Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 02:01:15 PM
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_fights_for_public_access_in_montana_s_crazy_mountains
Post by: Mtnwalker on February 14, 2019, 02:03:28 PM
Post by: Mudman on February 14, 2019, 02:05:36 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on February 14, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
Post by: cbond3318 on February 14, 2019, 02:31:04 PM
Post by: X-Force on February 14, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on February 14, 2019, 05:20:26 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 14, 2019, 05:26:11 PM
The problem is these landowners have had old trails on their property and it was a live and let live situation, then someone sued and a land owner all the sudden had an easement through their property because the USFS was able to show that it was used continually and no permission was needed, so they got an easment.
Now everyone owning property with a possible trail through it has gone out of their way to deny access so USFS couldn't show continued access without permission. I said this would happen years ago when it initially brought to light here on HW, I said all the landowners would clamp down on access...and now here we are.
BHA is misleading you all, I'm all for access, but using the courts to do it has obviously been the wrong approach and will continue to be the wrong approach.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 05:49:37 PM
The title is misleading, the landowners in MT in question aren't "blocking legal access", that has to be settled in court on a case by case basis.Yea - you are all for public access...unless it might actually lead to public access :chuckle:
The problem is these landowners have had old trails on their property and it was a live and let live situation, then someone sued and a land owner all the sudden had an easement through their property because the USFS was able to show that it was used continually and no permission was needed, so they got an easment.
Now everyone owning property with a possible trail through it has gone out of their way to deny access so USFS couldn't show continued access without permission. I said this would happen years ago when it initially brought to light here on HW, I said all the landowners would clamp down on access...and now here we are.
BHA is misleading you all, I'm all for access, but using the courts to do it has obviously been the wrong approach and will continue to be the wrong approach.
Sad to see your hatred for BHA blind you to what is a good thing for sportsmen. The reality is, if BHA or others don't fight this these landowners will lock up everything they can...this is not 1950s rural America anymore. We need federal agencies and others to know they face threats from public lands advocates...not just private landowners.
I'm all for using the courts here - because I think it absolutely will have landowners looking for ways to better collaborate on access knowing that taking their chances in court could result in something very undesirable to them.
Post by: KFhunter on February 14, 2019, 05:51:46 PM
Post by: Stein on February 14, 2019, 05:52:41 PM
They know they can’t chase all of these things through the courts.
The choice is sue or lose it forever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 14, 2019, 05:55:09 PM
Yea - you are all for public access...unless it might actually lead to public access:chuckle:Sad to see your hatred for BHA blind you to what is a good thing for sportsmen. The reality is, if BHA or others don't fight this these landowners will lock up everything they can...this is not 1950s rural America anymore. We need federal agencies and others to know they face threats from public lands advocates...not just private landowners.
I'm all for using the courts here - because I think it absolutely will have landowners looking for ways to better collaborate on access knowing that taking their chances in court could result in something very undesirable to them.
Once I filter through all the garbage and attacks, there isn't much to respond too. You want to use the courts to gain easements but more often than not the strong private property rights wins out in the end, you'll loose far more than you gain. If you knew any thing about Montana you'd know there is a long history of not posting land and allowing hunters access when asked properly, but now with more big money coming in and groups like BHA threatening legal action more and more land is being posted.
It's this thinking that is ruining Montana for everyone.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 06:19:54 PM
Don't try and conflate private land access with public land access. BHA is not suing over access to private lands - they are suing the FOREST SERVICE - A FEDERAL AGENCY - if they try to relinquish public access in negotiations with landowners who have acted illegally.Yea - you are all for public access...unless it might actually lead to public access:chuckle:Sad to see your hatred for BHA blind you to what is a good thing for sportsmen. The reality is, if BHA or others don't fight this these landowners will lock up everything they can...this is not 1950s rural America anymore. We need federal agencies and others to know they face threats from public lands advocates...not just private landowners.
I'm all for using the courts here - because I think it absolutely will have landowners looking for ways to better collaborate on access knowing that taking their chances in court could result in something very undesirable to them.
Once I filter through all the garbage and attacks, there isn't much to respond too. You want to use the courts to gain easements but more often than not the strong private property rights wins out in the end, you'll loose far more than you gain. If you knew any thing about Montana you'd know there is a long history of not posting land and allowing hunters access when asked properly, but now with more big money coming in and groups like BHA threatening legal action more and more land is being posted.
It's this thinking that is ruining Montana for everyone.
Most everyone, especially hunters, are strong supporters of respecting private property and property rights. Its our collective passion for property rights that has many of us supporting BHA on this effort - public lands need property rights advocates too...now more than ever.
Post by: banishd on February 14, 2019, 06:31:19 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 14, 2019, 06:32:37 PM
It's not illegal to prevent access to private property unless there's an easement and the conditions of that easement are met whatever it might be.
BHA is saying the actions of the landowners are illegal even though there's no easement in place currently, there can't be an easement until it's settled in court or one is purchased.
thus no illegal activity has occured, BHA is misleading it's members (again)
BHA actually wants USFS to stop working with landowners for access and put their boots on their necks instead, but USFS knows it won't win in court in most circumstances.
Post by: hunter399 on February 14, 2019, 06:57:09 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 07:41:22 PM
Again, very misleading!Many of these specific trail issues are prescriptive easements - having been used for decades by the public. Its clear based on your statements above you don't understand what a prescriptive easement is...I suggest you read up before commenting any further.
It's not illegal to prevent access to private property unless there's an easement and the conditions of that easement are met whatever it might be.
BHA is saying the actions of the landowners are illegal even though there's no easement in place currently, there can't be an easement until it's settled in court or one is purchased.
thus no illegal activity has occured, BHA is misleading it's members (again)
BHA actually wants USFS to stop working with landowners for access and put their boots on their necks instead, but USFS knows it won't win in court in most circumstances.
Its also pretty clear to me you have not hunted in Montana for big game anywhere that private land exists in big chunks...you think a little nock on the door used to get you access thru private ground to hunt public land back before BHA? That's very naive...probably worked in 1950...not for the last several decades. The only major success related to hunting access in MT has been the Block Management program run by the State...if the lands are not involved in that program (for which there can be incentives and payments) you are almost certainly not getting access...and that isn't some new trend - its been that way for a long, long time. There are of course exceptions, and hunting less desirable antlerless animals or small game increases your odds a tiny bit.
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 08:05:17 PM
I don't agree with you, making it an "us vs them" (hunters vs landowners) is not ever going to be a good idea.
This is right and I hunt on a family run ranch in the area. This has been going on for a while and is not a clear cut prescriptive easement. If you talk to my cousin he will tell you that all the local ranchers are pissed. It is creating and us vs them mentality and accelerating the end of the good old days and getting permission by just knocking on doors. Wrong approach to start suing ranchers. If a billionaire buys property with the main purpose to lock up public ground then yes sue them or do what you legally can. Someone bought 100 yards on the side of the road in Idaho and locked me and others out of my best deer hunting spot and 1000s of acres so I understand that side of it too. This is just going to make ranchers to think of hunters as enemies instead of allies
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
Its not an us vs. them issue. This issue is about holding a public agency accountable. They are not threatening to sue landowners, rather it is the Forest Service they may go after. Furthermore, if there are not prescriptive easements then the landowner has absolutely nothing to worry about, this issue does not concern them as nobody is suggesting any infringement on private lands.I don't agree with you, making it an "us vs them" (hunters vs landowners) is not ever going to be a good idea.
This is right and I hunt on a family run ranch in the area. This has been going on for a while and is not a clear cut prescriptive easement. If you talk to my cousin he will tell you that all the local ranchers are pissed. It is creating and us vs them mentality and accelerating the end of the good old days and getting permission by just knocking on doors. Wrong approach to start suing ranchers. If a billionaire buys property with the main purpose to lock up public ground then yes sue them or do what you legally can. Someone bought 100 yards on the side of the road in Idaho and locked me and others out of my best deer hunting spot and 1000s of acres so I understand that side of it too. This is just going to make ranchers to think of hunters as enemies instead of allies
I don't agree with your sentiment that the finances of the landowner should dictate how/if the public seeks to protect public access to public lands. This country should not continually look down on successful people...a billionaire landowner or a poor land owner...treat them all the same. If there is a prescriptive easement to public lands, then it should be preserved for the public. If there is not, stay the hell off their property...billionaire or poor guy.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 08:53:30 PM
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 08:59:04 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 09:05:47 PM
A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 09:13:08 PM
I agree with you on not suing the “rich” guy and giving a poor landowner a pass. That’s not what I meant and a lot of ranchers are wealthy anyways. Most ranchers are stewards of the land and it’s their livelihood. I was referring situations where someone usually with a lot of money buys property with the main goal of shutting down public access to large pieces of public land. I love to see people succeed and I never got a job from a poor guy either :chuckle: I have hunted this area for a long time but not on any of the private ground in question. One of the trails is not too far from where I hunt and that trail having a prescriptive easement is very questionable and the result of a few guys being belligerent and trying to bring a trail back that had not been used forever. Bha is hurting hunters in this area regardless of who they sue ultimately they are fighting with the ranchers and taking away their property rights. This area and others you can still get permission to hunt with a door knock or just knowing a few people this kind of action will put a premature end to that. It’s the wrong approach in this situation and area but probably a good idea in others. I like everyone want more public accessUnderstood :brew:
If I thought this was just a couple zealots causing trouble I wouldn't support it either. But the negotiating has been going on long enough - and the temporary removal of the FS employee - all lead me to believe there are legitimate access points here that the public needs to defend...and if our agencies want to take the easy way out - they need to be taken to task.
Post by: Oh Mah on February 14, 2019, 09:22:12 PM
A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.:yeah: I made these exact statements before.We that understand the problem need to get behind them in the fight for access to our land.Remember the thread on corner crossings.There are a few of these types of threads in this forum. :tup:
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 09:34:53 PM
A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access. In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 09:47:06 PM
I agree with you on not suing the “rich” guy and giving a poor landowner a pass. That’s not what I meant and a lot of ranchers are wealthy anyways. Most ranchers are stewards of the land and it’s their livelihood. I was referring situations where someone usually with a lot of money buys property with the main goal of shutting down public access to large pieces of public land. I love to see people succeed and I never got a job from a poor guy either :chuckle: I have hunted this area for a long time but not on any of the private ground in question. One of the trails is not too far from where I hunt and that trail having a prescriptive easement is very questionable and the result of a few guys being belligerent and trying to bring a trail back that had not been used forever. Bha is hurting hunters in this area regardless of who they sue ultimately they are fighting with the ranchers and taking away their property rights. This area and others you can still get permission to hunt with a door knock or just knowing a few people this kind of action will put a premature end to that. It’s the wrong approach in this situation and area but probably a good idea in others. I like everyone want more public accessUnderstood :brew:
If I thought this was just a couple zealots causing trouble I wouldn't support it either. But the negotiating has been going on long enough - and the temporary removal of the FS employee - all lead me to believe there are legitimate access points here that the public needs to defend...and if our agencies want to take the easy way out - they need to be taken to task.
