this law: Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED. Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything. I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it. Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.
x1,000 :yeah:
Its absolute :bs: that a private landowner can own a small strip of land and block public access to a ton of BLM or other public property behind it. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Another easy way to open up access would be to tax the crap out of the landowners who pull this crap. :IBCOOL: :tung:
What you are suggesting would violate Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution " The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes,Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" emphasis added
Taxing that landowner more would be a clear violation of uniformity throughout the United States
Post by: Gringo31 on March 18, 2015, 04:29:19 PM
What this really boils down to is someone else has something I want (access), and I'm going to cry it's not fair. :'( I may go as far to force or demand that I DESERVE it and THEY might have to deal with all of the negative consequences of my want.......but that's their problem.
Remember what our parents said.....Life isn't fair. Some are tall, athletic, good looking, smart etc. Some may have property that allows them to walk onto public land that others don't.
Deal with it :tup:
:twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 04:38:49 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 04:49:38 PM
If they can't buy access, restrict it to all. They should add another provision in this law: Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED. Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything. I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it. Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.
x1,000 :yeah:
Its absolute :bs: that a private landowner can own a small strip of land and block public access to a ton of BLM or other public property behind it. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Another easy way to open up access would be to tax the crap out of the landowners who pull this crap. :IBCOOL: :tung:
What you are suggesting would violate Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution " The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes,Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" emphasis added
Taxing that landowner more would be a clear violation of uniformity throughout the United States
No problem. ;) We'll uniformly tax all landowners whose property touches landlocked public land.
Post by: logger on March 18, 2015, 04:50:47 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on March 18, 2015, 04:57:19 PM
Quote
It's not a cry for socialism, but public access to public property. Saying that life isn't fair is a cop out.
People have access to public property. Some might require a helicopter. You can't blame the guy for not wanting to create a road through his property. We have property rights in this country. I can't cut across your yard to get to mine. It is what it is. I understand people wanting it, but I respect our rights over some peoples wants.
Post by: Colville on March 18, 2015, 05:03:04 PM
This isn't about covetting. If I want to simply hunt his land because I have none, that's tough crap.
Forcing him to give me an access route to other land, tough crap as well. What's his is his and we shouldn't try to force it from him.
However the land we are talking about is public land. It's no more his than mine. There's nothing unreasonable about saying when public land can't be accessed by the public that we won't permit a lucky few to make use of it. I don't think there should be eminent domain, no penalty on the land owners. Just that if it's not available to all, it's available to none. I'm pretty sure a change like that would lead to a miraculous new sense of can-do by the land owners. All of the troubles they say make it ridiculous to consider would go poof and they'd figure out an agreable solution, go figure.
Why would anyone let people in if they essentially have large, private, federally owned ranches with exclusivity. I'm not surprised at the owner's actions. I'm surprised we haven't said that's totally cool land owners, but you're trespassing if you step foot on it.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 05:05:47 PM
QuoteIt's not a cry for socialism, but public access to public property. Saying that life isn't fair is a cop out.
People have access to public property. Some might require a helicopter. You can't blame the guy for not wanting to create a road through his property. We have property rights in this country. I can't cut across your yard to get to mine. It is what it is. I understand people wanting it, but I respect our rights over some peoples wants.
I agree. Private property is private. Though I'm sure they're happy to let law enforcement on there when they want something fixed on their private preserve. If a landowner doesn't want a road on their land, they shouldn't be forced to have one. They should be forced to pay exorbitant taxes through the nose if they prevent access to public lands though. I'd also have no problem with them being given an offer to buy said public land, pay the land taxes on it, and manage it themselves.
I'll team up with socialists and wolf huggers before seeing it the other way. :twocents:
Post by: Jingles on March 18, 2015, 05:14:06 PM
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 05:21:31 PM
If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property. The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS. But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around.
So you don't think a land owner should be compensated for an easement he will have to maintain? Its not the land owners fault the government was dumb enough to end up with landlocked lands.
Post by: Colville on March 18, 2015, 05:29:23 PM
Consider it this way when the Government either acquired this land or sold the adjoining land should it not of been their responsibility to ensure access?
Consider it this way, did the feds ever gaurantee that land owner's access to the public block when they bought their parcel? No? Huh. Guess things could change since the idiot land owner didn't negotiate permanent access. See, this kind of argument cuts both ways.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 05:32:43 PM
What lands are city folks having to provide access to? What's being landlocked that the public really wants to get to?If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property. The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS. But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around.
So you don't think a land owner should be compensated for an easement he will have to maintain? Its not the land owners fault the government was dumb enough to end up with landlocked lands.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 05:41:56 PM
Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 18, 2015, 05:54:26 PM
I don't understand the increased taxes concept.
So you're saying that if a bunch of rich guys paid more but still didn't allow access then you would be ok with it? I believe that this same argument would take place or the tax increase would have to be a number that would only bankrupt them.......that anything else would be unacceptable.
I've looked for certain hunting property for many years. Mostly its just dreaming. I'd love to buy a piece some day that has land locked access. The "public" also has the right to look at property with the same perks.
There are enough things in this world to have our gov't working on that this one shouldn't make the list. :twocents:
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 05:55:01 PM
Any alley behind someones home,every road in front of the home any sidewalk.This isnt just an arguement to get to land locked land but the easment.All homeowners in the city have easments.What lands are city folks having to provide access to? What's being landlocked that the public really wants to get to?If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property. The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS. But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around.
So you don't think a land owner should be compensated for an easement he will have to maintain? Its not the land owners fault the government was dumb enough to end up with landlocked lands.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 05:55:35 PM
If they can't buy access, restrict it to all. They should add another provision in this law: Provide that if sufficient public access to any given block of federal land can't be obtained, that it be CLOSED. Closed to any personal access, to grazing, hiking, hunting... everything. I'm guessing there's a ton of this kind of land that has grazing leases or dude ranch's of fly fishing guides accessing it. Closing the land will probably have more impact than offering some pittance for access.
most of it is restricted "not for recreational use"
the problem with access goes back a long ways, and it's mostly the gov's problem they've developed by trading property around regardless of public access. The state holds lot's of timber lands that was never meant to be public use property.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 05:58:06 PM
They do it all the time.Build hiways through private property,If you own it thats great there are laws that give the gov. the right to buy your land at fare market value whether you like it or not.No i wont site you the rcw. look it up yourself.Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 06:02:42 PM
The gov usually keeps an easement to their own property, but only for official use. The city easements are also for official use. I don't know of special easements in the city for the public.Any alley behind someones home,every road in front of the home any sidewalk.This isnt just an arguement to get to land locked land but the easment.All homeowners in the city have easments.What lands are city folks having to provide access to? What's being landlocked that the public really wants to get to?If the owners in the city have to why not the land owners in the county?I don't think we should have to pay or trade to access public property. The easements should be in place, there are always going to be SLOBS. But I look at the windmills locations and don't see a lot of junk etc left laying around.
So you don't think a land owner should be compensated for an easement he will have to maintain? Its not the land owners fault the government was dumb enough to end up with landlocked lands.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 06:07:01 PM
But they have to show a strong enough need for the population overall. Taking 8 feet off your yard and paying you accordingly for a highway widening project is different than building a big road through your ranch so some guys can go fishing or hunting.They do it all the time.Build hiways through private property,If you own it thats great there are laws that give the gov. the right to buy your land at fare market value whether you like it or not.No i wont site you the rcw. look it up yourself.Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:08:10 PM
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:12:01 PM
Why is it diff.?Or why do you think it is?But they have to show a strong enough need for the population overall. Taking 8 feet off your yard and paying you accordingly for a highway widening project is different than building a big road through your ranch so some guys can go fishing or hunting.They do it all the time.Build hiways through private property,If you own it thats great there are laws that give the gov. the right to buy your land at fare market value whether you like it or not.No i wont site you the rcw. look it up yourself.Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 06:16:56 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on March 18, 2015, 06:17:45 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 06:22:06 PM
I think you need to think about the purpose of these lands. It isn't for recreation. Many are revenue generators. (specifically DNR) Easements and access come secondary to return on investment.
I don't understand the increased taxes concept.
its a punitive/confiscatory tax measure. meant to reward certain behavior (say: child rearing) and punish others (married filing separate). as I just implied there's already a ton of precedent for such policies.
Quote
So you're saying that if a bunch of rich guys paid more but still didn't allow access then you would be ok with it? I believe that this same argument would take place or the tax increase would have to be a number that would only bankrupt them.......that anything else would be unacceptable.
The goal of making it punitive would be that people would rather allow public access to public land as opposed to pulling this kleptocracy crap. The tax rates would be so onerous that someone just looking to form a hunting club would be better off buying some land elsewhere.
Or a provision could be written in the law that if the adjacent private lands are used for hunting then a provision of the asinine tax rates could be used to breed and drop wolves (by helicopter, of course) into the public land. How does one wolf per acre, per year sound? :) :tup:
Quote
I've looked for certain hunting property for many years. Mostly its just dreaming. I'd love to buy a piece some day that has land locked access. The "public" also has the right to look at property with the same perks.
There are enough things in this world to have our gov't working on that this one shouldn't make the list. :twocents:
If I inherited such a land I can see how I would have a different perspective. this is one of many reasons we have an independent judiciary that is supposed to mediate between competing interests.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 06:23:50 PM
]Why is it diff.?Or why do you think it is?If there was a big surge in hunters and needing the property and to manage it, it might not be different. But with such a small percent of the population hunting and only wanting access for two weeks a year, is kind of different than managing the traffic congestion for urban growth.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:25:42 PM
I know they are there, but the state or county or city...has to have enough of a valid reason for it. If someone had a 100 yard wide strip of private surrounding a million acre wilderness, maybe it would be ruled in public benefit. But a lot of the cases I hear about are things like a 640 acre square in the middle of a 60,000 acre ranch in Montana. Guys want to hunt the piece of property (it is public) and expect landowners to just throw open gates and let them drive 8 miles of ranch road to get there. And then get tiffed when landowners tell them to push a rope.no one said anything about being able to hunt the private land and no matter hoiw you feel about it it is in the best interests of the public to use public land no matter where that land is.A road to access only need be say 40-50 feet wide to get to the public property.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:29:02 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 06:36:20 PM
It would have to be bought at fare market value as well.Most of these landowners bought these properties for the reason of being able to lock everyone out of these huge public lands,I say they get what they get when Roads start getting put up.You dont like it dont try to screw the public when you buy the landI don't know if that was their intent when the land was bought. Most likely the land has been passed through the family and current ownership intent may differ from original. When it was first bought, probably just fine to ride a horse through the gate and over to the piece of public. Now days with rampant litigation, I wouldn't really blame the owners for wanting to keep people away from anything they could liable for.
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 06:37:49 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 06:43:34 PM
]no one said anything about being able to hunt the private land and no matter hoiw you feel about it it is in the best interests of the public to use public land no matter where that land is.A road to access only need be say 40-50 feet wide to get to the public property.No disagreement. But the balance between the public need and private property rights would need to be kept. I'd like to see access to all the public land. Lots of DNR behind timber co gates, and not all is the same owner surrounding it.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:52:03 PM
Thats your op,I say to heck with these property owners.It would have to be bought at fare market value as well.Most of these landowners bought these properties for the reason of being able to lock everyone out of these huge public lands,I say they get what they get when Roads start getting put up.You dont like it dont try to screw the public when you buy the land
So if I buy a piece of property that borders landlocked public land I'm screwing the public if I don't let them tromp through my property? I will never understand this type of thinking and disregard for property rights. Like has been mentioned before, you want on that public land buy or rent a helicopter. Leave the private property owners alone.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 06:52:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 07:01:27 PM
They do it all the time.Build hiways through private property,If you own it thats great there are laws that give the gov. the right to buy your land at fare market value whether you like it or not.No i wont site you the rcw. look it up yourself.Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
dominium eminens google that.
