Access to public land over private land?

Dogcatcher
The idea of selling federal lands to allow private industry to provide land management has not worked on any continent in the world. Read about the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation. Here is a website link for it http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/HuntersConservation/Model.htm

Revenue obtained from hunting and fishing pays for wildlife habitat improvements on public lands. The people that purchase ammo, firearms, and fishing gear, pay for the majority of wildlife management and habitat improvements, not the general tax payer. Check out the Pittman-Robertson Act http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/pract.html and the Dingell-Johnson Act http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/djact.html

Nonconsumtive users of public lands (birdwatchers, hikers, photographers, etc.) that enjoy viewing wildlife do not contribute to its management. It is best to continue the North American Wildlife Conservation Model because it is the most successful program in the world.
 
Originally Posted By: TrapShooter121) Who pays to put out a wildfire when it starts on public land and crosses to your property?

2) I will also bet that if there is an established road crossing your property on to public land that the road was in existence long before you owned your property.

3) I will also bet that 95% of the problem with gates and other damage is because some one is doing it to cause you a problem for lack of access to the public land


1) Actually, as a member of the volunteer fire department... I do! I also put out fires on public land and on my neighbor's private land who are not in the VFD.

2) I don't see your point here. It was still private land before we bought it. To the best of my knowledge, no public land became private.

3) We're back to vindictiveness.

Originally Posted By: dtm6582
At some point, likely in the distant past the land you now "own" was taken without compensation. I could reasonably argue that you are in possession of stolen public land.


And where did THEY get it?

I'm reminded of the dialog between Colonel Miles and Chief Sitting Bull in "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". I don't know how historically accurate the quote is (who does?!) but "Colonels Miles" makes a good point:

"No matter what your legends say, you didn’t sprout from the plains like the spring grasses and you didn’t coalesce out of the ether. You came out of the Minnesota woodlands armed to the teeth and set upon your fellow man. You massacred the Kiowa, the Omaha, the Ponca, the Oto and the Pawnee without mercy. ....Chief Sitting Bull, the proposition that you were a peaceable people before the appearance of the white man is the most fanciful legend of all! You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent. You conquered those tribes, lusting for their game and their lands. Just as we have now conquered you for no less noble a cause.”

So... where did the people before us get the land? Most of the Natives didn't believe in "owning" the land- they only used it (although they sure seemed to claim herds and hunting grounds). I dunno- would you call that "Communism" today?

Originally Posted By: dtm6582
Maybe instead of arguing about this we can work harder to propose ideas that will improve the relationship between landowners and those without land but who love to hunt. Fursniper, that program you mentioned sounds great.

I fully agree and that really is the value of this discussion. I'm a landowner, a public land leaser, a public land hunter, a private land hunter, a former wildlife biologist, and a 6th generation rancher. I have irons in quite a few fires, some of them conflicting fires. The point is that if we can't come to an agreement about these issues among ourselves, we're going to be in trouble if our opponents are able to take those issues and use them to drive wedges.

I absolutely, totally agree that access to public land is a good thing and I myself have been barred from sections upon sections of USFS land by a mere 100 yds of private land. But I do NOT think that leveraging or forcing access is the way to go about it.
 
The total proceeds of the tax on the Pittman-Robertson Act and Dingell-Johnson Act isn't even close to enough dollars to provide the total cost of the management of the federal lands. Look at the budget of the Department of Interior, tell me that the taxes paid on ammo, firearms, and fishing gear could pay the electric bill. The balance is paid by the general public in tax dollars. Since hunters are a minority, it stands to reason that the majority of the tax dollars used to maintain the public lands comes from non users tax dollars.
 
If a private landowner has public land that is it's access is through the private land, then that landowner should be able to prohibit anyone from accessing the public land through his private land.

It's a simple principle of law, whether or not he has a permit to graze the public land.

Private owned land is exactly that. Private Land.

Lets CHANGE the scenario here for a bit....
wink.gif


If you own a lot that your house sits on, but you have a PUBLIC ALLEY, or public GOLF COURSE, or a PUBLIC PARK behind it.....