:tup: I only have local knowledge of 1 trail in question. I read the article in a little more detail and there is obviously more traitthan what I am familiar with. There are roads that you can drive into the crazies so there is some reasonable access already. I am still not sure this is best approach as it could give hunters a black eye with local landowners. I am all for keeping forest service accountable! Maybe they should add clearing public marked horse trails too. We used to have to clear our favorite trails every year ha ha
Post by: idahohuntr on February 14, 2019, 10:02:39 PM
I think the best argument one can make on these landlocked public lands is what I posted above regarding public property rights needing advocates too. In most States (perhaps all?) - it is illegal to landlock private land. I can't surround private land and not provide that surrounded landowner legal access to their property...those same rights should be afforded to public property.A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access. In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?
I find it extremely hypocritical for people to advocate for private property rights...but then balk and scoff if you suggest those same property rights be applied to public lands. The landlocking issue is a big one - I'm nearly 100% certain there is not one piece of private land in this country that is inaccessible to the landowner due to being surrounded by a different private landowner...this should not be tolerated for public land either.
Post by: idaho guy on February 14, 2019, 10:14:30 PM
A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
If you lived on 100 acres would you want a stream of strangers wandering through your place at all hours to “access “ public grounds. Probably leaving garbage and relieving themselves along the access to said public ground. I was locked out of my favorite deer hunting spot by 100 yards of private that no one lives on.I hate that.but it all comes back to private property right for ourselves but then it extends to everyone else too. I think tribal rights are good generally but a lot of that crap has gone way overboard
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access. In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 14, 2019, 10:15:53 PM
:yeah:I think the best argument one can make on these landlocked public lands is what I posted above regarding public property rights needing advocates too. In most States (perhaps all?) - it is illegal to landlock private land. I can't surround private land and not provide that surrounded landowner legal access to their property...those same rights should be afforded to public property.A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access. In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?
I find it extremely hypocritical for people to advocate for private property rights...but then balk and scoff if you suggest those same property rights be applied to public lands. The landlocking issue is a big one - I'm nearly 100% certain there is not one piece of private land in this country that is inaccessible to the landowner due to being surrounded by a different private landowner...this should not be tolerated for public land either.
Post by: bbarnes on February 15, 2019, 12:34:48 AM
Post by: bbarnes on February 15, 2019, 12:34:56 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 15, 2019, 05:20:23 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on February 15, 2019, 06:26:51 AM
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 11:58:29 AM
Again, very misleading!Many of these specific trail issues are prescriptive easements - having been used for decades by the public. Its clear based on your statements above you don't understand what a prescriptive easement is...I suggest you read up before commenting any further.
It's not illegal to prevent access to private property unless there's an easement and the conditions of that easement are met whatever it might be.
BHA is saying the actions of the landowners are illegal even though there's no easement in place currently, there can't be an easement until it's settled in court or one is purchased.
thus no illegal activity has occured, BHA is misleading it's members (again)
BHA actually wants USFS to stop working with landowners for access and put their boots on their necks instead, but USFS knows it won't win in court in most circumstances.
Its also pretty clear to me you have not hunted in Montana for big game anywhere that private land exists in big chunks...you think a little nock on the door used to get you access thru private ground to hunt public land back before BHA? That's very naive...probably worked in 1950...not for the last several decades. The only major success related to hunting access in MT has been the Block Management program run by the State...if the lands are not involved in that program (for which there can be incentives and payments) you are almost certainly not getting access...and that isn't some new trend - its been that way for a long, long time. There are of course exceptions, and hunting less desirable antlerless animals or small game increases your odds a tiny bit.
Again, you mislead everyone who doesn't know better. A prescriptive easement is assumed, there is nothing on the property deed saying there is an easement.
BHA is lying in saying that the land owners are doing something illegal by blocking these "assumed" or prescriptive easements, there's nothing illegal about blocking a prescriptive easement UNTIL IT IS SETTLED IN COURT and turned into a proper easement. BHA is trying to force USFS to sue landowners over these assumed easements that isn't anywhere on the property deed, USFS has been working with landowners trying to come to a mutual agreement but BHA wants to pull the rug out and force USFS to put their boots on property owners' necks like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
Quit lying to fellow hunters trying to garner support for BHA through this misleading wordsmithing. It's a lie and sham.
Post by: huntnfmly on February 15, 2019, 12:31:30 PM
A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts.A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.X2
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 12:36:50 PM
I applaud the USFS for working with private property owners in trying to procure or upgrade easements for public use, I condemn any efforts by BHA to undercut these efforts.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 12:44:44 PM
https://montanapioneer.com/usfs-claims-easement-land-owners/
USFS Claims Easement Through Landowner’s Front Yard
Quote
The Arrogance of the US Forest Service
BY TERRY L. ANDERSON
02/06/17
After years of hearing from my friend Frank-Paul about the beauties of Indian Creek in the Madison Range, south of Ennis, Mont., my wife and I saddled our horses at the designated U.S. Forest Service trailhead more than a mile from the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area boundary. For the first mile or so, signs along the trail said, Private Property. Please Stay on the Trail. Then we came to an open gate with a similar sign, but with the added invitation saying, Access is provided by gratuitous permission of the landowner.
Because Indian Creek has carved a narrow canyon, the trail passes through the middle of an 80-acre parcel known as Wonder Ranch, but we knew the owner’s policy had always been to grant everyone friendly permission, even though the trail ran about 15 yards from the owner’s front porch.
Knowing Frank-Paul for decades, I couldn’t resist yelling out, “Is Frank-Paul home? I could use a glass of water,” as a joke. Soon, his 80 year-old mother-in-law, Mrs. Hudson, stepped through the door to politely tell me Frank-Paul had gone hiking with his family. I was embarrassed to have bothered Mrs. Hudson, but she remained as friendly as she had been since purchasing the property in 1968.
Mrs. Hudson is gone today, but the family’s legacy of allowing access to the bordering public land lives on. As a letter from Madison District Ranger Blaine Tennis to Wonder Ranch, dated Nov. 22, 1960, put it: “[You] have been very cooperative in allowing us to cross your land to get to the National Forest.” More letters, over the course of 40 years, four district rangers and even the forest supervisor reaffirmed ranger Tennis’ statement that access across Wonder Ranch was by gratuitous permission of the landowner. Even as late as 2004, Madison District ranger Mark Petroni wrote, “No easement exists across the Wonder Ranch.”
Unfortunately, relations between the Hudson family and the USFS became more contentious as the agency began demanding an access easement. Even then the family sought a win-win solution, offering to grant such an easement in return for rerouting the trail away from their house. They even volunteered to pay for the rerouting and bridge construction. According to District Ranger Petroni (Feb. 10, 2006), “They [the Hudsons] have offered to partner with us to acquire an easement across their property, assist with acquisition of an easement across their neighbor the CB Ranch and help fund NEPA [environmental review] and construction of a new trail location that avoids their lawn. This potential partnership is too good to pass up.”
But the USFS did pass it up, instead filing a statement of interest in the Hudson property in 2011, claiming that “The United States of America states that it has and claims an easement for the Indian Creek trail 328 over and across [Wonder Ranch].” It claimed that continuous, adverse use of the trail created a prescriptive easement for public use of the trail without permission of the landowner (adverse meaning: occupation of land to which another person has title with the intention of possessing it as one’s own).
The government’s claim that it, and hence the public, had a right to use the property without purchasing or negotiating with the family for an easement, meant that Wonder Ranch had to file a lawsuit against the government to quiet title to the property—meaning eliminate the government’s claim to a prescriptive easement.
Substantiating a prescriptive easement requires evidence of open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted use without that use being granted by permission of the landowner. But Wonder Ranch had continuously granted gratuitous permission, as stated on their sign (see top left) and acknowledged by the USFS for more than 50 years. Moreover, in the court proceedings the government could not provide a single witness testifying to continuous and uninterrupted use as claimed by the USFS. It could only document 30 users per year, as evidenced by the National Forest Trail Registers at the Indian Creek trailhead from 1969 and 1970. Nonetheless, on October 24, 2016, U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon issued his opinion in favor of the government’s claim to a prescriptive easement.
The case has significant implications for three reasons. First, of course, the decision is important to the landowners because they had to spend thousands of dollars trying to defend their property rights, and they still lost. Second, far beyond the boundaries of Wonder Ranch, the decision has implications for how the government obtains access across private property to federal lands. Third, such rulings discourage landowners from allowing public access in the first place and ultimately undermine the neighborly relations between public land users and landowners that have been the tradition in the West. The message to all landowners became clear: If you allow even a few people to cross your property, you may find yourself in court spending thousands of dollars on lawyer fees and ultimately losing your property rights.
To see how far Forest Service officials are willing to push for access across private property, consider the advice District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz (Yellowstone Ranger District) posted on July 7, 2016, on the Facebook page of the Public Land/Water Access Association, a group notorious for advocating public access as an entitlement. Sienkiewicz’s advice: “NEVER ask permission to access the National Forest Service through a traditional route shown on our maps EVEN if that route crosses private land. NEVER ASK PERMISSION; NEVER SIGN IN (concerns—come see me). … Whatever past DRs [district rangers] or colleagues have said, I am making it clear, DO NOT ASK permission and DO NOT ADVISE publics to ask permission….By asking permission, one undermines public access rights and plays into their lawyers’ trap of establishing a history of permissive access.”
There are many places across Montana and the west where access to public land requires crossing private land. With the Wonder Ranch ruling and the advice from the Yellowstone District Ranger, each represents another potential lawsuit. Consider a popular traditional route south of Bozeman shown on USFS maps (names omitted to protect neighborliness). This trail can be accessed from two points, one a designated trailhead with a well-established easement and one that requires crossing private land without an easement where the sign at the gate says, access is for subdivision residents only. Since the subdivision was created in the early 1970s, residents and a handful of other people have enjoyed permissive access, understanding that the landowner is welcoming them with permission. Seldom does the landowner acknowledge that people are crossing the private property or explicitly grant permission.
Now suppose the USFS claims a prescriptive easement as in the Wonder Ranch case. Does access since the 1970s create a prescriptive easement? With the Indian Creek case as precedent and the admonition of the district ranger, it would appear the answer is yes. Come one, come all. To landowners who want to maintain some control of their property, the message is lock the gate rather than be neighborly.
There is an alternative approach to access, which the USFS used in the Bridger Mountains where a landowner locked a gate across a road leading to public land. In the Bridgers, rather than fight an expensive court battle claiming a prescriptive easement, the USFS simply rerouted the road around the private property. Yes, building the new road will cost taxpayer dollars, but legal battles are costly too.
In a Nov. 29, 2016, editorial the Bozeman Chronicle called the common-sense approach of the Bridger Mountains example a “slippery slope” because, if the Forest Service “caves” and opts to negotiate instead of litigate, it might set precedent in future disputes where private landowners claim “agencies have other options than crossing their land.”
Another example in the Mill Creek drainage south of Livingston also shows that the USFS can use common sense. The Mill Creek landowner is willing to exchange more than 400 acres of private land for a “sliver” of public land on which a previous owner had mistakenly built a barn decades ago. Quoted in the Chronicle, Ed Bazinet, the landowner, called the barn “part of the character of the ranch.” The deal is not complete, however, because the USFS insists he pay $9,000 for the sliver in addition to donating hundreds of acres to the public. To that Mr. Bazinet appropriately says, “It doesn’t make sense to me.” Interestingly, District Ranger Sienkiewicz, who advocates “DO NOT ASK permission,” is working to get non-profit groups, such as Trout Unlimited, to put up some of the funds to complete the win-win exchange.