I know all about it, don't need to "look it up".
The whole premise is based on loss to a property owner and compensation by the delegated authority exercising domain or "supreme lordship" as is the meaning of the latin phrase above. The whole concept is very contrary to the founding principals of this nation and only under extreme public need was it to ever be used. It's metastasized into something very different that it's intended purpose.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 07:04:14 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 07:08:56 PM
For those who don't think acquiring access to landlocked public land is a good thing, what if many of the current easements into blocks of public land were eliminated? How would you feel about that? Because it seems like some prefer to let private landowners have exclusive access to public lands. So let's get rid of all the access we now enjoy. There's no need for it, correct?
This is one of those topics that's very easy to garner public support "the evil land owners are using YOUR public lands for free and keeping you out!" It's easy to get support for that but much more complex of an issue at it's root.
We'd all like free healthcare right? You can see the same tactics used in support of I-594 and net neutrality. It's never so simple as it first appears, and in the end we suffer another loss of rights.
When Democracy prevails, the Republic fails.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 07:12:41 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 07:20:19 PM
If the rich can keep the public lands for them selves in your republic then you can keep your republic.I hope they get all the support needed to knock these land barons down a notch.
I wish we still had a Republic, threads like these with even right leaning folks willing to trample the rights of landowners for a bit of personal gain sickens me. A few sexy words and a villain are all it takes to urinate on the Constitution.
Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew developers were being delegated eminent domain authority by the city, which was delegated from the county, which was delegated from the state, which was delegated from the fed.gov. Slippery slope we've found ourselves going down.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 07:30:25 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 07:31:54 PM
The rich can't keep you out. You can go in through the air if you so chose to. I'm just glad what you are hoping for won't happen in my lifetime. Some easements may be purchased for willing seller which would be great. But property owners will not be forced to give out easements.
Don't hold your breath on that. Drones are already being used to deliver light weight packages. It won't be long before they're powerful enough to carry in a human and a quartered deer.
I would do it just to waive my middle finger at that ahole rancher on the ground. :hello:
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 07:37:25 PM
Wow. How quickly you shed your conservative skin and hop in bed with the socialists... :chuckle:QuoteIt's not a cry for socialism, but public access to public property. Saying that life isn't fair is a cop out.
People have access to public property. Some might require a helicopter. You can't blame the guy for not wanting to create a road through his property. We have property rights in this country. I can't cut across your yard to get to mine. It is what it is. I understand people wanting it, but I respect our rights over some peoples wants.
I agree. Private property is private. Though I'm sure they're happy to let law enforcement on there when they want something fixed on their private preserve. If a landowner doesn't want a road on their land, they shouldn't be forced to have one. They should be forced to pay exorbitant taxes through the nose if they prevent access to public lands though. I'd also have no problem with them being given an offer to buy said public land, pay the land taxes on it, and manage it themselves.
I'll team up with socialists and wolf huggers before seeing it the other way. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 07:39:25 PM
:yeah:Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 07:41:18 PM
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 07:43:18 PM
you need to reread the Constitution,This was already thought of by our founding fathers.What fore site they had. God Bless the founding fathers and the Constitution:yeah:Some states have proposed bills doing what you guys suggest...they proposed closing landlocked lands to hunting for everyone. Those state bills and federal bills like what I posted are becoming an increasingly regular occurrence in legislative chambers. Things don't change overnight but the trend is very encouraging. I think the days of a select few keeping public resources to themselves are numbered. Probably one of the biggest developments that will advance this kind of legislation is the advance in GPS technologies...particularly all those OnX maps. The masses are becoming educated about just how many millions of acres are locked up for a privileged few...and as access and crowding on public lands continues to dominate the challenges of recruiting and retaining hunters the political appetite for doing nothing to address these millions of landlocked public acres will dwindle rapidly.
translation: We want to blaze a road through your private land contrary to the founding principals of this nation.
I'm all for mutual agreement, I'm for spending money to see a mutual agreement is made but I must draw the line at forced easements or eminent domain anything. I know you're going to say a trail or footpath will suffice but that's disinformation of a political nature.
Existing roads will be transferred from limited access to open access in most cases, some might be trails or footpaths - but the majority will be as described, a road open to all.
thankfully the tree hugger crowd isn't for increased access so no I don't see this gaining traction on a big scale. The current leadership wants less people on less land.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 07:44:22 PM
So just because a guy owns land that happens to border public land you think he should be taxed more if he doesn't want a bunch of strangers on his property? :bash: That is one of the most un-American things I have ever read on here. How the heck should it be the land owners problem that the government ended up with landlocked land? :dunno:
Nobody said that landowners should be punished extra just for being landowners. I personally am advocating punitive taxes for landowners whose property landlocks public land who don't grant a public easement. It's not about remaining on their land, it's about passing though.
"Trample all over their land" is likewise disingenuous. I don't think any of the hunters here who are advocating for an easement would object to a road that is lined on big sides by a 15 foot high fence with razor wire at the top.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 07:45:37 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 07:47:37 PM
Im done with this thread,You feel how you feel I feel how I feel it wont change.I have no pitty on the land barons that have taken large tracks of land from people 100 years ago for rail roads,farms,cattle or whatever.It was mostly by force.Thats how some select few ended up with so much land.You all talk about saving the planet for our grandchildren,Well how are we gonna make sure they have land to enjoy it on? :twocents:The government is acquiring lots of land. WDFW has been purchasing land, Nature Conservancy has been buying land for the government. My understanding is the government is gaining land faster than they are selling--exceptions being in urban area development.
Ask how will they enjoy it when it will probably be closed for 'bear mating season' or 'sensitive butterfly ops'? What about all the miles of public land roads being decommissioned or gated?
Post by: Colville on March 18, 2015, 07:48:02 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 07:51:02 PM
Wow. How quickly you shed your conservative skin and hop in bed with the socialists... :chuckle:
Plenty of good legislation is passed with bipartisan support. As they say: politics makes for strange bedfellows. That doesn't necessarily mean one has to shed their "conservative skin" as you put it. The greenies would get something they want like wolves or watching a hillbilly rancher get screwed, and i would get the pleasure of watching an a-hole get whats coming to him.
I appreciate you finding humor in a tense discussion but unfortunately I'm not joking. Im very much serious.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 07:55:15 PM
There's NO need to force easements. None. Just close federal lands that are land locked and no general access can be found. No one has to give up an inch of dirt, they just can't use those blocks of land either. Their home is still their castle and the landlocked blocks treat all the public the same too, no access for anyone.
Im pro choice. The way i see it, there are several options.
1. Allow the landowner to buy the property at FMV, pay the same taxes on it as the rest of his land, and manage it himself.
2. Grant a public easement to access the locked land.
3. Be taxed through the nose
4. Government exercises eminent domain and confiscates a portion of land for easement and reimburses the landowner.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 07:59:01 PM
So just because a guy owns land that happens to border public land you think he should be taxed more if he doesn't want a bunch of strangers on his property? :bash: That is one of the most un-American things I have ever read on here. How the heck should it be the land owners problem that the government ended up with landlocked land? :dunno:
Nobody said that landowners should be punished extra just for being landowners. I personally am advocating punitive taxes for landowners whose property landlocks public land who don't grant a public easement. It's not about remaining on their land, it's about passing though.
"Trample all over their land" is likewise disingenuous. I don't think any of the hunters here who are advocating for an easement would object to a road that is lined on big sides by a 15 foot high fence with razor wire at the top.
Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance. High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water. It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds. It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.
I also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas? Candy bar tax? Cigs, booze etc etc Are you really for this style of taxation?
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 18, 2015, 08:01:28 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 08:02:08 PM
There's NO need to force easements. None. Just close federal lands that are land locked and no general access can be found. No one has to give up an inch of dirt, they just can't use those blocks of land either. Their home is still their castle and the landlocked blocks treat all the public the same too, no access for anyone.
Im pro choice. The way i see it, there are several options.
1. Allow the landowner to buy the property at FMV, pay the same taxes on it as the rest of his land, and manage it himself.
2. Grant a public easement to access the locked land.
3. Be taxed through the nose
4. Government exercises eminent domain and confiscates a portion of land for easement and reimburses the landowner.
I couldn't be further away from your position, strange to find myself so at odds with your position. Even a trifle angry.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 08:03:10 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:06:17 PM
I wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they may feel.Wow. How quickly you shed your conservative skin and hop in bed with the socialists... :chuckle:
Plenty of good legislation is passed with bipartisan support. As they say: politics makes for strange bedfellows. That doesn't necessarily mean one has to shed their "conservative skin" as you put it. The greenies would get something they want like wolves or watching a hillbilly rancher get screwed, and i would get the pleasure of watching an a-hole get whats coming to him.
I appreciate you finding humor in a tense discussion but unfortunately I'm not joking. Im very much serious.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:08:06 PM
:yeah: his plan sounds like something Bloomberg would come up with.So just because a guy owns land that happens to border public land you think he should be taxed more if he doesn't want a bunch of strangers on his property? :bash: That is one of the most un-American things I have ever read on here. How the heck should it be the land owners problem that the government ended up with landlocked land? :dunno:
Nobody said that landowners should be punished extra just for being landowners. I personally am advocating punitive taxes for landowners whose property landlocks public land who don't grant a public easement. It's not about remaining on their land, it's about passing though.
"Trample all over their land" is likewise disingenuous. I don't think any of the hunters here who are advocating for an easement would object to a road that is lined on big sides by a 15 foot high fence with razor wire at the top.
Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance. High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water. It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds. It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.
I also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas? Candy bar tax? Cigs, booze etc etc Are you really for this style of taxation?
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 08:09:40 PM
Please show me where it says this.Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:12:17 PM
Quote
I wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they may feel.
There is tons of precedent for this in our tax code. And yes, I'll call it what it really is: punitive. For the sake of discussion if they cashed the landowners check and then burned all that money on principle I would be fine with it. Likewise if I saw someone dragging a deer across 10 yards of private land marked as we have discussed I wouldn't report him. Heck I might even give him a hand when he gets back to public land.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:16:51 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance. High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water. It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds. It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.
I wasn't talking about a high fence around an entire property, only lining the easement road, which in many cases is only a few hundred yards. This hypothetical point was made only because someone else made the reduction to the absurd about strangers "trampling all over their land." What I was saying was that you could create a very structured, limited access route straight to public land and back.
Quote
I also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas? Candy bar tax? Cigs, booze etc etc Are you really for this style of taxation?
No, I am for a flat tax at worst and a sales tax at best :)
As long as the IRC and related state revenue boards and property taxes exist in their current form, I have no problem with them being used in this manner. Otherwise one could say that if I support a flat tax, I should just take my income, not claim any deductions, and multiply it by the marginal rate without claiming any tax credits. Just because I legally claim my child tax credits doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
QuoteI wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they may feel.
There is tons of precedent for this in our tax code. And yes, I'll call it what it really is: punitive. For the sake of discussion if they cashed the landowners check and then burned all that money on principle I would be fine with it. Likewise if I saw someone dragging a deer across 10 yards of private land marked as we have discussed I wouldn't report him. Heck I might even give him a hand when he gets back to public land.
when the rubber meet the road, being conservative isn't any fun..
