collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access  (Read 13354 times)

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2019, 09:13:37 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
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.


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
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.   
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline jmscon

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 1197
  • Location: Seattle
  • RMEF BHA TRCP
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2019, 10:37:16 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.
My interpretation of the rules are open to interpretation.
Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.

Offline jmscon

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 1197
  • Location: Seattle
  • RMEF BHA TRCP
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2019, 10:51:45 PM »
This is also where the anti BHA slander is coming from. There are a lot of private property owners who want them to not exist and are willing to buy and publish slanderous articles to help discredit and dismantle them.
My interpretation of the rules are open to interpretation.
Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2019, 10:54:46 PM »
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, 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.

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #79 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. 

Offline jmscon

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 1197
  • Location: Seattle
  • RMEF BHA TRCP
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #80 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.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 11:47:05 PM by jmscon »
My interpretation of the rules are open to interpretation.
Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2019, 11:53:49 PM »
Timber companies blocking access is a whole other topic for another thread,  I don't think timber companies should be equal to private property as a person would own, if they block access then loose their timber tax breaks.  I'm also against different rules for timber such as baiting bears and running hounds while other people can't. 

it's for another thread though

Offline jmscon

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 1197
  • Location: Seattle
  • RMEF BHA TRCP
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2019, 11:57:03 PM »
How about the PCT? Doesn’t lay entirely on public property but does that mean one of the private land owners can shut it down at their will? I’d like to see the number of plaintiffs on that lawsuit!
My interpretation of the rules are open to interpretation.
Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.

Offline CementFinisher

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 1115
  • Location: Spanaway, wa
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2019, 12:48:28 AM »
KFhunter while I agree about timber companys and access, yourthought on depredation make me laugh. so do you think nothing should be done to wolves on behalf of cattle man? prarrie dogs? Deer elk on farms? large flocks of birds? Or is it just thing you want to hunt?

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3534
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #84 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. 
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2019, 08:47:22 AM »
 :yeah:

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. 

Offline fireweed

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: Toutle, Wa
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #86 on: February 16, 2019, 09:57:15 AM »
Again, very misleading!

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.
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. 

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. 
« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 10:12:56 AM by fireweed »

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 37031
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #87 on: February 16, 2019, 12:15:00 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.

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:
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

Offline Oh Mah

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 6614
  • Location: region 3 Montana
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #88 on: February 16, 2019, 01:45:58 PM »
 :yeah: Great point bearpaw.We get caught educating people on the other side of issues all the time.  :tup:
"Boss of the woods"
(this is in reference to the biggie not me).

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34514
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access
« Reply #89 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! 








 ;)

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

10th Annual - 2024 YOUTH TURKEY HUNT CONTEST (enter by Mar 14) by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 11:27:12 PM]


World Record Archery Blacktail by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 10:09:06 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington bull by huntnnw
[Yesterday at 10:06:34 PM]


Fishing with kids in Wenatchee by HardCorpsHuntr
[Yesterday at 10:03:34 PM]


Let’s see your best Washington buck by jjhunter
[Yesterday at 09:12:44 PM]


Hunting Dog Memorial by ghosthunter
[Yesterday at 08:55:30 PM]


Pairs by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 08:15:34 PM]


Springer 2024 Columbia River by Blacklab
[Yesterday at 06:50:06 PM]


Holster for FNS 40C by bb76
[Yesterday at 06:37:56 PM]


Bangers and mash by elkrack
[Yesterday at 04:32:06 PM]


Wenatchee Hydro Park Fishing by Jake Dogfish
[Yesterday at 03:40:17 PM]


Owners of Ireland Farms Dogs by ASHQUACK
[Yesterday at 12:24:39 PM]


1x scopes vs open sights by andersonjk4
[Yesterday at 09:23:28 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal