Access to public land over private land?

Just a few general observations. First of all, I am a land owner. I have recently sold a farm in Virginia and have just purchased modest acreage in Montana. I realize that I am very fortunate. I also realize that we each make choices in life. I don't drive fancy automobiles or have expensive ATVs or take extravagant vacations. Rather, I tend to purchase land. In no way have I ever looked down upon a man because of his self defined caste; especially in church.

Our new property does share a border with four sections of "land locked" BLM. When approached for access I use the same criterion to judge folks that I do when they are seeking permission to hunt. I ask questions about their intentions. I judge their spoken response for truthfulness and I also judge their body language. Plain and simple, if you won't look me in the eye, I don't want you around the place. If you have a truck bed full of empty beer cans, you need not even ask. If it is opening morning of hunting season, and you have never been around the place before, then my wife is likely not going to give you permission either.

In my time in Montana prior to purchasing a place of our own, I was able to gain access to nearly every piece of property I wanted. And yes, sometimes I even swapped work for that access. My point is, a few social graces and a little humility will carry you far in this world. Offering a "Frontal Lobotimy" is only going to perpetuate further angst. And a dictionary would not hurt either......
John
 

As I was reading the other posts I was thinking what I was going to post and this is what I was thinking on a farm there is always something to do repair fences,gates,clean ditches ect... And most farmers or land owners can always use an extra hand in exchange for hunting access it's a small price for good hunting if you ask me even if they say no I'll normally say thanks for your time and if there is anything I can help you with let me know it builds good relationships and even[size:17pt][/size] just might get a new freind out of the deal it's not always about the kill just my opinion though that's how I handle it and you'll usually get permission after that cause they can see you intent is a good one they do have the right to say no but if everyone else tells them where to go when they say no you might just be the only guy out there what a shame huh so I'll continue to do it my way and I'll tell you how good the hunting is when I'm done.

 
Last edited:
I think historically we have volumes full of where this is going. Many many accounts of land reform or redistribution...or just plain theft as I see it. Even here in a hunting forum you see the anger and frustration on both sides.........needs to be a much better job of the landless and the landholders understanding each other.
 
Originally Posted By: NM_HighPlains[/quote

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.




You would be compensated for your land. This would happen by allowing your Livestock access to public grazing.
And to quote you again yes this is a leverage tactic.

What alot of people don't understand is that out West if your a Cattle Ranch you will not be able to feed your Livestock unless you can run them on Public Land for grazing. If they had to keep their Livestock on their private property they would eventually be eaten out of house and home. Public grazing allows them to own way more Livestock than what their private land can actually hold for a year period.

High Plains why don't you approach the BLM and Fish and Wildlife and tell them that you are willing to allow access to the Public land you have locked up if they come in and address your concerns. You might be surprised at the help and understanding you would get.
 
Originally Posted By: TrapShooter12
You would be compensated for your land. This would happen by allowing your Livestock access to public grazing. Really? Even though ranchers with a grazing permit already pay the annual fee? And, even pay inheritance taxes on the BLM land as if it were private land?And to quote you again yes this is a leverage tactic.

What alot of people don't understand is that out West if your a Cattle Ranch you will not be able to feed your Livestock unless you can run them on Public Land for grazing. If they had to keep their Livestock on their private property they would eventually be eaten out of house and home. Public grazing allows them to own way more Livestock than what their private land can actually hold for a year period.

What you are generalizing here is missing the fact that "out West" a LOT of the land IS private and supports just as many cattle as the permit. In Texas, it's all private. Ranchers have to manage the permit as well as the private. If it's overgrazed, it won't make a living for them...private or public.


High Plains why don't you approach the BLM and Fish and Wildlife and tell them that you are willing to allow access to the Public land you have locked up if they come in and address your concerns. You might be surprised at the help and understanding you would get.

Trapshooter, why don't you approach a land owner with something like sincerity & showing them that you want to have a vested interest in their operation, as well as sharing concern for the management of the land. You might be surprised at the "help and understanding" you get from that, -vs- earing a sense of entitlement on your shoulder.