Now you condone trespassing to retrieve a deer. Do you stop at 11 yards or is that OK too?
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:22:18 PM
Just because there is precedent doesn't make it right. Most of that precedent was set by the very people you claim to be against in every other argument (progressive liberals). Why do you want want to punish landowners for exercising their rights? Why do you want to punish them for YOUR own greed? Why do you want to punish them for the government's screw up?QuoteI wasn't talking about you joining up with the greenies. I was referring to your Soros-esc plan of extorting tax paying citizens of this great country just to get what you want. Screw how they may feel.
There is tons of precedent for this in our tax code. And yes, I'll call it what it really is: punitive. For the sake of discussion if they cashed the landowners check and then burned all that money on principle I would be fine with it. Likewise if I saw someone dragging a deer across 10 yards of private land marked as we have discussed I wouldn't report him. Heck I might even give him a hand when he gets back to public land.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:25:58 PM
I find it amazing how easy it is for some to villainize land owners whom they know nothing about. Why not blame the government for not securing an easement when the land was bought.
Well that isn't me, because I met one such landowner. I introduced myself in person and respectfully requested permission to drive across their road, all 300 yards of it, to access public land behind. They told me to go jump in a creek and against my butt hurt feelings, I respected their wishes.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 08:27:48 PM
oh sorry,the 5th.Please show me where it says this.Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.
You lost me there? I asked you to show me where the constitution says the pubic has the right to access landlocked lands through private property.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:29:15 PM
One? That's a large focus group you are drawing from....I find it amazing how easy it is for some to villainize land owners whom they know nothing about. Why not blame the government for not securing an easement when the land was bought.
Well that isn't me, because I met one such landowner. I introduced myself in person and respectfully requested permission to drive across their road, all 300 yards of it, to access public land behind. They told me to go jump in a creek and against my butt hurt feelings, I respected their wishes.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 08:29:44 PM
Normally I like what you say Bean, but this is pure unadulterated ignorance. High fences are not only illegal in many places, but prevents movement of animals, in some situations it could prevent a herd of Elk/Antelope etc from getting water. It could alter migratory paths and limit access to traditional calving grounds. It could funnel animals for easy depredation and a whole slew of unintended consequences.
I wasn't talking about a high fence around an entire property, only lining the easement road, which in many cases is only a few hundred yards. This hypothetical point was made only because someone else made the reduction to the absurd about strangers "trampling all over their land." What I was saying was that you could create a very structured, limited access route straight to public land and back.QuoteI also must take exception to punitive taxes, no true conservative can ever condone government bullying or punitive taxation. What's next?
Huge taxes on 40oz sodas? Candy bar tax? Cigs, booze etc etc Are you really for this style of taxation?
No, I am for a flat tax at worst and a sales tax at best :)
As long as the IRC and related state revenue boards and property taxes exist in their current form, I have no problem with them being used in this manner. Otherwise one could say that if I support a flat tax, I should just take my income, not claim any deductions, and multiply it by the marginal rate without claiming any tax credits. Just because I legally claim my child tax credits doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.
The article itself gave a fine example of why a high fence with razor wire wouldn't work, the road that got this all started crisscrossed canyons (natural funnels). Some of these roads would be miles long.
Curious, who would pay for the high fence with razor wire? The landowner? Perhaps this falls in line with your punitive tax idea?
If 4 landowners all surround 1 blocked property, how does the .gov decide which landowner to screw with an easement road? Maybe go in a circuitous route to encompass them all huh
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 08:33:36 PM
no such thing,really.It says that they cant do it without comp. That is saying that they can with comp.And after all this bs I hope they do big time.oh sorry,the 5th.Please show me where it says this.Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.
You lost me there? I asked you to show me where the constitution says the pubic has the right to access landlocked lands through private property.
It says no such thing.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:35:39 PM
I hope they start with your house. Since you're all for it.no such thing,really.It says that they cant do it without comp. That is saying that they can with comp.And after all this bs I hope they do big time.oh sorry,the 5th.Please show me where it says this.Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.
You lost me there? I asked you to show me where the constitution says the pubic has the right to access landlocked lands through private property.
It says no such thing.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:36:12 PM
Id be fine with all adjacent property owners being taxed 100% the value of such a land. Any that want out can allow for the easement. I'm sure the gocenrment wouldn't be opposed To such an arrangement either! :tup:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:39:05 PM
Quote
Just because there is precedent doesn't make it right. Most of that precedent was set by the very people you claim to be against in every other argument (progressive liberals). Why do you want want to punish landowners for exercising their rights? Why do you want to punish them for YOUR own greed? Why do you want to punish them for the government's screw up?
I agree with you. Just because there is precedent, doesn't mean it's right.
There is precedent for private land to exclude the public from public land. However, just because there is precedent for it, doesn't mean it's right.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 08:39:20 PM
I hope they start with yours since your against it. How that work out for you?I hope they start with your house. Since you're all for it.no such thing,really.It says that they cant do it without comp. That is saying that they can with comp.And after all this bs I hope they do big time.oh sorry,the 5th.Please show me where it says this.Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.
You lost me there? I asked you to show me where the constitution says the pubic has the right to access landlocked lands through private property.
It says no such thing.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 08:40:33 PM
Id be fine with blm, G&F, etc paying to construct and maintain the easement road as well as the fence. I'm guessing most landowner wouldn't want a fence or vehicle barrier, just those who obsess about people "trampling over their land."
Id be fine with all adjacent property owners being taxed 100% the value of such a land. Any that want out can allow for the easement. I'm sure the gocenrment wouldn't be opposed To such an arrangement either! :tup:
So the next property owner, who may or may not have allowed an easement had they been there when it happened, now has to suffer a punitive tax while the easement road resides on the adjacent property?
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 08:42:44 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 08:43:44 PM
QuoteJust because there is precedent doesn't make it right. Most of that precedent was set by the very people you claim to be against in every other argument (progressive liberals). Why do you want want to punish landowners for exercising their rights? Why do you want to punish them for YOUR own greed? Why do you want to punish them for the government's screw up?
I agree with you. Just because there is precedent, doesn't mean it's right.
There is precedent for private land to exclude the public from public land. However, just because there is precedent for it, doesn't mean it's right.
wrong
There is precedent for private land owners to exclude the public from private land. Private land owners cannot exclude the public from publically owned lands.
If you find someone posting public land as private please turn them in.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:45:51 PM
Thats like saying its not fair that you have to pay school taxes because you owned the property before the school,Or your taxes got raised because you got annexed into the city or etc wah wah wah.Actually, no it isn't...
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 08:46:56 PM
To those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.
Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is. Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement. You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.
Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt. However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands. Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. :twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:48:08 PM
oh sorry,the 5th.Please show me where it says this.Ok,Every post you have made in this thread.
You lost me there? I asked you to show me where the constitution says the pubic has the right to access landlocked lands through private property.
It says no such thing.
Uh, dude? Steve is 100% on this point.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:52:35 PM
We need equal property rights. No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law. You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access. Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land? Why is the public less deserving than another owner? Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?Wow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
To those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.
Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is. Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement. You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.
Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt. However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands. Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 08:53:34 PM
We need equal property rights. No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law. You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access. Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land? Why is the public less deserving than another owner? Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?
To those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.
Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is. Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement. You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.
Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt. However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands. Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. :twocents:
You're argument fails because the landowner is the government in cases where the property is for investment purposes rather than recreational use. The .gov enjoys equal property rights.
There is no truly landlocked land, there is only land that the general public doesn't have access. DNR/BLM etc will have an easement and if necessary will force an easement to gain access if so desired.
Quote
To those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
Are we talking about wilderness areas now? How many access points does a wilderness need? It's totally contrary to what a wilderness even is.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 08:55:12 PM
wrong
There is precedent for private land owners to exclude the public from private land. Private land owners cannot exclude the public from publically owned lands.
If you find someone posting public land as private please turn them in.
Can't argue with that.
The more my position is challenged, the more I think I had it wrong. Private landowners shouldn't be forced into easement. They should have a portion of their land confiscated via eminent domain. There--it's not yours anymore.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 08:59:07 PM
So it should just be taken by the crown? Sounds like you'll be "voting" for Obama's 3rd term....
wrong
There is precedent for private land owners to exclude the public from private land. Private land owners cannot exclude the public from publically owned lands.
If you find someone posting public land as private please turn them in.
Can't argue with that.
The more my position is challenged, the more I think I had it wrong. Private landowners shouldn't be forced into easement. They should have a portion of their land confiscated via eminent domain. There--it's not yours anymore.
Post by: Jingles on March 18, 2015, 09:00:13 PM
OBTW precedence is NOT LAW it is a judges interpretation
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:01:17 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:04:44 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:06:07 PM
Quote
Wow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:08:00 PM
Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 09:09:13 PM
If the FFs were opposed to eminent domain they would have stopped it right there. Eminent domain began long before our nation did and even long before our English forefathers. The 5th Amendment wasn't even the first time these property rights were recognized. The Magna Carta in 1215 stipulated rights of the nobility (property owners) and that the King must obey the law.
agreed, the FF's also said it was despotism. It's a necessary tool for building things like railroads and highways. I'm way ahead of you here, as I've said it's metastasized into something that the FF's warned against vehemently. Now we have developers using this powerful tool to remove little old ladies from their home for a parking lot.
Do you think the FF's ever envisioned this?
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2501119/Womans-fight-against-City-of-Seattle-will-continue-even-in-death (http://mynorthwest.com/11/2501119/Womans-fight-against-City-of-Seattle-will-continue-even-in-death)
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:09:25 PM
You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...
I want to end their B.S. monopoly on land that is already public. Calling it taking their land just to build a public road isn't going to convince people on the fence that your opinions are fair and reasonable. I've met landowners with 20,000 acres who don't landlock public land and I fully support their right to be left the hell alone.
A lot of the positions you elitists are taking aren't very honest.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 09:10:39 PM
No KF, we're not talking wilderness. Landing a fixed wing aircraft requires an adequate landing and takeoff strip, which prohibits access by air in many circumstances.We need equal property rights. No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law. You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access. Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land? Why is the public less deserving than another owner? Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?
To those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.
Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is. Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement. You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.
Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt. However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands. Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. :twocents:
You're argument fails because the landowner is the government in cases where the property is for investment purposes rather than recreational use. The .gov enjoys equal property rights.
There is no truly landlocked land, there is only land that the general public doesn't have access. DNR/BLM etc will have an easement and if necessary will force an easement to gain access if so desired.QuoteTo those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
Are we talking about wilderness areas now? How many access points does a wilderness need? It's totally contrary to what a wilderness even is.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:12:13 PM
Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:13:40 PM
I'm an elitist because I'm for property rights? Hilarious. How am dishonest?You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...
I want to end their B.S. monopoly on land that is already public. Calling it taking their land just to build a public road isn't going to convince people on the fence that your opinions are fair and reasonable. I've met landowners with 20,000 acres who don't landlock public land and I fully support their right to be left the hell alone.
A lot of the positions you elitists are taking aren't very honest.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 09:14:41 PM
No KF, we're not talking wilderness. Landing a fixed wing aircraft requires an adequate landing and takeoff strip, which prohibits access by air in many circumstances.We need equal property rights. No private landowner is prohibited from accessing his/her land...thats law. You simply can not sell a landlocked piece of ground...it has to have some form of access. Why should a public landowner not have access to his/her land? Why is the public less deserving than another owner? Should the Public landowner not allow private individuals to cross public land and roads to reach their private land?