Should YOU have to grant access to the public lands behind your house, and let anyone in that took a notion to drive there pickup through your backyard swim party, or family BBQ, just because the land ti public on the other side of YOUR property boundary?
confused.gif
Would you care to have people walking through your yard to take their trash to your dumpster behind your house in a public alleyway?

I think not.

Free Enterprize is based on OWNERSHIP of property and the rights that it entails. Anything to the contrary is socialism or communism at best.
 
NM Highplains,

I've thought many times about the misconception of Native Americans and land ownership. You statement is dead on. Generally the view of ownership was not embraced directly, but there was an idea of land RIGHTS. I also couldn't agree more on the value of resolving these disputes internally. I think we all can see that going forward, as the population of the US increases, the conflict between land owners and non-landowners will increase. I sincerely hope this is something we can work out among ourselves. I think we can all also agree that if we don't then it will be left to our politicians...a sure lose for everyone involved.

Rockinbbar, you missed my point. I am very familiar with your perspective. I was playing Devil's Advocate in a sense. The part of your post that shook me the most was the shift to "free enterprise". Property rights are generally considered to be important in our current economic model. Your "socialism or communism" conclusion however is incredibly shortsighted. Communism was a good idea. So is Socialism. So is Capitalism. The failure of Communism and Socialism is NOT with the idea. The failure is that mankind cannot operate efficiently under those mechanisms.

I am afraid the free market has suffered the same fate. In an age when we cannot drastically cut government spending without crippling the economy I cannot understand how we can declare our model as successful. 250ish years is a bit premature for a "success" rating to begin with. Couple that with the obvious manipulation of the market by government forces (often by special interest group, ie corporate entities) and the only conclusion I can reach is that a "free market" has not existed in this country for hundreds of years.

Some people in our society blindly follow what they are told. They do not question the world around them. The simply fall into line with how things have always been done. Through history, these people have contributed little. My hope is that fellow members will learn from this to constantly challenge the preconceptions of the world around them. To stay on top of the changing ways of the world. I firmly believe that only then can we protect our ways in the future.
 
Is stealing from a thief really stealing?
Just saying..

I believe the only real & fair solution is access easement.
Most of the landlocked problems in the west surround blm properties. The blm has the power to force an easement through legal means, but seldom does so for political reasons.
Would it upset some folks if a blm roadway were established? You bet! Same as it upsets some folks when 12th and 24th streets get connected by a new expressway.

Also, a lot of good ol' boy sales and purchases have occured that has benefited the few and cutoff the majority.
That is why those blue squares on the map are not evenly spaced.
 
nmleon said:
10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the constitution does it authorize the feds to control game management.




Nowhere in the 10th does it state who owns wild life. Management and ownership are not the same. As American citizens we have freedom. That mean we can own things like land, say anything, and move about freely in america, and live & work in any state. Saying the wildlife in one state is not owned by all americans, but only by the residents of that state in my mind is uncontitutional. That becouse in the California code it says "the citizens of the state of California" but we "or I " are, or am not citizens , but rather residents of California. What my citizenship is, is clearly American. I pledge of alegence to only one Flag. I feel the cost of hunting, fishing licenses and tags should be the same for all citizens.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherPublic hunting land, it is land that is maintained with state and federal tax dollars. Some see it is a form of welfare for hunters that do not own or pay to lease private land to hunt on. Maybe the sale of all public lands would be in the best interest of all of the taxpayers, not just the few that have access to it.

The annual tax dollar savings could be in the billions.

And then we can go by way of Italy or England or India where only a few welthy people can hunt. Yea dog cather the class system is not about rights at all. I've got land so you can kiss my feet, and be my servant. Well to [beeep] with that really stupid idea !! Alec
 
Originally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: AlecOriginally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: Alec In California the game animals are owned "by the people of the state of California". Its in the Fish and game code that way. I think it should be "the people of the USA".

Who's responsibility should it be when the peoples' animals eat crops on private land?



Wildlife as always been here, damage to crops has always happened. It goes with the territory.

Well, that's interesting.