While using the strong arm type of "Leverage Tactic" that is decribed herein MAY work with some ranchers, let me give another scenario that could happen:

If I held a grazing permit that was a re-entrant tract of public land that I paid for each year for the grazing, and were left with the choice of letting who-ever wanted to cross my private land to access it, or lose the permit for grazing, I would in NO uncertain terms tell the BLM or whoever where they could shove their permit.
wink.gif


1) If it's a re-entrant tract to my private property, then I'm probably the only one that could consider grazing it in the first place.

2) Again, if it's a re-entrant tract to my private land, I would not let anyone else access it through my private land for the purpose of grazing or hunting, so in effect, I would shut down ALL access to it. So, the land would sit there ungrazed, unhunted, and unmanaged. (That's what the tree huggers want anyway, right?)

There are LOTS of re-entrant tracts of land that are Natl. Forest & BLM, State, etc. that are surrounded by private land in the U.S.....Perhaps the best thing would be to sell it at auction for a fair price & reduce the natl. debt? Don't laugh, this has been STRONGLY considered by the National Forest Service in recent years. Even if nobody bought the land, it would have to be fenced by the govt. to prohibit the rancher from using it anyway.....(Most states in the West have fencing laws that dictate the way it was handled from the start.....If you don't want someone or something on your land, then YOU have the responsibility to fence them off of it. The vast majority of these re-entrant tracts are not fenced at all, so the surrounding landowner would control them anyway.

I value my PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS as much as I do my GUN RIGHTS.

When we start taking FREEDOMS & RIGHTS, where would it stop?

At what point do YOU say "Enough. I'm standing up for my rights!"?

Don't look for BLM to "strongarm" the ranchers anytime soon. Have you ever wondered why the BLM often seems like they are on the side or ranchers? Here's a true story....

Years ago, the US Congress failed to fund the BLM and all it's empoyees for TWO YEARS running. Well, being as the BLM, or General Land Office, as it was back then was founded to help the ranchers that homesteaded the land in unsettled areas, the ranchers rallyed around the BLM office and all it's employees.....The ranchers further took it upon themselves to help the BLM employees and started a fund, in which they all contributed. This fund payed the saleries of all the employees for two years, until congress funded them again, based on politics initiated by the ranchers. True Story...Check it out.
cool.gif


So, in my humble opinion, it is way better to try & gain premission from a rancher that has some public land access you want, than it is to try & infringe on freedoms and rights that we all enjoy as Americans.
thumbup1.gif
If you get turned down, then there's plenty of public land that you can access without going down that road. If the game is more plentiful in the access blocked area, and the bulls and bucks are bigger because the rancher has limited access to it, then what does THAT say about how the lands that are not limited are managed for natural resources?
confused.gif
Perhaps it says that the landowner is RIGHT?
huh.gif
 
I didn't read every single response to the question at hand. I did read enough to know there are two sides to this "problem".
The same situation exists here in Arkansas, with only minor differences. The "public" land is mainly Arkansas Game and Fish Commission land designated as Wildlife Management Areas. No BLM land here.
If said "public" land is surrounded totaly by private land with no "public" road, or "flowing stream" access it is practically impossible to get to. The surrounding landowner(s) consider it their property as far as hunting and fishing goes. Grazing is not allowed on Game and Fish property.
If denied permission to cross private, your only recourse is take them to court which is not usually an option money wise.
Being that it was also my buying hunting and fishing license that paid for the land, it does upset me there is no access.
On the other hand, I know there are many who would have no respect for the privately owned land, by tearing up the roads or littering.
I have a few peeple that will let me crow and coyote hunt after deer season on their property. To keep access I allways pick up and remove any trash I come accross even though it is not mine.
Some peeple deny access just because they're jerks, and some deny it because of past bad experiences.
This is a double edged sword with very few good options.