To those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
To those who say some land locked ground is intended for revenue generation and not recreation...two things: 1. That is state land, this bill targets millions of acres of federal lands and not those state revenue lands (i.e., DNR)
2. Unless the recreation reduces the revenue generation the two are not mutually exclusive and again the public should have access to their land.
Also, KF, you need to go learn what an easement is. Its clear in these discussions you don't understand the specificity and legal implications of recording an easement. You continue to try and fear monger this road blazing stuff which is born out of your ignorance of what an easement is.
Bottom line, I get that KF and wolfbait and Grundy think public land access is un-American and that unless you own your own land you shouldn't be allowed to hunt. I get that those guys like the European model of wildlife management where only the rich should be allowed to hunt. However, other folks like myself think the public should be able to access their resources and many folks care about protecting the future hunting heritage in this country so we should all probably be looking at ways to improve access to public lands. Don't let their fear mongering and misinformation about wolves and roads and whatever convince you that public land access is a bad thing for public land hunters. :twocents:
You're argument fails because the landowner is the government in cases where the property is for investment purposes rather than recreational use. The .gov enjoys equal property rights.
There is no truly landlocked land, there is only land that the general public doesn't have access. DNR/BLM etc will have an easement and if necessary will force an easement to gain access if so desired.QuoteTo those who say...just fly in? In many areas you can not land aircraft to access the land, some require a helicopter which brings on another set of rules some states have which prohibit transporting hunters by helicopter except to established airports...so you legally can't fly in and/or hunt many of these areas of public land.
Are we talking about wilderness areas now? How many access points does a wilderness need? It's totally contrary to what a wilderness even is.
Just about as difficult for a disabled hunter to access public land via a rough trail easement or a flagged trail I'd say.
J
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:16:42 PM
So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 09:22:26 PM
funny bean im waiting for them numbers as we speak. :chuckle:Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 09:26:12 PM
You need to read up on this issue. You are beyond naive if you think this is true. :chuckle:So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Lets be honest here, this isn't about a private landowners concerns of public trashing their private lands...this is private landowners not wanting to give up their welfare checks. Hunting access fees are sky high and many of these folks can get big $$$ selling limited and exclusive access to PUBLIC LANDS! Or its about them wanting to keep those public lands to themselves...either way it has nothing to do with protecting their private lands...its all about keeping their exclusive control of PUBLIC lands.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 09:27:05 PM
You want to invoke eminent domain and take away someone's hard earned land just so you can have another place to hunt. How nice of you...
I want to end their B.S. monopoly on land that is already public. Calling it taking their land just to build a public road isn't going to convince people on the fence that your opinions are fair and reasonable. I've met landowners with 20,000 acres who don't landlock public land and I fully support their right to be left the hell alone.
A lot of the positions you elitists are taking aren't very honest.
I totally get your frustration at the 20,000 acre landowner blocking access to their land thereby preventing you from accessing a government property beyond, but the easements won't stop at your desired hunting paradise.
For every 20,000 acre "a-hole" as you so eloquently put; there's a 1000 small acreage holders that would be affected by this.
For example I'm three acreages away from land locked state land, acreages I do not have permission to cross myself, but the DNR holds an easement literally through my front yard and maintain a lock on my gate. Under your plan I would have to allow everyone to cross my yard, and put up with vehicles flying down that road, leaving gates open and all the lovely things that come with public access.
I could high fence it, but then the deer wouldn't be able to access water as freely and instead would have to go all the way around creating easy depredation pinch points. My property value would decline, my pleasure at having that property would decline a great deal. That cannot be compensated at FMV.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:32:19 PM
It's the tird with a small strip of land who blocks public land, regardless of how much land he owns.
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 09:35:52 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 09:36:19 PM
Uh, I said I don't have a problem with the guy who owns 20,000 acres (whose poetry isn't land locking public land) fthat doesn't let me hunt free on his land.
It's the tird with a small strip of land who blocks public land, regardless of how much land he owns.
In the words of your favorite politician, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:41:17 PM
Quote
For example I'm three acreages away from land locked state land, acreages I do not have permission to cross myself, but the DNR holds an easement literally through my front yard and maintain a lock on my gate. Under your plan I would have to allow everyone to cross my yard, and put up with vehicles flying down that road, leaving gates open and all the lovely things that come with public access.
Continuing further down our rabbit hole..
Let's say there was a million acres of NF on a peninsula behind your land. I'm pretty sure that in a court case that the argument could be made that just compensation requires the ".gov" to construct a road on a manner befitting your property, such as on one extreme end.
I am sensitive to your privacy and family safety concerns with drunks, as well as foreign born poachers driving though your property but I have seen myself that most cases are exactly as Idahohtr described it. It's all about protecting their monopoly and that's needs to be ended one way or the next.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 09:42:11 PM
Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:42:32 PM
I'm well aware of the issue. I'm just not willing to trample our property rights because of some bad apples. Maybe you should try to expand your narrow little view. If we do this to the few bad apples where does it stop? There are a lot of property owners in this great nation. Who's property do we take next? And for what reason?You need to read up on this issue. You are beyond naive if you think this is true. :chuckle:So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Lets be honest here, this isn't about a private landowners concerns of public trashing their private lands...this is private landowners not wanting to give up their welfare checks. Hunting access fees are sky high and many of these folks can get big $$$ selling limited and exclusive access to PUBLIC LANDS! Or its about them wanting to keep those public lands to themselves...either way it has nothing to do with protecting their private lands...its all about keeping their exclusive control of PUBLIC lands.
I would like to see them negotiate an easement. Failing that I would rather see them shut down landlocked public land to everyone as opposed to confiscating private land.
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 09:43:17 PM
Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 09:45:01 PM
ok lets start over,How much land do you have.Uh, I said I don't have a problem with the guy who owns 20,000 acres (whose poetry isn't land locking public land) fthat doesn't let me hunt free on his land.
It's the tird with a small strip of land who blocks public land, regardless of how much land he owns.
In the words of your favorite politician, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:46:05 PM
Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 09:47:34 PM
Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 09:49:05 PM
QuoteFor example I'm three acreages away from land locked state land, acreages I do not have permission to cross myself, but the DNR holds an easement literally through my front yard and maintain a lock on my gate. Under your plan I would have to allow everyone to cross my yard, and put up with vehicles flying down that road, leaving gates open and all the lovely things that come with public access.
Continuing further down our rabbit hole..
Let's say there was a million acres of NF on a peninsula behind your land. I'm pretty sure that in a court case that the argument could be made that just compensation requires the ".gov" to construct a road on a manner befitting your property, such as on one extreme end.
I am sensitive to your privacy and family safety concerns with drunks, as well as foreign born poachers driving though your property but I have seen myself that most cases are exactly as Idahohtr described it. It's all about protecting their monopoly and that's needs to be ended one way or the next.
I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on. I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR.
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:50:20 PM
No they weren't.Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
Quote
Do you think the FF's ever envisioned this?
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2501119/Womans-fight-against-City-of-Seattle-will-continue-even-in-death (http://mynorthwest.com/11/2501119/Womans-fight-against-City-of-Seattle-will-continue-even-in-death)
Yes, yes I think they did. Some were quite "progressive."
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Kind of tacky for the media To pimp that story. It's really about the fact that it was an 103 year old lady. Justice being blind as it should be is no respecter of such emotional manipulations.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:51:33 PM
It's what he's good at.QuoteFor example I'm three acreages away from land locked state land, acreages I do not have permission to cross myself, but the DNR holds an easement literally through my front yard and maintain a lock on my gate. Under your plan I would have to allow everyone to cross my yard, and put up with vehicles flying down that road, leaving gates open and all the lovely things that come with public access.
Continuing further down our rabbit hole..
Let's say there was a million acres of NF on a peninsula behind your land. I'm pretty sure that in a court case that the argument could be made that just compensation requires the ".gov" to construct a road on a manner befitting your property, such as on one extreme end.
I am sensitive to your privacy and family safety concerns with drunks, as well as foreign born poachers driving though your property but I have seen myself that most cases are exactly as Idahohtr described it. It's all about protecting their monopoly and that's needs to be ended one way or the next.
I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on. I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR.
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 09:51:37 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 09:52:49 PM
:yeah: And if the land is to be stolen, I'd hope process of eminent domain was appropriate. Like logging the area for schools or mining it for large tax revenue. To throw the full weight of eminent domain for a handful of guys seems and overreach.Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 09:55:00 PM
Stealing land? I doubt that would happen. Most likely the landowner would make an agreement with the government for a public easement across their property. The government would pay whatever the rate is for the type of easement they acquire. The landowner isn't giving up ownership. The public would only be driving across the private land to get to the public land. No theft of private land would be required.Bobcat, you should try actually reading the thread. I'm all for what you just described 100% . The opposition wants to claim eminent domain on these land owners.
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 09:55:32 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 09:56:21 PM
Originally....meaning tribe from another tribe, or French from the tribes, or Brits from the Spanish, or railroads from settlers, or banks/taxman from ranchers?Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 09:59:19 PM
Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Yes you are. A road for an average rancher that were talking about is what? 0.0001% of their land area? It's all about access, and laughing it all the way to the bank. >:(
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:00:52 PM
Lets be honest here, this isn't about a private landowners concerns of public trashing their private lands...this is private landowners not wanting to give up their welfare checks. Hunting access fees are sky high and many of these folks can get big $$$ selling limited and exclusive access to PUBLIC LANDS! Or its about them wanting to keep those public lands to themselves...either way it has nothing to do with protecting their private lands...its all about keeping their exclusive control of PUBLIC lands.
^ BOOM! :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:01:02 PM
Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
by the .gov that is
let's look at lake communities like Coeur d'Alene, where they've used punitive property taxes to literally steal land from old families who've lived there, usually older folks who with their pensions could no longer afford to keep their house due to massive property taxes. It's well known the taxes were punitive in nature and used as a tool. Now the ultra wealthy come in and bulldoze the houses and erect some monstrosity in it's place.
We all know about Bundy that rancher in NV, well he's no saint but that's the only reason we've heard about him. What we don't hear about is the other ranchers who've been driven off their ranches and forced to sell out by reid et all. They use the BLM as a tool to force out the landowers. ESA, Spotted Owl, desert tortoise, wolves....all tools to drive out existing landowners for one reason or another. Developments or Cascade corridor.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 10:01:25 PM
yes they were,you just want to argue so its whatever you lost this to begin with.No they weren't.Its funny that you use the word steal,Since thats how most of the large tracks of land were originally taken.Absolutely not against more public access. Just against stealing land from people to do it. You can twist those words around all you want Bobcat but they are crystal clear.Okay, you have to look at this on a case by case basis. For some landlocked public land it makes sense to work to acquire access for the public. On others, maybe it's not quite as desirable. It's amazing to me that hunters on this site could be against more accessible public land.
No one is against more access. No one has said such a thing.
Sure sounds like several people in this thread are against more access to public lands. :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:04:00 PM
I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on. I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR.
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
I've got one instance of a landowner I requested permission from and whose "no" I respected.