The reason I asked this question is because I want to know who- in this law that ya'll'uns are fixing to pass- is going to be responsible for the gates left open on my private land, the damage to my private land when you get stuck in the mud, the maintenance on my private road after you've torn it up, and the trash that people leave behind on my private land while you're on the way to our public lands?


With freedom comes responsibility. Anyone who damages anyone else in any way is responsable. Also access to public through privat does not neccesarily mean vehical passage. Alec

 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarIf a private landowner has public land that is it's access is through the private land, then that landowner should be able to prohibit anyone from accessing the public land through his private land.

It's a simple principle of law, whether or not he has a permit to graze the public land.

Private owned land is exactly that. Private Land.

Lets CHANGE the scenario here for a bit....
wink.gif


If you own a lot that your house sits on, but you have a PUBLIC ALLEY, or public GOLF COURSE, or a PUBLIC PARK behind it.....

Should YOU have to grant access to the public lands behind your house, and let anyone in that took a notion to drive there pickup through your backyard swim party, or family BBQ, just because the land ti public on the other side of YOUR property boundary?
confused.gif
Would you care to have people walking through your yard to take their trash to your dumpster behind your house in a public alleyway?

I think not.

Free Enterprize is based on OWNERSHIP of property and the rights that it entails. Anything to the contrary is socialism or communism at best.


private is private, I agree but PUBLIC IS PUBLIC as well. Public having access to public does not make us communists , or address free entiprise or the freedom to make a buck. I know your the moderator here and a land owner, but thats my opnion.
 
Originally Posted By: Alec
nmleon said:
[color:red]
Nowhere in the 10th does it state who owns wild life. Management and ownership are not the same. As American citizens we have freedom. That mean we can own things like land, say anything, and move about freely in america, and live & work in any state. Saying the wildlife in one state is not owned by all americans, but only by the residents of that state in my mind is uncontitutional. That becouse in the California code it says "the citizens of the state of California" but we "or I " are, or am not citizens , but rather residents of California. What my citizenship is, is clearly American. I pledge of alegence to only one Flag. I feel the cost of hunting, fishing licenses and tags should be the same for all citizens.

You could also argue that because wildlife often cross state boundaries and we have to pay to take game (through licensing) it is covered by the interstate commerce clause.

I also think forcing an easement FOR WHICH THE LAND OWNER IS COMPENSATED is not unreasonable to establish access to landlocked private lands. I should also note this access road should be built, maintained, and fenced at the public's expense.
Click to expand...
 
Without a easment NOBODY uses it simple enough.

Originally Posted By: dtm6582Originally Posted By: Alec
nmleon said:
[color:red]
Nowhere in the 10th does it state who owns wild life. Management and ownership are not the same. As American citizens we have freedom. That mean we can own things like land, say anything, and move about freely in america, and live & work in any state. Saying the wildlife in one state is not owned by all americans, but only by the residents of that state in my mind is uncontitutional. That becouse in the California code it says "the citizens of the state of California" but we "or I " are, or am not citizens , but rather residents of California. What my citizenship is, is clearly American. I pledge of alegence to only one Flag. I feel the cost of hunting, fishing licenses and tags should be the same for all citizens.

You could also argue that because wildlife often cross state boundaries and we have to pay to take game (through licensing) it is covered by the interstate commerce clause.

I also think forcing an easement FOR WHICH THE LAND OWNER IS COMPENSATED is not unreasonable to establish access to landlocked private lands. I should also note this access road should be built, maintained, and fenced at the public's expense.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: dtm6582NM Highplains,
I've thought many times about the misconception of Native Americans and land ownership. BIG SNIP....

That was a good post and I agree with most, if not all, your points.

 
Originally Posted By: dtm6582Originally Posted By: Alec
nmleon said:
[color:red]
Nowhere in the 10th does it state who owns wild life. Management and ownership are not the same. As American citizens we have freedom. That mean we can own things like land, say anything, and move about freely in america, and live & work in any state. Saying the wildlife in one state is not owned by all americans, but only by the residents of that state in my mind is uncontitutional. That becouse in the California code it says "the citizens of the state of California" but we "or I " are, or am not citizens , but rather residents of California. What my citizenship is, is clearly American. I pledge of alegence to only one Flag. I feel the cost of hunting, fishing licenses and tags should be the same for all citizens.