The lesson to be learned from these examples is that litigation penalizes both private landowners and the public when it crowds out cooperation as the solution for public access disputes. Just as the Hudsons welcomed people with signs granting permission, other landowners have kept their gates opened in return for respect of private property rights from public users. For years, a ranch bordering public land in the Crazy Mountains asked people to sign in, record their destination, and suggest a departure date before granting permission. Now that ranch is targeted as one for which Ranger Sienkiewicz says the public should not ask permission for access.
In yet another example, a landowner south of Livingston worked with the Southwest Montana Climbers Coalition to designate a route through their land (which is directly between a public road and a popular rock climbing area on BLM property known as Allenspur). The route is operated through good faith between the climbing community and the landowner, but the question is what will happen to this good faith if landowners feel they will end up in court defending their property rights against a prescriptive easement? And what will happen if access groups no longer are required to negotiate good-faith agreements with landowners and instead simply claim a public right to access?
If access becomes “the biggest resource issue of the 21st century,” as the Bozeman Chronicle recently claimed, it will be because the public, through its land management agencies, demands access without cooperation and negotiation. For many years the Montana Depart-ment of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks admonished people to “always ask permission to hunt and fish on private land.” The fact that this admonition is no longer prominently displayed on FWP publications also suggests a shift in how we think about access. By shifting from asking permission to claiming entitlement, we tear at the social fabric of cooperation among landowners, federal and state agencies, and public land users that has been the tradition in Montana.
That day when I rode through Wonder Ranch, I remember feeling badly for disturbing Mrs. Hudson. I didn’t feel entitled to ride through her front yard any more than I would think someone is entitled to picnic on my deck. I felt that I was lucky the Hudson’s were preserving their little piece of Montana’s nature that we all cherish. We should all thank such neighbors.
Terry L. Anderson is a senior fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, a free-market environmental research institute in Bozeman, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His articles have appeared in national publications, including Newsweek, Forbes, and The New York Times.
Editor’s Note: At the editor’s invitation, a US Forest Service spokesperson offered the following comment: “It is a good thing that the issue of public lands access is receiving public attention. Access is a critical part of providing everyone the ability to enjoy their public lands. The agency believes strongly that working together toward common solutions is the best approach. However, there will also be disagreements about rights of access. The Forest Service respects private property rights and are obligated to defend public rights of access. More and more, people are faced with barriers, locked gates and no trespassing signs on routes that have been historically used to access public lands. Some of these historic routes have perfected/recorded easements while others remain unperfected and occasionally become a matter of dispute. For historic routes where access is in dispute and the Forest Service requests permission or signs in, public access rights on that road or trail can be undermined. The agency has to be thoughtful about actions that may hinder the public’s rights in the eyes of the court should these access issues result in litigation.” —Marna Daley, Public Affairs Officer, Custer Gallatin National Forest Service
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 12:50:22 PM
http://montanauntamed.com/get-outside/article_265293b9-7173-5c52-8e39-948e8cdf1500.html
Post by: Stein on February 15, 2019, 12:54:03 PM
I wish it were a world where we can sit down with a landowner, have a cup of coffee and a handshake, but that is not the reality of today. Sure, there are some that are like that, but using my example above, much of the action is a direct, unmistakable attempt at securing public land for their exclusive use. That is the rule across the west, not the exception.
There are several effective ways to combat this - and by that I don't mean taking private property rights, I mean maintaining public property access rights. RMEF and others buy land and sell it at a discount or give it to the state to maintain or gain access points.
Second, use the court system to enforce land and access laws. There are laws on the books in every state that govern easements and historical use. If the landowner is found to be breaking these laws, that is a great use of the rule of law, not taking rights away from the landowner. They never had those rights.
The forest service is historically underfunded and undermanned. They can't sell timber for political reasons and thus cannot even maintain the access and roads they have now, much less increase them. To expect them to make major headway or pretend they are is simply not reality.
Will some landowners prevail in court? Quite possibly, it won't be perfect. It isn't the perfect solution, but there aren't many available when there is a group of wealthy individuals who are absolutely trying to keep the public of public land. Their position is they buy their way in, gate it and our only options are to stay off public land or sue them for maintaining our rights as public landowners.
Post by: Special T on February 15, 2019, 12:54:50 PM
BHA is a member or this partnership group, and I've been watching TRCP talk about access issues relating to this for some time. I'm not knowledgable enough to say if BHA is the driving force in this organization on this kind of lawsuit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 01:00:53 PM
It's pretty clear to see the trend here, landowners are picking up access points to public land and closing that to use the public land for their exclusive use. They do this by buying up small pieces of timber company land at access points, encircling public land with a single landowner and closing historical access points as well as a few nefarious activities like illegally posting public property as no-tresspassing and erecting giant fences to control animal migration away from pubic land.
I wish it were a world where we can sit down with a landowner, have a cup of coffee and a handshake, but that is not the reality of today. Sure, there are some that are like that, but using my example above, much of the action is a direct, unmistakable attempt at securing public land for their exclusive use. That is the rule across the west, not the exception.
There are several effective ways to combat this - and by that I don't mean taking private property rights, I mean maintaining public property access rights. RMEF and others buy land and sell it at a discount or give it to the state to maintain or gain access points.
Second, use the court system to enforce land and access laws. There are laws on the books in every state that govern easements and historical use. If the landowner is found to be breaking these laws, that is a great use of the rule of law, not taking rights away from the landowner. They never had those rights.
The forest service is historically underfunded and undermanned. They can't sell timber for political reasons and thus cannot even maintain the access and roads they have now, much less increase them. To expect them to make major headway or pretend they are is simply not reality.
Will some landowners prevail in court? Quite possibly, it won't be perfect. It isn't the perfect solution, but there aren't many available when there is a group of wealthy individuals who are absolutely trying to keep the public of public land. Their position is they buy their way in, gate it and our only options are to stay off public land or sue them for maintaining our rights as public landowners.
You didn't read my post did you.
https://montanapioneer.com/usfs-claims-easement-land-owners/
these landowners allowed access for years, 80+ then the new land owners also allowed access.
USFS gets a new director and came in and wanted an easement, the landowners tried to negotiate a better trail away from their house (the existing trail was 15 feet away from their house, they wanted it rerouted) the USFS instead just abused their authority and slammed down a prescriptive easement forcing the land owners into very expensive court battle with the federal government.
Why couldn't the FS just re-route the trail and get a friendly easement???
So now guess what, every landowner with a similar trail is like OMG I gotta block access or USFS will abuse me too!!!
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 01:21:06 PM
I think its more important than ever for hunters to be vigilant over people trying to sell/transfer public lands or those who are not adequately defending public access and public property rights. What Stein described is a very real thing, happening all over the West, and so as there come opportunities to buy land, easements, or a need to sue to ensure public access is not lost its important that public land hunters are there to support these efforts.
I think education of the potential loss of access and just how much public land is inaccessible will open the eyes of many. Folks who constantly rail against public lands, public access, or even the acquisition of public lands from willing sellers (e.g., wolfbait and kfhunter) will never be convinced that public land hunters need access and lands to hunt if we are to maintain the hunting heritage...don't waste time trying to convince folks like that of anything - but let your elected officials know you support public lands and inform your friends and family who hunt about the need for public lands and the constant threat that public lands and access face.
Post by: Stein on February 15, 2019, 01:22:16 PM
1. The trail has been on record since 1888 - the owners bought the property knowing there was a marked and frequently used USFS trail through that property. The property came with a trail, they did not "grant permission" to anyone, it was there when they bought it.
2. In August of 2009, the Wonderland ranch installed two gates on either end of the USFS trail - are we naive enough to think that this was just a weekend project, or perhaps a way to legally remove the potential for a prescriptive easement by showing ownership of the trail by the ranch and thus strip the public's ability to access the public land?
3. After posting the trail and installing gates, USFS sued to maintain the public's right to the trail and was found to legally own the prescriptive easement.
Second, that is one example. I don't hunt a bunch and can show you three examples that are quite different. The trend is clearly for extremely wealthy people to buy and close access to incredible amounts of public land. The only way to combat that is by exercising our rights as public landowners.
Post by: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 01:32:46 PM
It's pretty clear to see the trend here, landowners are picking up access points to public land and closing that to use the public land for their exclusive use. They do this by buying up small pieces of timber company land at access points, encircling public land with a single landowner and closing historical access points as well as a few nefarious activities like illegally posting public property as no-tresspassing and erecting giant fences to control animal migration away from pubic land.
I wish it were a world where we can sit down with a landowner, have a cup of coffee and a handshake, but that is not the reality of today. Sure, there are some that are like that, but using my example above, much of the action is a direct, unmistakable attempt at securing public land for their exclusive use. That is the rule across the west, not the exception.
There are several effective ways to combat this - and by that I don't mean taking private property rights, I mean maintaining public property access rights. RMEF and others buy land and sell it at a discount or give it to the state to maintain or gain access points.
Second, use the court system to enforce land and access laws. There are laws on the books in every state that govern easements and historical use. If the landowner is found to be breaking these laws, that is a great use of the rule of law, not taking rights away from the landowner. They never had those rights.
The forest service is historically underfunded and undermanned. They can't sell timber for political reasons and thus cannot even maintain the access and roads they have now, much less increase them. To expect them to make major headway or pretend they are is simply not reality.
Will some landowners prevail in court? Quite possibly, it won't be perfect. It isn't the perfect solution, but there aren't many available when there is a group of wealthy individuals who are absolutely trying to keep the public of public land. Their position is they buy their way in, gate it and our only options are to stay off public land or sue them for maintaining our rights as public landowners.
I have seen firsthand people buying private parcels and locking everyone out of public grounds. This situation is not like that at all. I am familiar with one of the trail disputes and it is a sketchy easement if there even is one. In this area suing forest service to strong arm the ranchers is hurting hunters more than it will help. These trails don’t lock people out of the crazies you can drive your truck up there on public roads
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:01:32 PM
Some people simply don't acknowledge public property as being land that should be afforded property rights protections too. Imagine the outrage if these prescriptive easements were necessary to access some chunk of private land!
I think its more important than ever for hunters to be vigilant over people trying to sell/transfer public lands or those who are not adequately defending public access and public property rights. What Stein described is a very real thing, happening all over the West, and so as there come opportunities to buy land, easements, or a need to sue to ensure public access is not lost its important that public land hunters are there to support these efforts.
I think education of the potential loss of access and just how much public land is inaccessible will open the eyes of many. Folks who constantly rail against public lands, public access, or even the acquisition of public lands from willing sellers (e.g., wolfbait and kfhunter) will never be convinced that public land hunters need access and lands to hunt if we are to maintain the hunting heritage...don't waste time trying to convince folks like that of anything - but let your elected officials know you support public lands and inform your friends and family who hunt about the need for public lands and the constant threat that public lands and access face.
Again with the false characterization, attacks and lies!
I'm a strong advocate of private property rights, it's integral to the foundation of this nation and addressed several times in the constitution.
I also think public land should be accessible, but I don't/won't advocate to diminish private property rights to get it - unlike you.
I think FS should continue to work with private property owners to obtain or upgrade existing easements, show them enough money and they'll get the easement in more instances than what court battles would get, and at less cost by my estimation...on top of that USFS would have a better perception with rural property owners.
Post by: stlusn30-06 on February 15, 2019, 02:03:58 PM
It's pretty clear to see the trend here, landowners are picking up access points to public land and closing that to use the public land for their exclusive use. They do this by buying up small pieces of timber company land at access points, encircling public land with a single landowner and closing historical access points as well as a few nefarious activities like illegally posting public property as no-tresspassing and erecting giant fences to control animal migration away from pubic land.