I have hundreds if not thousands of hours of looking at maps and seeing one single strip of private land blocking huge swaths of public land as running into the locked gate plus posting signs on said gate. Very rarely do I see a multitude of small landowners blocking any material amount of public land. Yes there's a square mile here and there but not what most of us are complaining about.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 10:04:15 PM
You are trampling "our" property rights. You are trampling on the property rights of the 300 million americans who own that land and should have access to it just like if it were owned by 1 individual. No more and no less, but EQUAL property rights.I'm well aware of the issue. I'm just not willing to trample our property rights because of some bad apples. Maybe you should try to expand your narrow little view. If we do this to the few bad apples where does it stop? There are a lot of property owners in this great nation. Who's property do we take next? And for what reason?You need to read up on this issue. You are beyond naive if you think this is true. :chuckle:So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Lets be honest here, this isn't about a private landowners concerns of public trashing their private lands...this is private landowners not wanting to give up their welfare checks. Hunting access fees are sky high and many of these folks can get big $$$ selling limited and exclusive access to PUBLIC LANDS! Or its about them wanting to keep those public lands to themselves...either way it has nothing to do with protecting their private lands...its all about keeping their exclusive control of PUBLIC lands.
I would like to see them negotiate an easement. Failing that I would rather see them shut down landlocked public land to everyone as opposed to confiscating private land.
You are not at all aware of the issue based on your statements. Nobody gives a darn about tiny chunks of DNR land in KFs back yard. This is predominantly about millions of acres of public land, usually in several square mile blocks, that have no public access. In many instances the surrounding landowner absolutely does not live on the surrounding land. Google the Wilks Brothers.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:04:55 PM
Stealing land? I doubt that would happen. Most likely the landowner would make an agreement with the government for a public easement across their property. The government would pay whatever the rate is for the type of easement they acquire. The landowner isn't giving up ownership. The public would only be driving across the private land to get to the public land. No theft of private land would be required.
An agreement under duress or coercion is not an agreement at all. The .gov will use tools like "punitive taxation" to force an agreement years down the road. It's been done with things like spotted owls, desert tortoise, sage grouse and excessive property taxes. Cozy lawsuits are another big tool to use.
EPA tried to seize everything bigger than a mud puddle recently, thankfully that didn't come to pass, that would have been a huge tool.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 10:08:27 PM
Yes, The Wilks are are some of the bad apples. Doesn't disqualify my argument.You are trampling "our" property rights. You are trampling on the property rights of the 300 million americans who own that land and should have access to it just like if it were owned by 1 individual. No more and no less, but EQUAL property rights.I'm well aware of the issue. I'm just not willing to trample our property rights because of some bad apples. Maybe you should try to expand your narrow little view. If we do this to the few bad apples where does it stop? There are a lot of property owners in this great nation. Who's property do we take next? And for what reason?You need to read up on this issue. You are beyond naive if you think this is true. :chuckle:So it's ok for you to deny access through YOUR property? Also who said anything about hunting property. Most of these folks live there. It isn't hunting property.Do you allow the general public to access your property at all?QuoteWow. What complete BS. I never said any of that. you know dang well what I said. But go ahead and make stuff up if it helps your argument. I just hope you all allow people to access your property freely...
Again disingenuous.
A road to cross public land isn't carte blanche access to go wherever. Not is it "trampling all over"
I don't own hunting property. If I owned a small plot that I hunted I would not. If I won the mega millions and owned 30,000 acres just for wealth diversification, I probably would.
Lets be honest here, this isn't about a private landowners concerns of public trashing their private lands...this is private landowners not wanting to give up their welfare checks. Hunting access fees are sky high and many of these folks can get big $$$ selling limited and exclusive access to PUBLIC LANDS! Or its about them wanting to keep those public lands to themselves...either way it has nothing to do with protecting their private lands...its all about keeping their exclusive control of PUBLIC lands.
I would like to see them negotiate an easement. Failing that I would rather see them shut down landlocked public land to everyone as opposed to confiscating private land.
You are not at all aware of the issue based on your statements. Nobody gives a darn about tiny chunks of DNR land in KFs back yard. This is predominantly about millions of acres of public land, usually in several square mile blocks, that have no public access. In many instances the surrounding landowner absolutely does not live on the surrounding land. Google the Wilks Brothers.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:10:04 PM
Quote
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
I don't think he meant "welfare" like the Obamaphone lady. I think he meant that it's become a cash cow because of the big money that's in hunting that might make owning such joke strips of land more profitable that any other legitimate operation that such a land could traditionally been used for.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:11:50 PM
I'm an elitist because I'm for property rights? Hilarious. How am dishonest?
I'm not calling you a liar. But you're not "telling it how it is." Saying that I want to drive all over someone's land when it's about about a strip of land to drive though is a shining and repeated example.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 18, 2015, 10:12:23 PM
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 10:13:37 PM
I actually never said that.I'm an elitist because I'm for property rights? Hilarious. How am dishonest?
I'm not calling you a liar. But you're not "telling it how it is." Saying that I want to drive all over someone's land when it's about about a strip of land to drive though is a shining and repeated example.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:17:17 PM
KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.
I got ahead of myself :sry: I'm a few steps ahead on the chess board.
DNR would be next should this come to pass.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:17:37 PM
That line is being thrown sound a lot and I like to truncate quotes to make conversions easier to follow. I know it's not fair to lump all posters of similarly voiced I opinions into one so again :sry:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 10:19:05 PM
KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.:yeah:
Land ownership, easements, real estate in general...not really KF's strong suit.
Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall? I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands. This is not about a multitude of landowners surrounding a small chunk of state ground which is probably the extent of the problem in Wa. The core of the issue is large, single landowners, surrounding square miles of public land, using it for themselves for free. Of the estimated millions of acres that are landlocked, what Bean and I are describing is not just a small slice of the issue...its the vast majority. It is not the 1% as KF describes it...again, it is pretty apparent to me that a few folks just are not up to speed on this issue based on their statements. I would probably be more in line with their thinking if this issue was about finding access to a 500 acre block of land that has 15 landowners surrounding it.I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on. I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR.
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
I've got one instance of a landowner I requested permission from and whose "no" I respected.
I have hundreds if not thousands of hours of looking at maps and seeing one single strip of private land blocking huge swaths of public land as running into the locked gate plus posting signs on said gate. Very rarely do I see a multitude of small landowners blocking any material amount of public land. Yes there's a square mile here and there but not what most of us are complaining about.
I don't care as much about the 500 or 1000 acre pieces that have a myriad of landowners surrounding the property...I am concerned about the millions of acres in several square mile blocks that are completely surrounded by 1 or 2 landowners. My experience...when you have a dozen landowners that have access to the public property...access is pretty easy. When you only have 1 guy that controls access...he can get a premium.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 10:20:09 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 10:22:21 PM
KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.
I got ahead of myself :sry: I'm a few steps ahead on the chess board.
DNR would be next should this come to pass.
Well, I don't know if that's the case, but I'd be all for it. There's a large block of state land not far from me that used to be accessible 25 years ago. But now, some selfish private landowner, put up a gate, where the road crosses a corner of the private property. It's less than 100 yards and then the road is back on DNR. It wouldn't harm this landowner at all to leave this road open to the public, like it was for decades. But they choose to lock us out so they can have their own private playground.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:26:26 PM
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.
Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:26:45 PM
Quote
Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall? I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands.
Yes, yes, and yes. Later tonight I'm going to post up some pictures from maps so it's blatantly obvious what :bs: this charade is. A. Picture is worth a 1,000 words.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 10:30:53 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.thats the one thing that you seem to be missing in this argument entirely :yeah: it would be legal. Now if I were to build a hover craft and cross all that private to get to the public how would that make you feel?
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.
Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:31:41 PM
KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.
I got ahead of myself :sry: I'm a few steps ahead on the chess board.
DNR would be next should this come to pass.
Well, I don't know if that's the case, but I'd be all for it. There's a large block of state land not far from me that used to be accessible 25 years ago. But now, some selfish private landowner, put up a gate, where the road crosses a corner of the private property. It's less than 100 yards and then the road is back on DNR. It wouldn't harm this landowner at all to leave this road open to the public, like it was for decades. But they choose to lock us out so they can have their own private playground.
Thanks for being honest, I was under no delusions this was only a federal issue nor that it would stay there. DNR will be involved, then the 1% comment I made would be validated.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:34:22 PM
KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.:yeah:
Land ownership, easements, real estate in general...not really KF's strong suit.Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall? I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands. This is not about a multitude of landowners surrounding a small chunk of state ground which is probably the extent of the problem in Wa. The core of the issue is large, single landowners, surrounding square miles of public land, using it for themselves for free. Of the estimated millions of acres that are landlocked, what Bean and I are describing is not just a small slice of the issue...its the vast majority. It is not the 1% as KF describes it...again, it is pretty apparent to me that a few folks just are not up to speed on this issue based on their statements. I would probably be more in line with their thinking if this issue was about finding access to a 500 acre block of land that has 15 landowners surrounding it.I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on. I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR.
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
I've got one instance of a landowner I requested permission from and whose "no" I respected.
I have hundreds if not thousands of hours of looking at maps and seeing one single strip of private land blocking huge swaths of public land as running into the locked gate plus posting signs on said gate. Very rarely do I see a multitude of small landowners blocking any material amount of public land. Yes there's a square mile here and there but not what most of us are complaining about.
I don't care as much about the 500 or 1000 acre pieces that have a myriad of landowners surrounding the property...I am concerned about the millions of acres in several square mile blocks that are completely surrounded by 1 or 2 landowners. My experience...when you have a dozen landowners that have access to the public property...access is pretty easy. When you only have 1 guy that controls access...he can get a premium.
I don't believe for a second you'd be wholly satisfied with your egregious example, and if it's true then so be it..
Plenty of other people would be interested in obtaining access to a whole patchwork of state and other federal lands. This opens the floodgates.
Post by: stevemiller on March 18, 2015, 10:35:47 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:36:42 PM
QuoteIt is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
I don't think he meant "welfare" like the Obamaphone lady. I think he meant that it's become a cash cow because of the big money that's in hunting that might make owning such joke strips of land more profitable that any other legitimate operation that such a land could traditionally been used for.
The welfare thing has been usually applied to ranchers with public land grazing leases. "welfare rancher" is a term used by the pro-wolf and/or eco warrior crowd a lot.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 10:37:19 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.That is somewhat in line with folks who have suggested closing lands to everyone if there is not public access. It may provide the leverage to incentivize more cooperation from all sides :dunno: ...if the kids can't play nice the toys all get put away :chuckle:
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.
Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.
Thanks for being honest, I was under no delusions this was only a federal issue nor that it would stay there. DNR will be involved, then the 1% comment I made would be validated.Even if DNR land was involved, your 1% comment is still way off base. All the landlocked DNR land in all of WA state would not amount to a pimple on the backside of the monstrosity of federal lands off limits.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:39:51 PM
I hope so :yeah:
two fine examples showing the falseness of IDH's examples used in politicizing this issue. They truly are the 1% of bad apples.
It's a lot like the baiting issue currently being discussed. 1 or 2 groups of baiters dumping massive amounts of bait on the ground are going to get baiting taken away for everyone.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 10:40:19 PM
You're right. I'm just a simpleton that has never left this state or researched other states.... How condescending can you possibly get? I support property rights for all land owners. No matter their size. I've also discussed various solutions including ones that would put a stop to these large land owners using these vast public lands to their benefit.KFHunter, you keep talking about small parcels of DNR land. That's not what this bill is about. It's about large blocks of FEDERAL land, not state.:yeah:
Land ownership, easements, real estate in general...not really KF's strong suit.Bean - You live in Arizona if I recall? I think the issue is in part (certainly not all) that folks like KF and Grundy don't understand the magnitude of this issue in large western states with significant public lands. This is not about a multitude of landowners surrounding a small chunk of state ground which is probably the extent of the problem in Wa. The core of the issue is large, single landowners, surrounding square miles of public land, using it for themselves for free. Of the estimated millions of acres that are landlocked, what Bean and I are describing is not just a small slice of the issue...its the vast majority. It is not the 1% as KF describes it...again, it is pretty apparent to me that a few folks just are not up to speed on this issue based on their statements. I would probably be more in line with their thinking if this issue was about finding access to a 500 acre block of land that has 15 landowners surrounding it.I disagree, you've got one instance your basing your entire judgement on. I can identify dozens of people just like myself, small property owners with a DNR road through their land and small chunk of state land at the end no one can access but the adjacent owners and DNR.