Shayne
 
Here is a map of the federal lands in the US.
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg

After playing the devils advocate here are my real opinions. Do I really think the land should be sold, no, do I think there should be access fees, yes. Just like the rancher pays for the grazing rights, I feel the hunter, and other people that enjoy the use of the land should pay some sort of fee for the use of the land. There is no guaranteed right in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that you can hunt on federal land.

The number of landlocked pieces of federal land are minimal, in my opinion not enough to be concerned with. The landowner is not obligated to give you permission. Take that up with the BLM. The easiest way maybe through a rancher's private property, we as hunters have no rights to trespass. It may take 2 hours to drive to the public access, and that is what we should do instead some feel they have to trespass, because they are too lazy to drive top the public access. Unfortunately there are some hunters that do not feel the same, they ruin it for everyone. Others are just slobs, leave gates open, leave trash, decide to 4 wheel on private roads and the list goes on. Quite a few times that a piece of property is taken out of the hunting market by a landowner it is because of the latter. The same reason for denying access.

Even the roads, that are easements, these are usually maintained by the landowner, not by BLM. When that road is trashed, the landowner pays to fix it. We had an easement through our property that we maintained, inconsiderate people ruined the road, over and over again. So we built another road outside of the easement. The easement road soon deteriorated to deep ruts, and mud holes. Then people started using our gate and using our road. They would shoot the locks off and drive down our private road. Trespassing can get you fines and jail time in Texas, it only took one time for everyone to learn a lesson.
 
Originally Posted By: yotehunter57 Some peeple deny access just because they're jerks, and some deny it because of past bad experiences.
This is a double edged sword with very few good options.

Shayne

In my experience with landowners the latter is the main reason a lot of access is denied. Bad experiences cost a lot of people access to our places. Lack of respect to the land by one person can really sour a landowner in a hurry if it takes a few dollars, along with a few days worth of work to fix something.
 
Offering a "Frontal Lobotimy" is only going to perpetuate further angst. And a dictionary would not hurt either......
John [/quote] The Frontal Lobotimy was not about access through privat land but in responce to the idea of selling ALL public land. Sorry if you felt it was on the hard side. And yes John, I'm not the worlds best speller.

Part of the frestration on the public side is if we get permission to hunt private land then tradeing labor ect. may be in order. But to get access to land-locked public land, I don't feel anyone should be beholding to anyone else. Maybe only a single land owner can graze a piece of public, but it still is everyones land. Alec
 
Originally Posted By: Alec But to get access to land-locked public land, I don't feel anyone should be beholding to anyone else. Maybe only a single land owner can graze a piece of public, but it still is everyones land. Alec

That is between you and the BLM, the private land owner is not the one that created the problem. It is their land, the BLM can either buy or use imminent domain to buy it or lease an easement. But the land owner does not have to give you any access until he is compensated for letting you use his land. An option would be set up a toll road but I am sure a lot of people would skip out on paying the toll.

That landowner is paying for the grazing rights, he did his part. He is not using it without cost like you are anyone else that uses it for any recreational purpose. The BLM could say that it is not for public use, or tell you that if you want to hunt it, get a helicopter. They actually do not have to buy or lease access to that landlocked land. And if you cross without permission, the landowner can file charges.
 
There are other goverment programs that helps land owners at taxpayer expense. Here are the examples I mean in farming country around here.
In the early 1970s every piece of property possible was cleared of all timber even if it was crappy farm ground.
Then in the late 80s and early 90s the land owners were paid to plant this property bact in trees. Mostly pines, but some hardwood and other species. These peeple were paid $50 an acre per year for 10 years. Then they were built reserviors to water their crops with, again with taxpayer $$.
And yes, no trespassing or hunting or fishing on this property, that without our tax money, would not be worth farming, or much of anything else.
These are just my personal rantings and ravings that mean less than squat
Finally; we as hunters and outdoors peeple, we must stay banded together and strong as a force against the anti-hunting groups out there.

Shayne
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top