I wish it were a world where we can sit down with a landowner, have a cup of coffee and a handshake, but that is not the reality of today. Sure, there are some that are like that, but using my example above, much of the action is a direct, unmistakable attempt at securing public land for their exclusive use. That is the rule across the west, not the exception.
There are several effective ways to combat this - and by that I don't mean taking private property rights, I mean maintaining public property access rights. RMEF and others buy land and sell it at a discount or give it to the state to maintain or gain access points.
Second, use the court system to enforce land and access laws. There are laws on the books in every state that govern easements and historical use. If the landowner is found to be breaking these laws, that is a great use of the rule of law, not taking rights away from the landowner. They never had those rights.
The forest service is historically underfunded and undermanned. They can't sell timber for political reasons and thus cannot even maintain the access and roads they have now, much less increase them. To expect them to make major headway or pretend they are is simply not reality.
Will some landowners prevail in court? Quite possibly, it won't be perfect. It isn't the perfect solution, but there aren't many available when there is a group of wealthy individuals who are absolutely trying to keep the public of public land. Their position is they buy their way in, gate it and our only options are to stay off public land or sue them for maintaining our rights as public landowners.
You didn't read my post did you.
https://montanapioneer.com/usfs-claims-easement-land-owners/
these landowners allowed access for years, 80+ then the new land owners also allowed access.
USFS gets a new director and came in and wanted an easement, the landowners tried to negotiate a better trail away from their house (the existing trail was 15 feet away from their house, they wanted it rerouted) the USFS instead just abused their authority and slammed down a prescriptive easement forcing the land owners into very expensive court battle with the federal government.
Why couldn't the FS just re-route the trail and get a friendly easement???
So now guess what, every landowner with a similar trail is like OMG I gotta block access or USFS will abuse me too!!!
Seems like a lot of supposition, and fails to take into account a lot of additional history in the subject to state that "every landowner with a similar trail is like OMG I gotta block access or USFS will abuse me too". There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades. There have been numerous legal fights over water access laws, easements, gates etc...Seems like you are implying that these issues don't actually exist. The millions of dollars, numerous lawsuits and formation of dozens of advocacy groups to fight the more and more regular occurrence of these acts would beg to differ. Blocking access to these trails, that have in some cases existed for a century, is a new thing. For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem. Then the land owners took it upon themselves to put up gates, no trespassing signs, and said there would be no more access. In the land owners words "....it is on the public to prove that an easement exists". That means lawsuit in layman's terms. In these cases it is the Forest Service that has to represent the Public and they are not doing so. Hence BHA's actions.
Some further info:
-"The public has a right to access each of these five trails. When the Northern Pacific Railroad deeded its sections of the checkerboard land to private parties, on both the west side and east side of the Crazies, an easement for “public use” of these five existing routes across the property was expressly reserved".
-https://www.outsideonline.com/2263356/crazy-mountains
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:10:41 PM
Quote
There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.
because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.
Quote
For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.
Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.
Post by: stlusn30-06 on February 15, 2019, 02:30:28 PM
You've proved my point.QuoteThere has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.
because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.QuoteFor the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.
Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.
No I think you have proven my my point. By making another statement that is patently false, and then snipping a quote that takes the whole statement out of context.
The attitude shift has come because of the change in landowner demographic. Namely out of state (usually wealthy) buyers closing off access. This is well documented and there are numerous examples of Montana court cases covering this. I am not going to link a bunch to prove my point. Just google it if you don't believe me. Also, this isn't a matter of "wanting" the FS to sue. The FS is mandated by law to protect the trails, since the trails are under their care. Again, the land owners have put up the gates/signs knowing that for the trails to remain open, it'll have to go to court. The land owners are fully aware of what is to come when they put up gates/signs. They are just betting that either they can keep people off their property for 5 years or that they can win in court. They are willing participants in the process. Not hapless victims caught off guard by the Big Money Federal Lawyers coming to steal their land.
As to your second snippit. Read the next sentence. It was ppl like me and Idahohunter that were using the trail over the last 100 years. Not the ones putting up the gates and expecting a court fight.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 02:31:50 PM
You've proved my point.That's hilarious...your order of events is backwards.QuoteThere has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.
because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.QuoteFor the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.
Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.
Changing values and priorities regarding land, hunting access, and ownership are what necessitated groups like BHA and many others that are necessary to fight for our public lands. If things were still like 1950 these access groups wouldn't exist...there would be no need.
You clearly have extremely limited experience hunting any western US state where there are lots of public/private interfaces. I hope you consider broadening your hunting experience so you can be more informed in these types of discussions in the future.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:39:50 PM
BHA doesn't like rural land owners, they believe in agenda 21...make everyone live in a city and everything rural be wilderness.
in the article I posted above we had a rural land owner with a trail through their property, literally IN their backyard, they bent over backwards to work with USFS but got the shaft, now it's being appealed (but sadly it's being appealed in the 9th circuit)
When it makes it to the supreme court in 5 years and gets shot down sending shock waves through all prescriptive easements don't come crying to me, I tried to show you all a better way.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 02:41:30 PM
You've proved my point.That's hilarious...your order of events is backwards.QuoteThere has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.
because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.QuoteFor the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.
Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.
Changing values and priorities regarding land, hunting access, and ownership are what necessitated groups like BHA and many others that are necessary to fight for our public lands. If things were still like 1950 these access groups wouldn't exist...there would be no need.You clearly have extremely limited experience hunting any western US state where there are lots of public/private interfaces. I hope you consider broadening your hunting experience so you can be more informed in these types of discussions in the future.
You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right?
(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
Post by: headshot5 on February 15, 2019, 02:54:41 PM
So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.
Post by: Stein on February 15, 2019, 03:00:54 PM
I'm with KF. This is going to make things worse. If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse? No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement.
So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.
What is the alternative?
1. Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2. Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?
The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost. The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.
Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president? At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.
Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.
Post by: headshot5 on February 15, 2019, 03:07:55 PM
Quote
What is the alternative?
1. Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2. Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?
The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost. The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.
Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president? At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.
Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.
Buy property to preserve access to public lands, that's the best answer... Heaven knows they waste tax dollars on dumber things.
Work with private property owners to write new easements (in writing, no handshake deals...).
These groups BHA etc, could be using money to buy properties and then allowing the public unfettered access through it.
Just because a landowner was generous and allowed access through their property to the public for any amount of time, shouldn't make it legal for the public to continue access (with no written easement).
Post by: headshot5 on February 15, 2019, 03:10:04 PM
Quote
1. Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
Heck yes bribe them. With money, and have it notorized. In writing (an easement)… Then there is no question going forward.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 03:11:03 PM
I'm with KF. This is going to make things worse. If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse? No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement.
So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.
What is the alternative?
1. Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2. Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?
The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost. The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.
Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president? At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.
Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.
There is no existing easement, the trails are not public property!
That's why it's called prescriptive, it's assumptive, its hostile, there's nothing on the property owner's property deeds saying there is a trail through their property.
Post by: headshot5 on February 15, 2019, 03:13:58 PM
Quote
There is no existing easement, that's why it's called prescriptive, it's assumptive, its hostile, there's nothing on the property owner's property deeds saying there is a trail through their property.
I don't know, if you are writing that to me :dunno:, I understand, and don't think the public deserves access just because of a landowners generosity in the past.
Edit. Nevermind, I re-read it.
Post by: stlusn30-06 on February 15, 2019, 04:13:11 PM
I'm with KF. This is going to make things worse. If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse? No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement.
So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.
What is the alternative?
1. Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2. Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?
The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost. The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.
Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president? At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.
Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.
There is no existing easement, the trails are not public property!
That's why it's called prescriptive, it's assumptive, its hostile, there's nothing on the property owner's property deeds saying there is a trail through their property.
That's just it. There is according to what I'm reading. There likely is something in the property owners deeds stating they need to preserve any pathway being used by the public. That is what was originally required when the Northern Pacific Railroad deeded these parcels to private land owners, and it is why when these things do go to court the land owners lose. This isn't something new either. The glory days of yesteryear are a myth. The battle to keep access to Public lands goes way back. Linked below is a court case from 1948 fighting the exact same scenario The Crazy's are seeing today. The case was founded and won on the original language in the rail road deed. See page 58 in the document for the original language. There is a lot of legal precedent on this issue. Again, this isn't something new, and this isn't some case of the "environmentalist" bad guys coming to steal land. Just another fight to keep access, in a series of fights that goes back decades upon decades.
Enjoy the read. Lots of great info on what the law actually says and how these issues play out in court.
https://www.emwh.org/public%20access/Crazy%20Mountains/big%20timber%20legal.pdf
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 04:17:33 PM
Post by: stlusn30-06 on February 15, 2019, 04:38:53 PM
You're taking a very narrow set of circumstances and applying it very broadly, the example I posted doesn't have an old railroad, there's no rail to trail or anything like it.
A couple of things:
1. The example article you posted is a narrow circumstance and doesn't have anything to do with the Crazy Mountains, or BHAs actions.
2. None of these properties ever had a railroad. That isn't the point. I suggest you read the case I linked to. Some quick background; the Federal Government gave a bunch of land to the Northern Pacific. Including land the rail never passed through. When the Northern Pacific deeded these lands over to private land owners they included language that stated any public pathways had to be preserved. The land, and the pathways that BHA are pushing the FS to preserve came from the same rail road deeds. So it is in fact a circumstance that applies directly to the issue at hand with the Crazy Mountains. I have no intention of addressing the article you posted since it has nothing to do with the actual announcement that was originally posted to start this thread.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 06:59:34 PM
You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right?
(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands.
More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 07:05:15 PM
Quote
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
You lost me here :chuckle: funniest crap I've read in a long time! Thanks for the chuckle :chuckle:
Post by: mfswallace on February 15, 2019, 07:45:10 PM
QuoteI think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
You lost me here :chuckle: funniest crap I've read in a long time! Thanks for the chuckle :chuckle:
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 08:09:56 PM
I think the best argument one can make on these landlocked public lands is what I posted above regarding public property rights needing advocates too. In most States (perhaps all?) - it is illegal to landlock private land. I can't surround private land and not provide that surrounded landowner legal access to their property...those same rights should be afforded to public property.A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access. In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?
I find it extremely hypocritical for people to advocate for private property rights...but then balk and scoff if you suggest those same property rights be applied to public lands. The landlocking issue is a big one - I'm nearly 100% certain there is not one piece of private land in this country that is inaccessible to the landowner due to being surrounded by a different private landowner...this should not be tolerated for public land either.
You know the crazy Mountains are NOT landlocked right? Private property also CAN be landlocked without an easement to access private property the option is to go through the courts and prove no other access exists and then maybe you can force an easement and pay for it. Applying private property rights to the crazies wouldn’t work because THERE IS reasonable access already! You can drive a truck up there
Post by: Stein on February 15, 2019, 08:15:38 PM
How many public trails should we allow private landowners to take?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 08:20:46 PM
Also, can you show me where these supposed "public trails" are listed on property owners' deeds?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 08:25:50 PM
Yes, I know the access situation. My comments above were in response to the injection of discussion about truly landlocked public lands - of which there are millions of acres in the West.I think the best argument one can make on these landlocked public lands is what I posted above regarding public property rights needing advocates too. In most States (perhaps all?) - it is illegal to landlock private land. I can't surround private land and not provide that surrounded landowner legal access to their property...those same rights should be afforded to public property.A bit off from the BHA issue, but I personally think that all public land should have legal public access, regardless of adjacent land ownership. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at maps and assessor records finding public land that is inaccessible, essentially creating private hunting reserves of public land.