It is very untrue that most of these folks are "welfare" anything. Idahohntr and folks of his ilk like to take the 1% and use that to politicize an issue, it's bait and switch, it's politi' speak. It's a lie.
I've got one instance of a landowner I requested permission from and whose "no" I respected.
I have hundreds if not thousands of hours of looking at maps and seeing one single strip of private land blocking huge swaths of public land as running into the locked gate plus posting signs on said gate. Very rarely do I see a multitude of small landowners blocking any material amount of public land. Yes there's a square mile here and there but not what most of us are complaining about.
I don't care as much about the 500 or 1000 acre pieces that have a myriad of landowners surrounding the property...I am concerned about the millions of acres in several square mile blocks that are completely surrounded by 1 or 2 landowners. My experience...when you have a dozen landowners that have access to the public property...access is pretty easy. When you only have 1 guy that controls access...he can get a premium.
Post by: grundy53 on March 18, 2015, 10:41:48 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.:yeah:
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.
Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:42:49 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with a bill that prevented monetary gain off federal lands by preventing access without a trespass fee.That is somewhat in line with folks who have suggested closing lands to everyone if there is not public access. It may provide the leverage to incentivize more cooperation from all sides :dunno: ...if the kids can't play nice the toys all get put away :chuckle:
Don't prevent monetary gain off the private land, but if the hunter crosses into federal land then no money can exchange hands.
Perhaps then that owning that long strip of scrub land wouldn't be so lucrative and access can be gained in an ethical legal manner.
Thanks for being honest, I was under no delusions this was only a federal issue nor that it would stay there. DNR will be involved, then the 1% comment I made would be validated.Even if DNR land was involved, your 1% comment is still way off base. All the landlocked DNR land in all of WA state would not amount to a pimple on the backside of the monstrosity of federal lands off limits.
nice try to twist it again.
The few 1% of people blocking those massive chunks of federal lands aren't even a pimple on the amount of private land holders blocking many smaller chunks of government held lands.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:44:59 PM
The welfare thing has been usually applied to ranchers with public land grazing leases. "welfare rancher" is a term used by the pro-wolf and/or eco warrior crowd a lot.
Idk all the minutiae of the wolf debates so I'll take your word for it. I don't think such a denotation is off base. If I inherited 15 acres that has three head of cattle, a water tank, and a road + locked gate on it and I get paid $200,000 annually by Doyle Moss' crew to let only his hunters though so they can get their "100% public land elk" what would you call that?
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2015, 10:46:39 PM
Quote
The few 1% of people blocking those massive chunks of federal lands aren't even a pimple on the amount of private land holders blocking many smaller chunks of government held lands.
But see, the ones we want access to are those huge chunks of public land, mostly in states other than Washington- Arizona, Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Utah. Where the adjacent landowners are getting rich by charging trespass fees and/or leasing hunting rights to outfitters, to hunt PUBLIC LAND!
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 10:49:07 PM
I don't believe for a second you'd be wholly satisfied with your egregious example, and if it's true then so be it..Yes, that is certainly possible I guess. I mean who wants to live in a world where guys like bobcat can access a chunk of state ground next to his house? For crying out loud - next thing you now he will probably want to take one of his kids out on that land to hunt with him :yike: I can see exactly why we need to stop this non-sense. The audacity of people wanting to access public lands. :rolleyes:
Plenty of other people would be interested in obtaining access to a whole patchwork of state and other federal lands. This opens the floodgates.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 18, 2015, 10:50:58 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:52:54 PM
The welfare thing has been usually applied to ranchers with public land grazing leases. "welfare rancher" is a term used by the pro-wolf and/or eco warrior crowd a lot.
Idk all the minutiae of the wolf debates so I'll take your word for it. I don't think such a denotation is off base. If I inherited 15 acres that has three head of cattle, a water tank, and a road + locked gate on it and I get paid $200,000 annually by Doyle Moss' crew to let only his hunters though so they can get their "100% public land elk" what would you call that?
Unfair business practice, and that's how it should be handled. No one wants to talk about that yet I don't see any other ideas floated by people in favor of seizing private property.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 10:59:32 PM
My ugly mug is glued to the maps so much that I can think of 3 or 4 really good examples right off the top of my head I'm about to post up when I can find my map. Id like to see some of your examples, KF. Having a hard time believing your claim.
Honesty and integrity is extremely important to me, that said, I'm not going to help you out. Now that I really start thinking on it the landowners possibly affected should DNR lands come to play far exceed the dozen I originally stated. I may have to move my figures up.
Post by: KFhunter on March 18, 2015, 11:03:50 PM
I don't believe for a second you'd be wholly satisfied with your egregious example, and if it's true then so be it..Yes, that is certainly possible I guess. I mean who wants to live in a world where guys like bobcat can access a chunk of state ground next to his house? For crying out loud - next thing you now he will probably want to take one of his kids out on that land to hunt with him :yike: I can see exactly why we need to stop this non-sense. The audacity of people wanting to access public lands. :rolleyes:
Plenty of other people would be interested in obtaining access to a whole patchwork of state and other federal lands. This opens the floodgates.
I love exposing fraud
Post by: idahohuntr on March 18, 2015, 11:14:17 PM
What fraud did you expose? I merely agreed that someone could possibly build on the success of the current bill and extend it to state lands via state legislative process. Looks like your understanding of fraud is up there with your knowledge of easements :chuckle:I don't believe for a second you'd be wholly satisfied with your egregious example, and if it's true then so be it..Yes, that is certainly possible I guess. I mean who wants to live in a world where guys like bobcat can access a chunk of state ground next to his house? For crying out loud - next thing you now he will probably want to take one of his kids out on that land to hunt with him :yike: I can see exactly why we need to stop this non-sense. The audacity of people wanting to access public lands. :rolleyes:
Plenty of other people would be interested in obtaining access to a whole patchwork of state and other federal lands. This opens the floodgates.
I love exposing fraud
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 04:32:13 AM
Not sure how anyone can sleep at night and call anything other than :bs: looking at this. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on March 19, 2015, 06:11:30 AM
The breadth of your condescension is impressive. Have you ever thought of having a conversation with people instead of talking down to them?What fraud did you expose? I merely agreed that someone could possibly build on the success of the current bill and extend it to state lands via state legislative process. Looks like your understanding of fraud is up there with your knowledge of easements :chuckle:I don't believe for a second you'd be wholly satisfied with your egregious example, and if it's true then so be it..Yes, that is certainly possible I guess. I mean who wants to live in a world where guys like bobcat can access a chunk of state ground next to his house? For crying out loud - next thing you now he will probably want to take one of his kids out on that land to hunt with him :yike: I can see exactly why we need to stop this non-sense. The audacity of people wanting to access public lands. :rolleyes:
Plenty of other people would be interested in obtaining access to a whole patchwork of state and other federal lands. This opens the floodgates.
I love exposing fraud
Post by: grundy53 on March 19, 2015, 06:16:43 AM
I'll need to look through another map later, but here's one so you get the idea. A size of the pencil shown against the scale so you get the idea the amount of land one piddly "rancher" can control. I honestly don't give a damn whether they're selling the access or not. Or even if they hunt or not. If its public land, they should not be able to restrict access like they can. I'll team up with liberals, anti hunters, or anybody to destroy property rights before nodding in conformity to this kind of crap.
Not sure how anyone can sleep at night and call anything other than :bs: looking at this. :twocents:
Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....
Post by: logger on March 19, 2015, 06:52:35 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 19, 2015, 07:05:34 AM
The breadth of your condescension is impressive. Have you ever thought of having a conversation with people instead of talking down to them?Oh, you mean like this:
Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....:rolleyes:
Post by: grundy53 on March 19, 2015, 07:08:56 AM
How is that condescending?The breadth of your condescension is impressive. Have you ever thought of having a conversation with people instead of talking down to them?Oh, you mean like this:Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....:rolleyes:
Nice deflection though.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 19, 2015, 07:18:19 AM
Please don't start with your usual drama stuff and pretend like you're perfect and its always everybody else...lets try and stick to the topic. If something gets under your skin...maybe just go to a different thread. :dunno:How is that condescending?The breadth of your condescension is impressive. Have you ever thought of having a conversation with people instead of talking down to them?Oh, you mean like this:Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....:rolleyes:
Nice deflection though.
Now, since we have gotten so far off topic...just a reminder, this bill does not force or suggest use of eminent domain. It uses LWCF funds to purchse land, easements, etc. from willing sellers to provide greater public access to landlocked federal lands. It is a bill I would think we could all support.
Post by: grundy53 on March 19, 2015, 07:28:43 AM
Oh I'm far from perfect. Never claimed to be close. I wouldn't be throwing stones about drama.Please don't start with your usual drama stuff and pretend like you're perfect and its always everybody else...lets try and stick to the topic. If something gets under your skin...maybe just go to a different thread. :dunno:How is that condescending?The breadth of your condescension is impressive. Have you ever thought of having a conversation with people instead of talking down to them?Oh, you mean like this:Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....:rolleyes:
Nice deflection though.
Now, since we have gotten so far off topic...just a reminder, this bill does not force or suggest use of eminent domain. It uses LWCF funds to purchse land, easements, etc. from willing sellers to provide greater public access to landlocked federal lands. It is a bill I would think we could all support.
Post by: lokidog on March 19, 2015, 07:32:37 AM
The first map you showed it looks like there is plenty of access to the public land? I'm assuming the smaller boxes are the private? If so the public land is not at all landlocked. Doesn't look like one rancher controls any public land in that map. And if I got that backwards and the small boxes are public then the public pieces are very small compared to the private surrounding it.
The small pieces are the "public" land. The smallest square parcel is likely 1/4 x 1/4 mile or 40 acres. I see a lot of property that does not have access. Also, just because there is a little squiggly line to it, does not mean that is an accessible road.
The problem I see with this bill is that the access might not necessarily be permanent, which it should be IMO, and these landowners could just jack the price whenever they feel like it.
I tried a DIY hunt in WY once where the original area I was going was covered in people, there is a huge amount of "public" land that is not accessible to the public, especially if corner hopping is not allowed.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 19, 2015, 07:32:41 AM
just a reminder, this bill does not force or suggest use of eminent domain. It uses LWCF funds to purchse land, easements, etc. from willing sellers to provide greater public access to landlocked federal lands. It is a bill I would think we could all support.
I doubt we can get everyone to agree on anything around here, but I think this bill will receive broad sportsman support.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 19, 2015, 07:41:37 AM
Very true. I think the only way it gets de-railed in congress is partisan gridlock...and it becomes a casualty of fights over other things. On its own merits...it should sail through even a dysfunctional congress.just a reminder, this bill does not force or suggest use of eminent domain. It uses LWCF funds to purchse land, easements, etc. from willing sellers to provide greater public access to landlocked federal lands. It is a bill I would think we could all support.
I doubt we can get everyone to agree on anything around here, but I think this bill will receive broad sportsman support.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 19, 2015, 08:51:57 AM
The pro-wolf crowd is excited about this? :dunno:
He's implying of course that Idahohntr is pro wolf.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 19, 2015, 08:58:47 AM
QuoteIt's not a cry for socialism, but public access to public property. Saying that life isn't fair is a cop out.