You could also argue that because wildlife often cross state boundaries and we have to pay to take game (through licensing) it is covered by the interstate commerce clause.

I also think forcing an easement FOR WHICH THE LAND OWNER IS COMPENSATED is not unreasonable to establish access to landlocked private lands. I should also note this access road should be built, maintained, and fenced at the public's expense.


I don't think wildlife is commerce, but I do agree land owners cannot be impacted with out compensation. The lagistics of easment are many and varied and not always practical, but the huge public parcels used exclusivly by 1 or 2 private land owners as their own hunt club is not fair. Alec
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: Alec

private is private, I agree but PUBLIC IS PUBLIC as well. Public having access to public does not make us communists , or address free entiprise or the freedom to make a buck. I know your the moderator here and a land owner, but thats my opnion.

There usually is access, the problem is too many people are too lazy and think they are too busy to drive the public access so they take the easy route through private property. That is where quite a bit of the problem lies, that along with not showing respect to the landowner.
 
Originally Posted By: AlecI don't think wildlife is commerce, but I do agree land owners cannot be impacted with out compensation. The lagistics of easment are many and varied and not always practical, but the huge public parcels used exclusivly by 1 or 2 private land owners as their own hunt club is not fair. Alec

And make the average taxpayer supplement your hunting expenses? How is that fair to the average taxpayer?

I have been retired for along time, and I can tell you that in this world there are a lot of things that are not fair. The federal public lands should pay for their own upkeep or be sold. Make everyone pay a daily use fee, just like in a park for camping.
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarIf you own a lot that your house sits on, but you have a PUBLIC ALLEY, or public GOLF COURSE, or a PUBLIC PARK behind it.....

Should YOU have to grant access to the public lands behind your house, and let anyone in that took a notion to drive there pickup through your backyard swim party, or family BBQ, just because the land ti public on the other side of YOUR property boundary?
confused.gif
Would you care to have people walking through your yard to take their trash to your dumpster behind your house in a public alleyway?

I think not.

Normally I agree with most of your posts Barry, but you're way off base on this one. Your scenario is far from an apples to apples comparison. I have yet to see a public alley, golf course, or park that didn't have an alternate means of legal public access that didn't involve crossing private property. I don't think the OP was talking about a plot of public land that had a public road going in to it. He's talking about public land that is completely locked in by private land. Should a land owner be able to block all access to public land? Absolutely not. Should they have a right to control the routes used to access it? Absolutely.

I know there are a lot of knuckleheads out there hunting that cause lots of problems for landowners. I'm sorry about that. I've had to contend with them myself. I was shot at by some derelict on the opening day of deer season. Thank god he couldn't shoot any better than he could think. I had antelope spooked and shot out from under me too. I've seen gates left open and all of the problems that some of you have listed. That still doesn't give you a right to keep the public off of public property. The public has a right to use public land just like you have the right to use your land as you wish. One road allowing access is all it would take. If you don't want to do that, you have every right to sell that land and buy something else that doesn't butt up with public ground. It's that simple.

Dog Catcher, I have no idea how to help you. Just please stay where you are and some nice doctors in white coats will be along in a little bit. Don't fuss, just go with them. Maybe they can fix whatever is wrong with you. In a day when the government spends tax dollars to bail out private business and rewards non-working bums with an over active sex drive with a pay per kid welfare plan, I'm sure there are far bigger wastes of tax dollars than the BLM. I know the hip thing down there is to think everyone should have to pay to hunt but there are 49 other states out there that have a say in things too.

Nate
 
Originally Posted By: Borderdog
I don't think the OP was talking about a plot of public land that had a public road going in to it. He's talking about public land that is completely locked in by private land. Should a land owner be able to block all access to public land? Absolutely not. Should they have a right to control the routes used to access it? Absolutely.