I would certainly be in favor of a law written such that a public parcel must have legal access from the nearest and/or most expedient access point. Multiple access points would be identified for larger tracts. Public land should have public access.
Environmentalists and the liberal left are great at using the courts to push their agenda, it is about time hunters and the conservative right utilize the same tactics.
That seems great but what if the access went through your front yard? Not being disrespectful but that’s a slippery slope
Not really, land held in trust by federal, state, and local governments should have reasonable (I know, a very subjective term)access. In very few, if any, circumstances would there be a need for access through a “front yard”, most of the areas I have seen have trails and/or gated or private roads accessing them and are through large tracts of land. It is not common to have a bunch of one acre lots blocking access to the public sections. If I owned a piece that blocked public access I would not want a public access pushed through, but that is entirely from selfish reasons. There is already court precedent allowing tribes access through private lands onto private lands to access usual and accustomed areas, how is this much different?
I find it extremely hypocritical for people to advocate for private property rights...but then balk and scoff if you suggest those same property rights be applied to public lands. The landlocking issue is a big one - I'm nearly 100% certain there is not one piece of private land in this country that is inaccessible to the landowner due to being surrounded by a different private landowner...this should not be tolerated for public land either.
You know the crazy Mountains are NOT landlocked right? Private property also CAN be landlocked without an easement to access private property the option is to go through the courts and prove no other access exists and then maybe you can force an easement and pay for it. Applying private property rights to the crazies wouldn’t work because THERE IS reasonable access already! You can drive a truck up there
Specific to the Crazies - while there is legal access up top - the legal access on the bottom end is very important to hunters and other public land users. :tup:
Post by: hunter399 on February 15, 2019, 08:29:02 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 08:29:27 PM
You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right?
(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands.
More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West.
I have hunted Montana for 35 plus years as a resident and a non resident I don’t think hunting a lot of western states makes anyone more informed on this particular issue.There is still lots of private land you can get permission to hunt or cross. Perhaps it’s your personality? :chuckle:Has a lot of land been locked down. You bet but that’s mainly from outfitters leasing up large ranches. Picking fights with long time landowners is creating less access with just a conversation. I know that people are buying land to lock up public lands( usually out of staters)and I think this is the better fight. The most important part of this conversation is that the crazies are not landlocked public access already exists. Why piss off the landowners so you can take an easier way in kind of opposite of what bha usually advocates
Post by: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 08:36:35 PM
If you think the east Crazies have good access, we define the term differently.
How many public trails should we allow private landowners to take?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No the east crazies don’t have good access I agree but they’re accessible. I am out on this argument I think this is the wrong fight and they are fighting it the wrong way
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 08:36:44 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 08:51:55 PM
The public has legal access that needs to be protected...pretty simple. If there were not legal public access via a prescriptive easement there would be no issue here...it would just be private property and that's it...stay off. But when property laws convey access to the public, that public access must be protected by the public agencies managing those lands and access points. If those agencies don't want to serve the public interest...then I fully support BHA litigating to get them to do their job. If you want to roll over and give up public access to private landowners thats your prerogative.You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right?
(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands.
More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West.
I have hunted Montana for 35 plus years as a resident and a non resident I don’t think hunting a lot of western states makes anyone more informed on this particular issue.There is still lots of private land you can get permission to hunt or cross. Perhaps it’s your personality? :chuckle:Has a lot of land been locked down. You bet but that’s mainly from outfitters leasing up large ranches. Picking fights with long time landowners is creating less access with just a conversation. I know that people are buying land to lock up public lands( usually out of staters)and I think this is the better fight. The most important part of this conversation is that the crazies are not landlocked public access already exists. Why piss off the landowners so you can take an easier way in kind of opposite of what bha usually advocates
Post by: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 08:55:51 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 08:58:19 PM
Post by: idaho guy on February 15, 2019, 09:06:42 PM
The public has legal access that needs to be protected...pretty simple. If there were not legal public access via a prescriptive easement there would be no issue here...it would just be private property and that's it...stay off. But when property laws convey access to the public, that public access must be protected by the public agencies managing those lands and access points. If those agencies don't want to serve the public interest...then I fully support BHA litigating to get them to do their job. If you want to roll over and give up public access to private landowners thats your prerogative.You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right?
(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands.
More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West.
I have hunted Montana for 35 plus years as a resident and a non resident I don’t think hunting a lot of western states makes anyone more informed on this particular issue.There is still lots of private land you can get permission to hunt or cross. Perhaps it’s your personality? :chuckle:Has a lot of land been locked down. You bet but that’s mainly from outfitters leasing up large ranches. Picking fights with long time landowners is creating less access with just a conversation. I know that people are buying land to lock up public lands( usually out of staters)and I think this is the better fight. The most important part of this conversation is that the crazies are not landlocked public access already exists. Why piss off the landowners so you can take an easier way in kind of opposite of what bha usually advocates
I agree with you on protecting and pursuing public access wherever possible. We are all progressively losing access to some ground in most states. I hate that.We will just have to disagree on how to handle this specific situation I think the approach bha is taking is wrong and will do more harm than good
Post by: idahohuntr on February 15, 2019, 09:13:37 PM
Understood. I think federal agencies need to be reminded the other side will sue too...otherwise these bureaucrats get too complacent and end up giving away the farm. I'm betting this specific issue gets resolved without litigation...but putting feds on notice that it is an option won't hurt IMO. In the end - I'm all for whatever solution protects public access.The public has legal access that needs to be protected...pretty simple. If there were not legal public access via a prescriptive easement there would be no issue here...it would just be private property and that's it...stay off. But when property laws convey access to the public, that public access must be protected by the public agencies managing those lands and access points. If those agencies don't want to serve the public interest...then I fully support BHA litigating to get them to do their job. If you want to roll over and give up public access to private landowners thats your prerogative.You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right?
(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already. I've warned you many times to stop)
I think there are many reasons hunting access has become increasingly difficult over the last several decades - "liberals and environmentalists" however you define them - are not the cause.
To your tiny font...I don't care where you hunt - I'm simply pointing out why you have a very different point of view on these access issues and it stems from being naive to hunting other western states where there are substantial public/private land checkerboard/interface issues. Your previous statements about knocking on doors in Montana make it very clear to folks who hunt these places that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to challenges with maintaining public access in the West. Its not an attack as you like to try and claim - its a substantive point that is pertinent to explaining why someone may not see as much need for the public maintaining public access to public lands.
More simply - a public land hunter living in NE Wa surrounded by National Forest who only hunts close to home is not going to be as concerned with these access issues as a public land hunter who hunts regularly in Central or Eastern MT or WY where these fights for maintaining public access can be more critical. Growing up in Idaho - I had all the public lands I could ever want to hunt and I was not nearly as aware of some of the issues that I am now that I hunt all over the West.
I have hunted Montana for 35 plus years as a resident and a non resident I don’t think hunting a lot of western states makes anyone more informed on this particular issue.There is still lots of private land you can get permission to hunt or cross. Perhaps it’s your personality? :chuckle:Has a lot of land been locked down. You bet but that’s mainly from outfitters leasing up large ranches. Picking fights with long time landowners is creating less access with just a conversation. I know that people are buying land to lock up public lands( usually out of staters)and I think this is the better fight. The most important part of this conversation is that the crazies are not landlocked public access already exists. Why piss off the landowners so you can take an easier way in kind of opposite of what bha usually advocates
I agree with you on protecting and pursuing public access wherever possible. We are all progressively losing access to some ground in most states. I hate that.We will just have to disagree on how to handle this specific situation I think the approach bha is taking is wrong and will do more harm than good
Post by: jmscon on February 15, 2019, 10:37:16 PM
Do you mean the limits to access that companies such as Cambel Globel, Ryonier, Hancock Investments, Inland Empire and Weyerhaeuser have done in the last 10 years is all a part of the liberal agenda?
When a land owner tries to take away a public easement we should look at it the same as poaching, they are taking away from the people of the country and it seems as though the USFS either doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care. I think because of their lack of funds it might be the latter.
Post by: jmscon on February 15, 2019, 10:51:45 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 10:54:46 PM
There's a lot of different kinds of easements, the one's we're talking about here are prospective easements, which means it's a hostile easement, taken by force where no previous easement has existed. It's contentious, by definition it means there was no public right to access across the property.
People make a trail and use it without permission, then the landowner blocks access, then they sue the landowner, then a judge determines if a prospective easement exists.
It can be done anywhere by anyone.
for example:
The guy in the city where kids were running through his yard in a shortcut to catch a school bus, the landowner put up a fence, parents sued, the courts made a prospective easement and the landowner had to take down his fence and let the kids continue to run through his yard. There was no previous easement or trail or right for the kids to run though his yard, but because he waited too long to block access the kids won a whole new easement from nothing.
that's a prospective easement!
Definition of prospective. 1 : relating to or effective in the future. 2a : likely to come about : expected the prospective benefits of this law. b : likely to be or become a prospective mother. Other Words from prospective More Example Sentences Learn More about prospective.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 10:58:10 PM
@KFhunter
Do you mean the limits to access that companies such as Cambel Globel, Ryonier, Hancock Investments, Inland Empire and Weyerhaeuser have done in the last 10 years is all a part of the liberal agenda?
When a land owner tries to take away a public easement we should look at it the same as poaching, they are taking away from the people of the country and it seems as though the USFS either doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care. I think because of their lack of funds it might be the latter.
That's a straw man, what the timber companies do has nothing to do with BHA. Timber companies block land because slobs dump garbage, drive up on muddy roads leaving ruts, shoot trees and a whole slew of other things.
Post by: jmscon on February 15, 2019, 11:10:08 PM
@KFhunter
Do you mean the limits to access that companies such as Cambel Globel, Ryonier, Hancock Investments, Inland Empire and Weyerhaeuser have done in the last 10 years is all a part of the liberal agenda?
When a land owner tries to take away a public easement we should look at it the same as poaching, they are taking away from the people of the country and it seems as though the USFS either doesn’t know about it or doesn’t care. I think because of their lack of funds it might be the latter.
That's a straw man, what the timber companies do has nothing to do with BHA. Timber companies block land because slobs dump garbage, drive up on muddy roads leaving ruts, shoot trees and a whole slew of other things.
No it doesn’t have anything to do wit BHA but it does have to do with recreational access.
There is tons of access to public land through private timber that has been closed off via the pay to play programs that these companies use. We also used to be able to hunt these properties for no fee.
Not like the 1950’s, ha it’s not even like the 2000’s
In the article it doesn’t state anything about prospective easements that was brought up later. But it does talk about a hunter in 2016 that tried to access lands via a USFS easement and was cited for trespassing. It was later thrown out.
Post by: KFhunter on February 15, 2019, 11:53:49 PM
it's for another thread though
Post by: jmscon on February 15, 2019, 11:57:03 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on February 16, 2019, 12:48:28 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2019, 08:10:55 AM
Again with this public easement thing :bash:
There's a lot of different kinds of easements, the one's we're talking about here are prospective easements
For those that actually have familiarity with easements, we are discussing prescriptive easements, not 'prospective' easements...whatever those are supposed to be.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
My bad I used the wrong word, same thing though. It's a hostile easement that comes about when people trespass long enough it becomes an easement.