People have access to public property. Some might require a helicopter. You can't blame the guy for not wanting to create a road through his property. We have property rights in this country. I can't cut across your yard to get to mine. It is what it is. I understand people wanting it, but I respect our rights over some peoples wants.
This is probably a case where eminent domain could be put to use to create a public good, access to public land.
Post by: wolfbait on March 19, 2015, 09:05:38 AM
The pro-wolf crowd is excited about this? :dunno:
He's implying of course that Idahohntr is pro wolf.
Very true. I think the only way it gets de-railed in congress is partisan gridlock...and it becomes a casualty of fights over other things. On its own merits...it should sail through even a dysfunctional congress.just a reminder, this bill does not force or suggest use of eminent domain. It uses LWCF funds to purchse land, easements, etc. from willing sellers to provide greater public access to landlocked federal lands. It is a bill I would think we could all support.
I doubt we can get everyone to agree on anything around here, but I think this bill will receive broad sportsman support.
Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence 3of6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOaMazpLbVE#t=127 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOaMazpLbVE#t=127)
Sell it to the sportsman, under the guise we are here to help you with your hunting access. Don't mention anything about dumping wolves on states and then pretending that they migrated.
Yep the fraud is alive and well.
Post by: fireweed on March 19, 2015, 09:07:04 AM
For those who don't think acquiring access to landlocked public land is a good thing, what if many of the current easements into blocks of public land were eliminated? How would you feel about that? Because it seems like some prefer to let private landowners have exclusive access to public lands. So let's get rid of all the access we now enjoy. There's no need for it, correct?
I think acquiring access is a great thing. But no land owner should be forced to provide it. I am all for the land owner selling the access if they chose to.
in SW Washington right now Weyerhaeuser controls all access on existing roads to an entire DNR forest of 35,000 acres plus 7000 of WDFW wildlife area plus thousands of acres of Forest service land all in one big chunk. These aren't a bit here and a section there inholdings, but tens of thousands of acres of public forests. Weyco can charge or block access to this if they want. They could control exclusive use of all this public land. Is your position that situations like this ok and that the government should do nothing and have no authority to pursue an easement here for the public? No new roads are needed and the existing roads were built by both private and public funds. Tax shifts were set up to reward the multiple public benefits of timberland.
Consequently situations like this were set up when the idea that private landowners would charge to cross their land wasn't even considered--open roads and trails went everywhere, regardless of who owned the land. This pay for entry and/or closing vast open lands is a new idea.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 19, 2015, 09:24:09 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 19, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
Every state in the west has a private lands access program today. Access is constantly cited as a major concern for hunter recruitment and retention.This is not dissimilar to the Block Management program in MT, or the multiple access programs offered here in WA. Its strange that some people are so blinded by conspiracy and distrust that they wouldn't entertain this idea.... did it occur to anyone that some of these landowners might actually appreciate some $ for allowing access. We all assume that they don't allow access now... does the idea seem more palatable if you assume they allow access but are getting tired of cleaning up, closing gates ect, without any compensation???
Post by: grundy53 on March 19, 2015, 09:59:17 AM
Like I've said a dozen times already. I'm all for more access and working with landowners to obtain it. Where I jump off the wagon is when folks start talking about stealing land (eminent domain) or instituting punitive taxes.Every state in the west has a private lands access program today. Access is constantly cited as a major concern for hunter recruitment and retention.This is not dissimilar to the Block Management program in MT, or the multiple access programs offered here in WA. Its strange that some people are so blinded by conspiracy and distrust that they wouldn't entertain this idea.... did it occur to anyone that some of these landowners might actually appreciate some $ for allowing access. We all assume that they don't allow access now... does the idea seem more palatable if you assume they allow access but are getting tired of cleaning up, closing gates ect, without any compensation???
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2015, 10:12:53 AM
http://www.hcn.org/articles/sportsmens-bill-aims-to-open-inaccessible-public-lands?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email (http://www.hcn.org/articles/sportsmens-bill-aims-to-open-inaccessible-public-lands?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email)
A bill every sportsmen should support. :tup:
I don't have time right now to read all pages of this discussion, but I have to say I'm all for this bill. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2015, 11:36:26 AM
I support access to all public lands by the citizens. I would fully support legislation that funds purchases of permanent easements to access landlocked or inaccessible public lands as long as those purchases are a voluntary sale by the landowner. We should not erode landowner rights.
To be fair and equitable, the same legislation should also include language preventing destruction of roads to currently accessible public lands. What good is it to spend millions on easements to x number of acres if at the same time agencies are closing access to a greater number of acres. Sometimes it seems people walk past a dollar to pick up a penny.
There should also be language encouraging agencies to trade or sell landlocked public lands and replace them with "an equal number of acres or equivalent valued" lands that are accessible to the public. This would also help eliminate the problem of landlocked public lands.
Post by: TommyH on March 19, 2015, 11:54:45 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 01:35:07 PM
The first map you showed it looks like there is plenty of access to the public land? I'm assuming the smaller boxes are the private? If so the public land is not at all landlocked. Doesn't look like one rancher controls any public land in that map. And if I got that backwards and the small boxes are public then the public pieces are very small compared to the private surrounding it.
The small pieces are the "public" land. The smallest square parcel is likely 1/4 x 1/4 mile or 40 acres. I see a lot of property that does not have access. Also, just because there is a little squiggly line to it, does not mean that is an accessible road.
^ Nailed it.
Post by: grundy53 on March 19, 2015, 01:45:57 PM
I didn't read the bill so I'm not sure specifically what's in it.Exactly!
I support access to all public lands by the citizens. I would fully support legislation that funds purchases of permanent easements to access landlocked or inaccessible public lands as long as those purchases are a voluntary sale by the landowner. We should not erode landowner rights.
To be fair and equitable, the same legislation should also include language preventing destruction of roads to currently accessible public lands. What good is it to spend millions on easements to x number of acres if at the same time agencies are closing access to a greater number of acres. Sometimes it seems people walk past a dollar to pick up a penny.
There should also be language encouraging agencies to trade or sell landlocked public lands and replace them with "an equal number of acres or equivalent valued" lands that are accessible to the public. This would also help eliminate the problem of landlocked public lands.
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2015, 01:49:37 PM
BILL LANGUAGE
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s405pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s405pcs.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s405pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s405pcs.pdf)
page 42
‘‘§ 200303. Availability of funds for certain projects
24 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
25 Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall ensure
•S 405 PCS
1 that, of the amounts appropriated for the fund for each
2 fiscal year, not less than the greater of 1.5 percent of the
3 amounts or $10,000,000 shall be made available for
4 projects that secure public access to Federal land for hunt-
5 ing, fishing, and other recreational purposes through ease-
6 ments, rights-of-way, or fee title acquisitions from willing
7 sellers.’’.
SUMMARY
The Sportsmen’s Act would:
- Direct the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to identify federal lands where hunting, fishing and other kinds of recreation are permitted but access is nonexistent or significantly restricted, and then to develop plans to provide public access.
- Dedicate $10 million or 1.5 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund annually to pay willing landowners for easements to access public land.
- Reauthorize several conservation programs that have expired or are about to expire. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which expired in 2011, lets the government sell BLM lands and use the revenue to buy higher-priority parcels such as inholdings in national parks and national forests. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act provides funds to buy or enhance wetlands that are critical for migratory birds.
The BLM and Forest Service support the overarching goals of the legislation but have concerns about some provisions. For instance, the agencies testified that a measure designed to open access to film crews for a $200 fee doesn’t give them enough control over possible impacts the crews might have on federal lands. They also expressed concerns that provisions of the measure could consume too much of their already-stretched staffs’ time. For instance, federal land managers would have to report how much environmental groups’ lawyers are reimbursed after successfully suing the federal government. Steven Ellis, BLM’s deputy director, said that would take time away from those managers’ other responsibilities.
Hunting and fishing groups support the legislation. In general, conservation groups do too. But some of them oppose particular provisions, such as the one exempting lead ammunition and tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act. “(That would) allow for something we know is harmful to the health of birds, wildlife and maybe in some cases people,” said Brian Moore, the National Audubon Society’s legislative director.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 01:59:38 PM
Why don't we just get rid of all privately held property? Let the government own everything. Add a sickle and hammer to the stars and stripes....
C'mon man.. These statements are getting tiring. Let the public own public land and let landowners own private land.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 02:06:34 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2015, 02:13:47 PM
Here is the link to the pre-written email message via National Shooting Sports Foundation to your Senators. After you fill in your contact information, you can send the messages. You might want to edit the first line of the message to say you are one of thousands of hunters and anglers in your state versus indicating membership in NSSF; that is, unless you are an NSSF member. For example, Washington has approximately 275,000 hunters and 1.1 million anglers.
"Urge support for S.405, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015"
https://www.nssf.org/GovRel/takeAction.cfm?alertID=80650 (https://www.nssf.org/GovRel/takeAction.cfm?alertID=80650)
Link to the bill:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s405pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s405pcs.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s405pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s405pcs.pdf)
Related-Supporting articles:
"CSF President Jeff Crane Testifies Before Congress on the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015"
http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/csf-president-jeff-crane-testifies-before-congress-on-the-bipartisan-sports (http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/csf-president-jeff-crane-testifies-before-congress-on-the-bipartisan-sports)
"Round 2: CSF President Jeff Crane Returns to Testify on the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act"
http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/round-2-csf-president-jeff-crane-returns-to-testify-on-the-bipartisan-sport (http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/round-2-csf-president-jeff-crane-returns-to-testify-on-the-bipartisan-sport)
"NRA Backs Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015"
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150205/nra-backs-bipartisan-sportsmens-act-of-2015 (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150205/nra-backs-bipartisan-sportsmens-act-of-2015)
Post by: bobcat on March 19, 2015, 02:27:03 PM
The pro-wolf crowd is excited about this? :dunno:
He's implying of course that Idahohntr is pro wolf.
I think Idahohntr has made that pretty clear.
I don't think that's true at all. He simply accepts that they're here and that we need to learn to deal with it. The difference in opinion mainly comes in the form of being anti-WDFW or pro-WDFW. Not pro-wolf or anti-wolf.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 02:28:09 PM
These large chunks are a big concern. It pisses me off our governments ever let it happen. And no I don't think the government should do nothing, I am all for them trying to secure access just like what this bill is trying to do. They are trying to purchase it from willing sellers. I get worked up when I see people saying we should just take it basically take it by force. Funny thing is these are the same people that talk like conservatives when people are trying to take rights away they care about. But are instant turncoats when somebody else's rights are violated and it benefits them. I can think of a lot of things in this country I would like to snap my finger and make law. But in reality would never really be for, or campaign for because it would be selfish of me and would take rights away from others......
If the government pays you fair market value for the amount of land it takes and resultant loss of value to your property, your rights have not been violated. Unless you're someone special, you don't have immunity from eminent domain. Fathom this: The Founding Fathers, who talked all about everyone owning guns to shoot (liberal) politicians, never attempted to take away eminent domain .Only that you should be paid when your possessory interest is reduced or taken for public benefit. Not Bean Counters benefit--the public at large... This relentless obfuscation reveals far more greed than whatever you're attempting to ascribe to Idahohunter or myself.
Post by: Bob33 on March 19, 2015, 02:35:53 PM
And I will be the first to admit I'm not sure what the law is on corners. It would seem like if you jumped from one public piece to the other that would not be trespassing?It's a hot topic, particularly in Montana.