Wow, I couldn't agree more. I'm also curious where this perception that you can do whatever you want with private land came from. Try building a casino. How about a cock/dog fight ring. Then a marijuana farm. Oh, and then stop paying your property taxes. There are a lot of restrictions placed on private property also. Requiring access to public lands through private seems pretty minor compared to the other things land owners are required to do.

Originally Posted By: Borderdog
Dog Catcher, I have no idea how to help you. Just please stay where you are and some nice doctors in white coats will be along in a little bit. Don't fuss, just go with them. Maybe they can fix whatever is wrong with you. In a day when the government spends tax dollars to bail out private business and rewards non-working bums with an over active sex drive with a pay per kid welfare plan, I'm sure there are far bigger wastes of tax dollars than the BLM. I know the hip thing down there is to think everyone should have to pay to hunt but there are 49 other states out there that have a say in things too.
Nate

I was laughing as I read this too. When I was younger I agreed with Dogcatcher. By now I've experienced enough of the world to know just how flawed his logic is. Not only is there value beyond the monetary in preserving open public lands. Many people besides hunters utilize these. It is far from 'hunting only' property. He is also mildly delusional if he really thinks day use fees cover all the costs of maintaining campgrounds. He seems hung up on the monetary though, so here's the monetary reason to NOT sell federal lands. Property values would plummet. Federal lands create something economists call scarcity. Put those lands up for sale (reducing scarcity) and our land value model falls apart. Besides, doing this just allocates more to those with money at the expense of those without. We demonize communism because it takes from the wealthy and redistributes to the poor, but we embrace capitalism which we have warped into taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy. There has to be something left for the common man.
 
Originally Posted By: dtm65821) Try building a casino. How about a cock/dog fight ring. Then a marijuana farm. Oh, and then stop paying your property taxes. There are a lot of restrictions placed on private property also. Requiring access to public lands through private seems pretty minor compared to the other things land owners are required to do.

2) We demonize communism because it takes from the wealthy and redistributes to the poor, but we embrace capitalism which we have warped into taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy. There has to be something left for the common man.

1) the way I see those issues is that all the things you listed, except for the taxes, are activities that you can't do, period. You can't do them on private OR public land. Requiring access thru private land, though, is something that requires me to give up a section of my private land for public access. And then the issue of maintenance comes up again- who's responsible for taking care of the road? So, again, I'm back to "easement". When a road is widened don't the landowners along the way get compensated for the loss of their land? Or is it just taken away from them? This is basically the same issue, as is public access to beaches.

2) Here's where I think I agree with you- the problem is "us". If I could trust everyone crossing my private land to treat it with the same respect and care as I do, not leave trash, not steal things, not run their meth labs, and so forth, then I'd have no problem with granting access. In fact, I'd be happy to help them out- as I'm currently happy to grant access right now to like-minded folks. Unfortunately, I can't trust people. Actually, for that matter, not every private land owner has the same standards, as evidenced by the amount of trash and clutter and open sewage systems we see on private lands (resulting in legislation to curb those things). The problem's with the people, IMHO. And, of course, if your standards are different from mine, then you think the problem's with the people, too- namely, ME!!!
smile.gif


I don't think there's a solution where everyone's going to be happy.


 
There are always going to be unrespectful peolpe. All you can do is try to judge the charecter of each on the merrits at hand. If they did put in a new road against a property line complete with fence then the land owner would get money for the eminent domain land and have some pertection to keep the public off the rest.
As far as Dogcather goes you have to try not to be selfish and put your self in someone elses shoes. Your an honest, hard working, american born, voteing, tax paying citizen. Your family never owned any land except homes in residencial areas. Land owners always say no when approched for permission to hunt. The land owners in your church, with kids in the same class as your kids, in the same clubs, orgs ect, always shy away from you becouse your not a land owner and they don't want to be asked for permission for hunting. They are a very up tight group. All you have is public land. Now it doesent require that much baby sitting, its just land, and general the public land hold way less wild life then the suroundin private. What we can do is sell a little bit of this public land and use the money to fund your Frontal Lobotimy.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top