Post by: fireweed on February 16, 2019, 09:57:15 AM
Again, very misleading!Many of these specific trail issues are prescriptive easements - having been used for decades by the public. Its clear based on your statements above you don't understand what a prescriptive easement is...I suggest you read up before commenting any further.
It's not illegal to prevent access to private property unless there's an easement and the conditions of that easement are met whatever it might be.
BHA is saying the actions of the landowners are illegal even though there's no easement in place currently, there can't be an easement until it's settled in court or one is purchased.
thus no illegal activity has occured, BHA is misleading it's members (again)
BHA actually wants USFS to stop working with landowners for access and put their boots on their necks instead, but USFS knows it won't win in court in most circumstances.
Its also pretty clear to me you have not hunted in Montana for big game anywhere that private land exists in big chunks...you think a little nock on the door used to get you access thru private ground to hunt public land back before BHA? That's very naive...probably worked in 1950...not for the last several decades. The only major success related to hunting access in MT has been the Block Management program run by the State...if the lands are not involved in that program (for which there can be incentives and payments) you are almost certainly not getting access...and that isn't some new trend - its been that way for a long, long time. There are of course exceptions, and hunting less desirable antlerless animals or small game increases your odds a tiny bit.
Again, you mislead everyone who doesn't know better. A prescriptive easement is assumed, there is nothing on the property deed saying there is an easement.
BHA is lying in saying that the land owners are doing something illegal by blocking these "assumed" or prescriptive easements, there's nothing illegal about blocking a prescriptive easement UNTIL IT IS SETTLED IN COURT and turned into a proper easement. BHA is trying to force USFS to sue landowners over these assumed easements that isn't anywhere on the property deed, USFS has been working with landowners trying to come to a mutual agreement but BHA wants to pull the rug out and force USFS to put their boots on property owners' necks like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
Quit lying to fellow hunters trying to garner support for BHA through this misleading wordsmithing. It's a lie and sham.
As you pointed out, contested prescriptive easements MUST be litigated if neither party disagrees agrees that the easement exists or its specifics. The same is true for ANY contested easement--written down or not. All the BHA and other groups are asking is that the process move forward.
The same thing is true for navigable rivers--each river, individually, must be judged by a court to be navigable--which is a long, expensive process..so guidelines and precedent are used but disagreements on specific rivers still end in court.
Short term mutual agreements are worthless in securing long term access, as we have seen here in Washington. Haven't we been lied to and "bait-and-switched" enough by the big timber companies to see necessity of written (or adjudicated) easements? If the USFS moved forward with the process (haven't these trails been contested for decades) the courts will rule, and then the precedent set, either way, will give some sort of direction for the future and other cases.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2019, 12:15:00 PM
Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Oh Mah on February 16, 2019, 01:45:58 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 04:45:21 PM
:yeah: Great point bearpaw.We get caught educating people on the other side of issues all the time. :tup:
Excellent point Oh Mah! all 17801 of my posts are exactly as you describe, educational!
;)
Post by: Oh Mah on February 16, 2019, 05:04:22 PM
:twocents:
GREAT READ BY THE WAY. :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2019, 09:49:15 PM
You always need to consider what the reaction will be on the other side. If I was a landowner in Montana or anywhere who is currently allowing access across my property to hunters or anyone for that matter I would seriously consider refusing access to anyone except people I personally know for the express reason that allowing continued access may cause you to lose some of your property rights and be forced into having a public easement across your property.Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about. Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim. And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.
Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! :bash: :bash: :bash:
To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere? I don't believe it will. The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore. Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game. So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.
Post by: bearpaw on February 16, 2019, 10:02:22 PM
You always need to consider what the reaction will be on the other side. If I was a landowner in Montana or anywhere who is currently allowing access across my property to hunters or anyone for that matter I would seriously consider refusing access to anyone except people I personally know for the express reason that allowing continued access may cause you to lose some of your property rights and be forced into having a public easement across your property.Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about. Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim. And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.
Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! :bash: :bash: :bash:
To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere? I don't believe it will. The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore. Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game. So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.
You may not have had any access or perhaps that was simply your way of trying to cover BHA for their blunder? I'm really not sure what to believe.
I have had plenty of access just by asking if i could hunt and some of it has been in the last year and some of it has been in Montana. A lot of getting access has to do with how you approach landowners. But I guarantee you this, filing lawsuits trying to force permanent easements based on historically giving free access will be the nail in the coffin when landowners discuss what is happening. Almost no landowner wants to give free permanent easements for strangers through their property! That's one of the first questions I ask before I will even consider buying a property, what easements are there?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 16, 2019, 10:34:37 PM
You're not understanding what a prescriptive easement is...if the hunters are seeking and the landowner is granting permission it invalidates any sort of adverse possession claim. End of story.You always need to consider what the reaction will be on the other side. If I was a landowner in Montana or anywhere who is currently allowing access across my property to hunters or anyone for that matter I would seriously consider refusing access to anyone except people I personally know for the express reason that allowing continued access may cause you to lose some of your property rights and be forced into having a public easement across your property.Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about. Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim. And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.
Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! :bash: :bash: :bash:
To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere? I don't believe it will. The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore. Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game. So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.
You may not have had any access or perhaps that was simply your way of trying to cover BHA for their blunder? I'm really not sure what to believe.
I have had plenty of access just by asking if i could hunt and some of it has been in the last year and some of it has been in Montana. A lot of getting access has to do with how you approach landowners. But I guarantee you this, filing lawsuits trying to force permanent easements based on historically giving free access will be the nail in the coffin when landowners discuss what is happening. Almost no landowner wants to give free permanent easements for strangers through their property! That's one of the first questions I ask before I will even consider buying a property, what easements are there?
Also, I have no doubt you and others get access for hunting in various places...we all do...thats not what I said though. The point I made is there is not any significant amount of free access to large blocks of landlocked (or hard to access) public land by simply knocking on a door - outside state access programs, pay to play, or a friends/family deal. Chances are better if its antlerless hunting or small game...but any land that holds big bucks and bulls...no way. Which again, this is why I see no downside to BHA suing the FS if necessary to keep them from giving away public access.
Post by: KFhunter on February 16, 2019, 10:45:15 PM
Getting permission is alive and well in MT, so I reject the notion that: "it's a lost cause already so why bother working with land owners?" you'd rather trample them underfoot, I can't get on that bandwagon. :sry:
but you are correct, MT is sliding down hill as land owners get attacked from all sides and worse, sell out to a rich out of state people looking for a slice of heaven and wish to keep everyone else out!
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2019, 07:10:39 PM
You always need to consider what the reaction will be on the other side. If I was a landowner in Montana or anywhere who is currently allowing access across my property to hunters or anyone for that matter I would seriously consider refusing access to anyone except people I personally know for the express reason that allowing continued access may cause you to lose some of your property rights and be forced into having a public easement across your property.Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about. Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim. And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.
Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! :bash: :bash: :bash:
To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere? I don't believe it will. The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore. Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game. So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.
I feel like I am repeating myself here, oh wait I am. I have family that ranches this exact part of Montana. The conversations and reactions Bearpaw describes is EXACTLY what is occurring. Again all for gaining and preserving access but this appears to be wrong approach here.
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2019, 07:21:19 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2019, 07:29:42 PM
step 2: promote usage of old trails, post signs telling people to NOT ask for permission
step 3: sue landowners for prescriptive easements after documented trespassing has occurred over a time period
step 4: remove all motorized access to the area as a whole
step 5: petition for wilderness designation
Post by: idahohuntr on February 18, 2019, 07:43:09 PM
Well, I guess we will see. If this is going to have a massive reduction in public access as ranchers become concerned I presume we will see a big drop in block management access this year. I don't think it will matter, but one way or the other we will have an objective measure of change in access by looking at this next years block management enrollment.You always need to consider what the reaction will be on the other side. If I was a landowner in Montana or anywhere who is currently allowing access across my property to hunters or anyone for that matter I would seriously consider refusing access to anyone except people I personally know for the express reason that allowing continued access may cause you to lose some of your property rights and be forced into having a public easement across your property.Your premise is incorrect here...ranchers granting permission have nothing to worry about. Hunters seeking and landowners granting permission would invalidate any potential prescriptive easement claim. And this is true of any sort of adverse possession claim/issue.
Thank you BHA for reinforcing this point to every rancher in the west who will read about this in their ranching magazines and discuss it with other concerned ranchers! :bash: :bash: :bash:
To your broader point - will this result in a counteraction that reduces hunting access in Montana or elsewhere? I don't believe it will. The days of politely knocking on a door to pass through a ranch so you can access a large block of public lands simply do not exist in any significant way anymore. Outfitters leasing up all the ground, diy guys paying trespass fees, states using funds for access programs, and family/friends of landowners all ensure the demand far outweighs the supply and makes it a pay to play game. So - I don't really see anything to lose and fully support BHA using litigation if necessary to ensure a public agency does not give away legal public access.
I feel like I am repeating myself here, oh wait I am. I have family that ranches this exact part of Montana. The conversations and reactions Bearpaw describes is EXACTLY what is occurring. Again all for gaining and preserving access but this appears to be wrong approach here.
The more I read on this issue - it is pretty clear the 5 trails have indisputable public access. Landowners are illegally blocking and signing the trails in an attempt to extinguish the public access. If landowners want to stop providing access in support of illegal actions by other landowners...that is their prerogative. I still support the threat of litigation to protect public access.
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2019, 08:07:15 PM
step 1: identify any old trails, typically made years ago for mining purposes (its ironic huh)
step 2: promote usage of old trails, post signs telling people to NOT ask for permission
step 3: sue landowners for prescriptive easements after documented trespassing has occurred over a time period
step 4: remove all motorized access to the area as a whole
step 5: petition for wilderness designation
that actually makes sense if you look at past actions :chuckle: That’s what scares me. I want to hear from advocates for bha would they be fighting this if it was for vehicle access ? Serious question and I am not an expert on bha but have read some things good and bad.
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2019, 08:11:52 PM
Montana hunting is big business. If you have exclusive land with bulls on it you can get $7,500 a week. A guide can run two guys a week and the season is 11 weeks long. That is the potential of $100-150k a year if you are running the business well with only two hunters. I have a college buddy who ranches on family land. They book 15 people a week at $5k and probably have 85% occupancy and no problems filling tags because they own the winter grounds for a huge herd.
It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out. If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access. This is exactly what is happening out there.
Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money. Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF. They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters. Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning. I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season. Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.
We're not talking about mom and pop ranches here, we're talking about losing amazing amounts of public land access to the highest bidder. If you think a guy from Texas rolling in with a billion bucks to spend is going to answer the door when you come knocking for access, we have good examples over the last decade that tell the story.
I wish it were different, but I truly fear the day where I look back and wish we were more aggressive and did more to protect what we have.
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2019, 08:12:20 PM
I could show you a pic of not one but 6 huge mules all taken off a door knock access request. That's just one example, I have many other examples as well.
Getting permission is alive and well in MT, so I reject the notion that: "it's a lost cause already so why bother working with land owners?" you'd rather trample them underfoot, I can't get on that bandwagon. :sry:
but you are correct, MT is sliding down hill as land owners get attacked from all sides and worse, sell out to a rich out of state people looking for a slice of heaven and wish to keep everyone else out!