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/its-every-montanans-land/Content?oid=1668136 (http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/its-every-montanans-land/Content?oid=1668136)
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 19, 2015, 02:36:18 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 19, 2015, 02:49:16 PM
Post by: stevemiller on March 19, 2015, 02:52:34 PM
What's up with you guys crying about eminent domain and forced easements. That is not close to what this bill describes? :dunno:basically what we are saying is we dont have to let these landowners bully us any more than we can bully them if they dont want to allow access to us on our property which is in our best interest then we have the right to emenent domain and make them allow us on our property. (Public roperty)
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 03:05:35 PM
The number one problem with this is what is fair market value? Somebody has a nice private 5 acres of land that is worth 200K. They want to pull the eminent domain card and say they are going to take a 1/4 of an acre for a road and pay $10,000. Now the person has 4.5 acres worth $100k-$150k depending on location of the road and their private quiet place is that no longer. I'm not all good with this. Fortunately the government has been sued and lost cases like this and have had to make big payouts. And it has made them think twice trying to strong arm people.
Correct & agreed.
In the case of many properties it could be that most of the value of the land is destroyed. I would think "just" compensation in the case of a small property owner could mean not only paying him or her 100% of the property value, but also a reasonable amount for moving costs, time off work, attorneys fees, finding a new property, etc. This is an issue for realtors and attorneys to settle. HOW eminent domain is used is a reflection of the kinds of administrators we elect to government, but our emotional attachment won't settle whether or not it CAN be used.
Quote
Well again if you read the 5th Amendment there is an acknowledgment of why ED would be used. "private property to be taken for public use." What's hard about that? Calling it a "special interest" is again disingenuous. If I'm looking for a place to go hunt, fish, trap, ride ATV, fly a kite, shoot photos, and anybody can go, its public use. How ELSE could "public use" be defined??
And I believe we both know why eminent domain was put in place in our founding documents. It was to have it as a tool of necessity, not to take land away from people for special interests groups wants.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 04:17:01 PM
I have a nice pond on the back part of my property. I sit out there and listen to the owls and other critter at night sometimes. Also have deer and bear among many other critters on it. Its actually a great spot to ride atv's, fly a kite, shoot photos. I'm sure if I opened it up for pubic use it would get used plenty. Why don't they just take the hole place with ED? It sure would fit your definition of pubic use. Your place probably has things some of the public would like to have access to as well. You good with them taking anything they want from people in the name of public use? Or do you draw the line at taking part of somebody's land so you have access to a new place to hunt?
reductio ad absurdum... ad nauseum :beatdeadhorse:
A materiality threshold could reasonably be applied here. Its not just about places I want to hunt. In the case of federal lands, if this is going on in another state that I never have plans to set foot in, it should still be battled there, too.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 19, 2015, 05:21:03 PM
Post by: fireweed on March 19, 2015, 05:46:26 PM
The idea that we own our land is really a myth if you think about it. Nobody really owns their land anyway....they just RENT it from the county. Don't pay rent, they will take it away.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 06:34:28 PM
Doesn't isn't eminent domain use or the public good go back to the beginning of this country? If it isn't used judiciously, then how do we build roads? Bridges? Widen highways? Not everyone is a willing seller when the county road crew says they are adding a shoulder or sidewalk. It would be impossible to have the country where you can move from point A to Point B without some "government taking my land". The county keeps me from building 20 feet from the property line and so far from the county road, basically "taking" this land.
The idea that we own our land is really a myth if you think about it. Nobody really owns their land anyway....they just RENT it from the county. Don't pay rent, they will take it away.
no. It predates our country. By miliennia. Acting like the Framers are rolling in their grave is obtuse. They said: Congress cannot form a state church, cannot take your guns away, they cannot force troops into your homes in peacetime, you have the right to an attorney, and WHEN land is seized for public good, you must be paid for it. I guess this is really hard for some people.
As to your 20 foot line, courts have even held that such restrictions can merit the payment of compensation for 'fpublic use.'
Post by: Jarhead Chase on March 19, 2015, 06:51:52 PM
Two points:
1) After reading through the post it seems like the most widely accepted solution to private control of public lands is to close those public lands to all use unless an easement can be established or an agreement for access can be negotiated.
2) I never in a million years thought that I would see anyone, under any circumstances, ever, call Bean Counter a liberal. :yike:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 19, 2015, 07:19:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 19, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
The pro-wolf crowd is excited about this? :dunno:
He's implying of course that Idahohntr is pro wolf.
I think Idahohntr has made that pretty clear.
I don't think that's true at all. He simply accepts that they're here and that we need to learn to deal with it. The difference in opinion mainly comes in the form of being anti-WDFW or pro-WDFW. Not pro-wolf or anti-wolf.
I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. :chuckle:
I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. :chuckle:
I'm as much "pro-wolf" as BC is liberal.
Anyways, 10 pages later it sounds like we are all in complete agreement with my original post...this is a bill all sportsmen should support. :chuckle:
Post by: Jarhead Chase on March 19, 2015, 09:37:39 PM
The pro-wolf crowd is excited about this? :dunno:
He's implying of course that Idahohntr is pro wolf.
I think Idahohntr has made that pretty clear.
I don't think that's true at all. He simply accepts that they're here and that we need to learn to deal with it. The difference in opinion mainly comes in the form of being anti-WDFW or pro-WDFW. Not pro-wolf or anti-wolf.I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. :chuckle:I appreciate its use as a pejorative. I really do. :chuckle:
I'm as much "pro-wolf" as BC is liberal.
Anyways, 10 pages later it sounds like we are all in complete agreement with my original post...this is a bill all sportsmen should support. :chuckle:
Agreed.
Post by: stevemiller on March 19, 2015, 11:21:04 PM
you just dont want to accept the fact that if it comes down to it you dont have a choice as has allready been explained.Its been that way since the founding of this country here in the U.S and a 100 years or more before that elsewhere.Its in the Constitution for a reason,a good reason.Just like the ones we are discussing right here.What's up with you guys crying about eminent domain and forced easements. That is not close to what this bill describes? :dunno:basically what we are saying is we dont have to let these landowners bully us any more than we can bully them if they dont want to allow access to us on our property which is in our best interest then we have the right to emenent domain and make them allow us on our property. (Public roperty)
I am a landowner and don't want to bully anybody. I just ask you to stay off may land unless you have permission to be there. If you or the public owns land good for you I sure don't want to keep you off your property. But if you bought it without access, or sold part of your property that provided access to you that wasn't very smart. And no you can't have some of mine to correct your mistake. Unless you come to me with an offer I'm good with.
Post by: stevemiller on March 19, 2015, 11:37:57 PM
here i will explain it to you,Fare market value would be,should be what you are claiming its worth when paying property taxes,No more no less.If you want to argue its worth more fine be my guest but you should pay taxes on that much more.If you truly believe your land is worth more you should understand why you should pay more in taxes.These large chunks are a big concern. It pisses me off our governments ever let it happen. And no I don't think the government should do nothing, I am all for them trying to secure access just like what this bill is trying to do. They are trying to purchase it from willing sellers. I get worked up when I see people saying we should just take it basically take it by force. Funny thing is these are the same people that talk like conservatives when people are trying to take rights away they care about. But are instant turncoats when somebody else's rights are violated and it benefits them. I can think of a lot of things in this country I would like to snap my finger and make law. But in reality would never really be for, or campaign for because it would be selfish of me and would take rights away from others......
If the government pays you fair market value for the amount of land it takes and resultant loss of value to your property, your rights have not been violated. Unless you're someone special, you don't have immunity from eminent domain. Fathom this: The Founding Fathers, who talked all about everyone owning guns to shoot (liberal) politicians, never attempted to take away eminent domain .Only that you should be paid when your possessory interest is reduced or taken for public benefit. Not Bean Counters benefit--the public at large... This relentless obfuscation reveals far more greed than whatever you're attempting to ascribe to Idahohunter or myself.
The number one problem with this is what is fair market value? Somebody has a nice private 5 acres of land that is worth 200K. They want to pull the eminent domain card and say they are going to take a 1/4 of an acre for a road and pay $10,000. Now the person has 4.5 acres worth $100k-$150k depending on location of the road and their private quiet place is that no longer. I'm not all good with this. Fortunately the government has been sued and lost cases like this and have had to make big payouts. And it has made them think twice trying to strong arm people.
And I believe we both know why eminent domain was put in place in our founding documents. It was to have it as a tool of necessity, not to take land away from people for special interests groups wants.
Post by: stevemiller on March 19, 2015, 11:41:25 PM
I get worked up also.What you read was that if they dont want to or if they want to strong arm and try to make a fortune because of this then we the public can pull the eminent domain card.no need to pull it if everything goes fairly but with some of the landowner comments like if they want to its ok if they dont then push a rope,thats where the E/D card should be played.Not just because.What's up with you guys crying about eminent domain and forced easements. That is not close to what this bill describes? :dunno:
No its not and I'm all for this bill. I just got worked up with the comments earlier that said we should have access though any private land to get to public lands against the landowners will. One guy even said private owners should be forced to let people through without any compensation.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 20, 2015, 12:07:14 AM
To me, access is the #1 issue facing hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Without access, hunting will be reduced to a few well off people with the right connections. The common man will have to save for many years to be able to afford to "hunt" some game ranch.
Post by: stevemiller on March 20, 2015, 01:00:10 AM
Barring any unforeseen shenanigans hiding in this Bill, I support this concept. ie negotiating and buying access to public property. It should really be a priority to hunters and outdoorsmen in general , because now that large land owners are locking up their land and limiting the number of people who can hunt/recreate on their land, access to public land is all the more critical.I couldnt agree more. :yeah:
To me, access is the #1 issue facing hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Without access, hunting will be reduced to a few well off people with the right connections. The common man will have to save for many years to be able to afford to "hunt" some game ranch.
Post by: KFhunter on March 20, 2015, 05:33:56 PM
I also think it's unfair a rancher can profit off public lands by merely situational presence (surrounding it blocking access) so I'd be all for a bill that prevents making a profit in this way. Outfitter territories is one thing, surrounding public lands is like a business monopoly and needs to cease. Aggressively pursue and shut down these unfair business practices and encourage public easements and mutually acceptable arrangements.
Never trample an already eroding right. No matter how hard or frustrating I hold that position even when the rubber meets the road. Same with 2a rights and every other right we as a citizen enjoy and fight for...I fight it all the way tooth and nail, not just when it's convenient to do so.
Post by: Jingles on March 20, 2015, 05:51:55 PM
To me, access is the #1 issue facing hunters and others who enjoy the outdoors. Without access, hunting will be reduced to a few well off people with the right connections. The common man will have to save for many years to be able to afford to "hunt" some game ranch.If a person looks at it honestly the prices of tags are almost making it rich mans sport already then throw in the special permits that require repeated purchase of chances before getting drawn No wonder some folks are saying f it and just poach
Post by: Bean Counter on March 20, 2015, 06:44:15 PM
I don't support cooperate personhood,
Be careful what you wish for. We have a $17 trillion economy which is a huge reflection of the rights of businesses. Even those of us born into the lower class have easy access to stock market wealth.
Quote
hang the timber companies out to dry and let Bean Counter punitive tax the heck out of them for blocking access to public lands. That's something that affects WA hunters a great deal.
Can't argue with this. It should be an easy law to restructure. "any corporate landowner that holds an area of XXXX+ and charges more than $XX for hunter access annually shall lose _____ tax deduction and be subject to ___________ additional tax."