I would like to see the 6 dead mule’s :chuckle: wondering how access was after he took some mules out. Guessing it was
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2019, 08:37:39 PM
The other thing to consider is magnitude. There are places that allow a few people access to relatively modest access, friends, neighbors, people with MT plates. There are other places that are gating access that block thousands of acres. What I'm saying is there are hills we should be prepared to die on and some that don't really matter.l
Montana hunting is big business. If you have exclusive land with bulls on it you can get $7,500 a week. A guide can run two guys a week and the season is 11 weeks long. That is the potential of $100-150k a year if you are running the business well with only two hunters. I have a college buddy who ranches on family land. They book 15 people a week at $5k and probably have 85% occupancy and no problems filling tags because they own the winter grounds for a huge herd.
It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out. If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access. This is exactly what is happening out there.
Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money. Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF. They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters. Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning. I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season. Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.
We're not talking about mom and pop ranches here, we're talking about losing amazing amounts of public land access to the highest bidder. If you think a guy from Texas rolling in with a billion bucks to spend is going to answer the door when you come knocking for access, we have good examples over the last decade that tell the story.
I wish it were different, but I truly fear the day where I look back and wish we were more aggressive and did more to protect what we have.
I agree with fighting what you just described and have personally seen it happen.You will never knock on the door of the rich Texan you described and get anything other than maybe shot at. :chuckle: I don’t think this is that situation at all. I am not familiar with all the trails here though. I did get “kicked” off a small ranch/tree farm in Idaho because the son in law scared the owners about getting sued by hunters! Cuts both ways and I knew the owners for a long time. They ended up shutting it down to everyone. I think I was probably the last or one of the last to hunt that property. They used to let everybody hunt And drive through to state land they probably had a prescriptive easement!They got scared out by the threat of lawsuits so it happens.
Post by: Alan K on February 18, 2019, 09:05:48 PM
It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out. If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access. This is exactly what is happening out there.
Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money. Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF. They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters. Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning. I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season. Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.
I don't think that would be much of a concern here in Washington with everything blocked up so well. There are certainly places around foreign ownerships that private industry a lot of times has to build a long road up and around to get access to, but it can be done. Of course not as easy as just buying access through a neighbor with the road in the bottom, but it's an option most of the time. If the USFS would sell even 1% of their timber they'd have top of the line road systems and could tie road systems together to get around any previous access points that didn't allow the public through. The problem is the USFS is beholden to all of the environmentalist groups who sue them into oblivion if they try and do anything. They literally have to go through years of analysis to build a permanent spur road. The USFS is so far from competent anymore that I don't know if there is any getting back to being a working forest. Most of the actual foresters at the USFS (pre-spotted owl foresters) have moved on or retired, and we're left with a bunch of folks who think a logging shovel is literally a hand shovel used for logging somehow. . . It's soooooo frustrating that all of these problems can be solved with money, and the USFS is sitting on billions and billions of dollars they won't tap into. Never mind the jobs and dollars it would bring to rural communities.
I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any land trading going on between private and USFS, or for that matter the DNR and private. I know the DNR buys occasionally, but I don't know about trading. Anyways, swaps to block up ownerships better happens all the time with private industry, there is no reason it shouldn't be able to happen elsewhere too. Both parties are better off. I would bet that land trades could alleviate a lot of this tension, particularly if the USFS was proactive about it rather than waiting until the pot boils over between the public and landowners who dig in their heels.
Private property rights are private property rights. We have to figure out ways to get around those blocking access, and generally speaking it's not that hard, just takes the dollars to build a new road. And unfortunately private lands are being closed to the public (free of charge anyway) more and more, and that trend isn't going to slow down any time soon. That's what makes fighting for our public lands to be managed in a way that maintains or EXPANDS access so important. Active management will generate habitat to support the animals we pursue as well. Private timberlands may as well be written off for access free of charge in the next 5-10 years, so the masses will need somewhere to go. That's also what makes wilderness expansion so frustrating. Close millions of acres so that less than 1% of the public heck less than 1% of hunters, nevermind the general public will enjoy. We should be pushing the USFS to sell some timber so they can afford to maintain and build road into these areas so that the public can enjoy them. On the one side we're losing access to hundreds of thousands of acres of private timberlands, and on the other we're losing hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands (millions in some cases, mentioned in another thread) to road less areas and wilderness.
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2019, 09:18:06 PM
Regarding access in MT, it isn't a problem of building roads. Many people here don't understand what is going on. People are spending tens or hundreds of millions to buy up thousands of acres and blocking access. They buy all of the land that the gravel roads go through and gate them off. They aren't county roads and the public loses access forever.
Here is an image, 2,745 acres completely shut off by a single landowner who bought up all the surrounding land. This is prime elk habitat, incredible. People were taking helicopters in there it was so good, so he built 15' fences to keep the elk out of public. There was no option but to get aggressive as the fences were even built on public land. They were removed, but that is 2,745 acres the average guy will never hunt.
For reference, that donut hole of private in the middle of the BLM is a section, 1 mile by 1 mile. Huge amount of land all locked up for private use by Texas billionaires that are working to make Montana privately owned just like Texas.
Post by: idaho guy on February 18, 2019, 09:24:10 PM
It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out. If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access. This is exactly what is happening out there.
Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money. Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF. They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters. Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning. I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season. Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.
I don't think that would be much of a concern here in Washington with everything blocked up so well. There are certainly places around foreign ownerships that private industry a lot of times has to build a long road up and around to get access to, but it can be done. Of course not as easy as just buying access through a neighbor with the road in the bottom, but it's an option most of the time. If the USFS would sell even 1% of their timber they'd have top of the line road systems and could tie road systems together to get around any previous access points that didn't allow the public through. The problem is the USFS is beholden to all of the environmentalist groups who sue them into oblivion if they try and do anything. They literally have to go through years of analysis to build a permanent spur road. The USFS is so far from competent anymore that I don't know if there is any getting back to being a working forest. Most of the actual foresters at the USFS (pre-spotted owl foresters) have moved on or retired, and we're left with a bunch of folks who think a logging shovel is literally a hand shovel used for logging somehow. . . It's soooooo frustrating that all of these problems can be solved with money, and the USFS is sitting on billions and billions of dollars they won't tap into. Never mind the jobs and dollars it would bring to rural communities.
I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any land trading going on between private and USFS, or for that matter the DNR and private. I know the DNR buys occasionally, but I don't know about trading. Anyways, swaps to block up ownerships better happens all the time with private industry, there is no reason it shouldn't be able to happen elsewhere too. Both parties are better off. I would bet that land trades could alleviate a lot of this tension, particularly if the USFS was proactive about it rather than waiting until the pot boils over between the public and landowners who dig in their heels.
Private property rights are private property rights. We have to figure out ways to get around those blocking access, and generally speaking it's not that hard, just takes the dollars to build a new road. And unfortunately private lands are being closed to the public (free of charge anyway) more and more, and that trend isn't going to slow down any time soon. That's what makes fighting for our public lands to be managed in a way that maintains or EXPANDS access so important. Active management will generate habitat to support the animals we pursue as well. Private timberlands may as well be written off for access free of charge in the next 5-10 years, so the masses will need somewhere to go. That's also what makes wilderness expansion so frustrating. Close millions of acres so that less than 1% of the public heck less than 1% of hunters, nevermind the general public will enjoy. We should be pushing the USFS to sell some timber so they can afford to maintain and build road into these areas so that the public can enjoy them. On the one side we're losing access to hundreds of thousands of acres of private timberlands, and on the other we're losing hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands (millions in some cases, mentioned in another thread) to road less areas and wilderness.
:yeah: nailed it . That is a lawsuit I am 100 percent behind. Force the forest service to manage the forest and raise millions with timber sales! I will join and donate money to bha if they sue for management of timber. They seem to do the opposite though
Post by: Alan K on February 18, 2019, 09:29:51 PM
There in Montana though, that is the sort of situation a land swap could work in! Trade this landowner the land for some of his fringe property with county road frontage? Sure it's not those exact acres that are currently public, but trading land locked land for some that isn't shouldn't be out of the question. If this guy in particular told them to pound sand, they could swap with a different private landowner, and the new owner could sell hunting etc. on what this jerk believed was his extension to his private lands. All the sudden the inholding is an annoyance to him and he no longer has access to any of it. That's an idea to keep the pie of public land acres the same size, even if those acres aren't the same ones that they are today. :dunno:
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2019, 09:42:54 PM
I guess I should have qualified my post in that it's Washington I was talking about since you mentioned Rainier/Baker!
There in Montana though, that is the sort of situation a land swap could work in! Trade this landowner the land for some of his fringe property with county road frontage? Sure it's not those exact acres that are currently public, but trading land locked land for some that isn't shouldn't be out of the question. If this guy in particular told them to pound sand, they could swap with a different private landowner, and the new owner could sell hunting etc. on what this jerk believed was his extension to his private lands. All the sudden the inholding is an annoyance to him and he no longer has access to any of it. That's an idea to keep the pie of public land acres the same size, even if those acres aren't the same ones that they are today. :dunno:
He bought the land to lock up hunting on BLM property, why would he swap? Look at the picture again, he owns 100% of the land surrounding the 2,745 acres of BLM. The whole area! Just that private holding of theirs is 78,350 acres! They own many more holdings in MT, hundreds of thousands of acres and growing as well as land in ID that they used to cut off access, they own something around 700,000 acres. They sold their company for $3.5 billion, so the pockets are deep. They cut a check for $15M to Cruz in the last presidential election.
That's the point I'm trying to convey, this is a serious thing when people can buy up 78k acres and shut down all access and do it again and again. I didn't show the other pictures, there is another 1,081 of BLM he locked up with the same holdings along with three sections of state land and a fewer smaller pieces of BLM. Just in that one holding, they have locked almost 4,000 acres of prime hunting habitat.
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2019, 09:52:08 PM
The other thing to consider is magnitude. There are places that allow a few people access to relatively modest access, friends, neighbors, people with MT plates. There are other places that are gating access that block thousands of acres. What I'm saying is there are hills we should be prepared to die on and some that don't really matter.
Montana hunting is big business. If you have exclusive land with bulls on it you can get $7,500 a week. A guide can run two guys a week and the season is 11 weeks long. That is the potential of $100-150k a year if you are running the business well with only two hunters. I have a college buddy who ranches on family land. They book 15 people a week at $5k and probably have 85% occupancy and no problems filling tags because they own the winter grounds for a huge herd.
It very well may be that the battle ends up loosing some ground, but the big picture is that if something doesn't happen, huge portions or entire mountain ranges could get locked out. If you haven't been to Montana, imagine someone buying all the land around Rainier or Baker and then shutting access. This is exactly what is happening out there.
Another tactic is for timber companies to sell small parcels for huge money. Think of 1 acre going for $1.5M, but that 1 acre happens to circle the gate that accesses 200k acres of timber and NF. They sell it off with a timber easement and the new owner slaps a lock and leases it out to outfitters. Guys around here are rightly going crazy about having to pay for timber access, imagine if that just went completely away overnight with no warning. I hunted a place last year where 6/8 gates became private in the year since the last hunting season. Probably 100k acres or more are now off limits in one unit alone.
We're not talking about mom and pop ranches here, we're talking about losing amazing amounts of public land access to the highest bidder. If you think a guy from Texas rolling in with a billion bucks to spend is going to answer the door when you come knocking for access, we have good examples over the last decade that tell the story.
I wish it were different, but I truly fear the day where I look back and wish we were more aggressive and did more to protect what we have.
Thanks for taking the time to write that in the manner you did, and I totally 100% agree!
It is a big problem and quite frankly I don't know how to separate out the profiteering landowner you're describing, from the old family farm type properties I want to protect so much.
In the end perhaps we hunters can only blame ourselves for being so willing to pay these huge trespassing fees, we've shot ourselves in the foot (not me personally I refuse to pay trespassing fees)
I'll pay for a guide though, and that helps add to the problem as they secure private lands and often times block access to public lands beyond.
I can choose my guides though and only hunt private property or hunt wilderness or other public lands that isn't blocked by private with exclusive access.
but the next guy wouldn't be so scrupulous >:(
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2019, 09:52:27 PM
Quote
“With no public access and the lack of hunting in recent years, Bull Mountain Ranch is easily one of the better elk hunting ranches on the market in Montana. In the past, there have been many trophy quality elk harvested including one year there were three bulls with approximate scores of 350, 364, and 375. Additionally, the ranch boasts other wildlife including mule deer, whitetail deer, turkey, antelope and much more. The largest mule deer taken scored 194 while taking a few 180 class mule deer and a 152 whitetail.”
Post by: Stein on February 18, 2019, 09:54:46 PM
Post by: Alan K on February 18, 2019, 10:02:45 PM
I guess I should have qualified my post in that it's Washington I was talking about since you mentioned Rainier/Baker!
There in Montana though, that is the sort of situation a land swap could work in! Trade this landowner the land for some of his fringe property with county road frontage? Sure it's not those exact acres that are currently public, but trading land locked land for some that isn't shouldn't be out of the question. If this guy in particular told them to pound sand, they could swap with a different private landowner, and the new owner could sell hunting etc. on what this jerk believed was his extension to his private lands. All the sudden the inholding is an annoyance to him and he no longer has access to any of it. That's an idea to keep the pie of public land acres the same size, even if those acres aren't the same ones that they are today. :dunno:
I mentioned what could be done if he didn't want to swap. What is essentially free land for him currently wouldn't be any longer. Thats the only leverage that I can see.
These public agencies need to take a hard look at getting out of their landlocked lands that don't do the public any good.
I can also see some benefit for them to trade if the parcels have something of value such as oil or minerals that the agencies themselves will never benefit from. They could trade those acres for more acres of land which have no such added values. The government agencies don't really lose anything because they weren't going to utilize that value anyway, and we could gain more acreage - with access.
In western Washington every acre with 50 mbf of timber on it could be swapped for 10 acres of young reprod. Expanding public acres for hunting and other recreating, while not truely giving anything up since they won't havest the timber anyways.
Just more thoughts...
Post by: KFhunter on February 18, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
KF, I do think the Block Management program is one solution, they allow landowners to provide access for a modest fee (paid for by the state from license sales) and the state runs the program and provides insurance against the pitfalls of today's society. There is some pretty good ground under that program and people tend to behave pretty well as Wardens tend to keep a close eye on it.
BMA's are awesome, I have no problem with the state setting aside some license sales for landowners for "free" access for hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on February 19, 2019, 08:43:05 AM
Post by: Stein on February 19, 2019, 08:49:02 AM
The map shown regarding the Wlkes is probably by the Snow Mountains, they have bought up a lot of ground in that area and shut it off to public hunting. But the map shown is not a good example of landlocked public land, there is still access through the state land to the BLM and there appears to be no roads into the BLM that were blocked. I know that access has gotten much tougher with the Wilkes buying up land. However, if the lawsuit is about people coming in and buying up land I think it's wrong to take action against other ranchers in general. BHA is pitting hunters against ranchers!
There is zero access to the state or BLM land, they surrounded the entire thing. You can fly a helicopter in there and land, but you cannot get in there on foot, atv, truck or horse.
I agree there has to be a case by case basis on decisions of what to pursue, but the morale of the story is that once it is gone it is gone forever.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 19, 2019, 09:07:39 AM
The map shown regarding the Wlkes is probably by the Snow Mountains, they have bought up a lot of ground in that area and shut it off to public hunting. But the map shown is not a good example of landlocked public land, there is still access through the state land to the BLM and there appears to be no roads into the BLM that were blocked. I know that access has gotten much tougher with the Wilkes buying up land. However, if the lawsuit is about people coming in and buying up land I think it's wrong to take action against other ranchers in general. BHA is pitting hunters against ranchers!This POTENTIAL lawsuit has NOTHING to do with the Wilks Bros or any other land sales/purchases - it is a potential lawsuit against the Forest Service if they do things to give away or erode EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS on 5 trails that access the Crazy Mtns. Frankly, if a landowner (whether they ranch or not) wants to stop allowing hunter access because a group is asking a federal agency not to give up existing public access...that is their prerogative. If more hunters shared your line of thought..."don't do anything that might upset a landowner - give up existing public access if you have to in order to keep them happy"...well, the future would not look to bright for public land hunters.
I would ask any landowner, if they were on the other side, would they just give up legal access to their property? I wouldn't. Why should we expect the public to get screwed and just walk away from their legal access then?
Post by: headshot5 on February 19, 2019, 09:55:10 AM
Again with this public easement thing :bash:
There's a lot of different kinds of easements, the one's we're talking about here are prospective easements
For those that actually have familiarity with easements, we are discussing prescriptive easements, not 'prospective' easements...whatever those are supposed to be.
If you look up prescriptive easements this definition comes up...
A prescriptive easement is an easement upon another's real property acquired by continued use without permission of the owner for a legally defined period. State law, which varies by state, defines the time period required to acquire a prescriptive easement.
It kind of reminds me of squatter's rights on properties.
Post by: buckfvr on February 19, 2019, 10:12:07 AM
Post by: fireweed on February 19, 2019, 05:11:08 PM
Wagon trails.
That was how the land was settled. Do you think they worried about an official Right-of-way or easement for every necessary route? If crossing another's property was such a crime, why on earth was land given out in a checkerboard fashion? It's almost as if it was set up this way to force citizens to build roads and trails. Nobody cared because those trails were needed for fire fighting, mining, grazing, accessing homesteads, hunting, etc. It was not a case of trespassing, but the necessary way to settle the USA. These trails that have been used forever are more akin to navigable rivers and streams that pass through private land. The problem is the new owners closing off historic routes that have un-recorded prescriptive easements. The issue is muddled enough that it needs to be settled by the courts, one way or the other.
Post by: NumaJohn on February 19, 2019, 06:08:18 PM
This is not intended to be a threadjack, as I see lots of comments here about federal public land and access. It is not unwarranted to fear the transfer of lands that belong to ALL Americans to private interests: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/feb/18/big-alaskan-land-giveaway-tucked-into-a-sweeping-c/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/feb/18/big-alaskan-land-giveaway-tucked-into-a-sweeping-c/)
BHA opposes such transfers, and BHA opposes private interests that try to restrict Americans from accessing their own land. You can quibble about BHA's approaches if you like, but I will continue to support this organization (and RMEF) because I believe access is the number one issue facing hunters and anglers as the greedy continue to angle for taking control of what belongs to you and me.
John
Post by: KFhunter on February 19, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
https://www.change.org/p/christian-moms-against-private-education-sell-montana-to-canada-for-1-trillion-to-eliminate-the-national-debt
Post by: NumaJohn on February 19, 2019, 06:24:12 PM
The fact that senators from Alaska are behind the transfer of federal public lands? Not as funny.
John
Post by: KFhunter on February 19, 2019, 06:31:45 PM
Ha! Well, KFhunter, as a native Montanan, I will have to NOT sign that petition, but that's a funny post.
The fact that senators from Alaska are behind the transfer of federal public lands? Not as funny.
John
If you read back a ways I was dubious of the bill and said I needed to research it before I could support it (or come out against it) didn't BHA do their research?
Why do they support this bill?
Post by: fireweed on February 20, 2019, 08:43:41 AM
I am glad that the BHA has threatened to sue the Forest Service. The sad truth is that lawsuits are the only thing that makes the USFS move today.
Post by: jmscon on February 20, 2019, 10:09:01 AM
The sad reality is that today the USFS moves only when prodded by lawsuits. I imagine the BLM is the same way. I've run into this here in Washington, where I've pointed out to the USFS that they are going against their own plans, breaking their own guidelines and laws. My community has sent letters, petitions, had hearings, gotten our congresswoman to question them and push on issues. Their management plans say one thing, but they are doing the exact opposite. But with nobody suing them....nothing changes. It's their modus operandi today: just don't do anything until someone sues.
I am glad that the BHA has threatened to sue the Forest Service. The sad truth is that lawsuits are the only thing that makes the USFS move today.
USFS won’t do anything unless prodded because they don’t have any money. Their budget has been cut so many times and they stopped logging for the most part so money is slim.
It’s the same with WDFW, huge short fall and they are scrambling to make up some of the money. They can’t afford to go into a bunch of litigation over things like wolves in the eastern third so they just stay put and hope no one sues them.
Post by: birddogdad on February 20, 2019, 10:12:32 AM
There's also an online petition to sell Montana to Canada for 1 trillion to ease national debt.
https://www.change.org/p/christian-moms-against-private-education-sell-montana-to-canada-for-1-trillion-to-eliminate-the-national-debt
i would be all for Chicago, NYC and SOCAL to sell off.....
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 20, 2019, 08:53:04 PM
The sad reality is that today the USFS moves only when prodded by lawsuits. I imagine the BLM is the same way. I've run into this here in Washington, where I've pointed out to the USFS that they are going against their own plans, breaking their own guidelines and laws. My community has sent letters, petitions, had hearings, gotten our congresswoman to question them and push on issues. Their management plans say one thing, but they are doing the exact opposite. But with nobody suing them....nothing changes. It's their modus operandi today: just don't do anything until someone sues.
I am glad that the BHA has threatened to sue the Forest Service. The sad truth is that lawsuits are the only thing that makes the USFS move today.
USFS won’t do anything unless prodded because they don’t have any money. Their budget has been cut so many times and they stopped logging for the most part so money is slim.
It’s the same with WDFW, huge short fall and they are scrambling to make up some of the money. They can’t afford to go into a bunch of litigation over things like wolves in the eastern third so they just stay put and hope no one sues them.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on February 20, 2019, 08:57:48 PM
The sad reality is that today the USFS moves only when prodded by lawsuits. I imagine the BLM is the same way. I've run into this here in Washington, where I've pointed out to the USFS that they are going against their own plans, breaking their own guidelines and laws. My community has sent letters, petitions, had hearings, gotten our congresswoman to question them and push on issues. Their management plans say one thing, but they are doing the exact opposite. But with nobody suing them....nothing changes. It's their modus operandi today: just don't do anything until someone sues.
I am glad that the BHA has threatened to sue the Forest Service. The sad truth is that lawsuits are the only thing that makes the USFS move today.
USFS won’t do anything unless prodded because they don’t have any money. Their budget has been cut so many times and they stopped logging for the most part so money is slim.
It’s the same with WDFW, huge short fall and they are scrambling to make up some of the money. They can’t afford to go into a bunch of litigation over things like wolves in the eastern third so they just stay put and hope no one sues them.
It is interesting that the other land agencies are in financial straits, yet the Park Service can drop millions to buy up land around Lake Quinault, move goats, and still complain about not having funds to maintain their current domain...