Access to public land over private land?

PredatorSlayer1

PredatorSlayer1

New member
There is some public land that is fenced off and surrounded by farmers fields. The only way I can find to get to it is to drive on farmer roads and walk through a field to access this land. Is it a requirement to allow people to cross your land to access areas like this for hunting?
 
No. Only access to what you describe is with landowner permission.

Exception is when the government has historical access, a paid easement or an agreement. Sometimes these things get adjudicated but usually only in the case of large public holdings with no access.
 
You cannot access any private property in Utah without the owners permission. Not even to get to public land unless there is a right of way to do so. Check the proclamations it explains about private property.
 
You want to fix this?

First let me say this. If you own the property it is your right to do whatever you want with it plain and simple.

But if you want to fix it so that you can have access so that you can cross to public land. Have legislation enacted that if you cannot cross to public land the said Rancher does not have access to public grazing rights...

You will see a big change in the Ranchers attitude if you cut off public grazing rights..
 
That's what I call land locked.

Here in CA we have BLM land that way and some the only way to reach them is by air or boat if they boarder a lake.
 
I call this type of land the venus fly trap. Tempting you to trespass and hunt. Well the trap caught me on Tuesday. Parked my truck and took the quick lazy route to public land across private (about 300 yards) to hunt coyotes. I called in two and shot one it was a fun evening. I never have days off in the middle of the week. Well long story short I had an army of ranch hands and a game and fish dude watching for me with spotting scopes and binos. I hunted the public land only and I realize I trespassed for a minute or two. I have maps and I am not ignorant. Game and fish dude was cool. I have known him for a while. He was chuckling with me. He has to make the ranch happy so he gave me a "parking violation" instead of a trespassing ticket for a lesser fee. I said "For Gods sake I only hunt coyotes,,,dont they know my truck".....Point is I will never get lazy again and I will access properly. Even a local cant get any slack.
 
Originally Posted By: TrapShooter12But if you want to fix it so that you can have access so that you can cross to public land. Have legislation enacted that if you cannot cross to public land the said Rancher does not have access to public grazing rights...


The rancher pays for public grazing rights, he does not get free access. If the rancher chooses to not pay for grazing rights on public land, you're still not going to have access across private lands. Whether or not he chooses to pay for grazing use, shouldn't affect the use of his private land one bit. Suppose I'm on 14th St and the only way to get to 23rd Ave is thru your backyard. They're both public streets and your private property is in the way. I should be able to tramp thru your yard, right?

Let's try this instead...how about you pay for access to his private land to get to public lands? Actually... that's what the "Open Gate" policies are all about and we have those right here in NM.

What you're suggesting is simply vindictive, not fair. You can't have access across private land to public land and it's his fault.
 
Ok, usually the easiest solution is a simple one. Ask him first if you can cross to hunt coyotes before you do anything.
If he says yes say thanks and move on. If he says no, thank him and move on but....then do some checking to see if this particular area does not already have an easement. If it does nicely remind the land owner of the easement by sending him a letter plus make it known to the appropriate people that there is a problem.

As a last resort..... If there is not an easement file for easement with the government agency that oversees this area demanding right to fair access public domain. Let him fight the unlimited resources of the Gov not your limited resources. Various local hunting organizations can be very helpful to lobby or champion a cause like this.

I always try to solve problems with a kind word first before reaching for a sledge hammer.

I have noticed more and more a growing tension among the landless with the land holders. As a land owner of some prime hunting ground I worked hard to purchase, I did not inherit it. I guard and protect my rights but at the same time I know that there needs to be a better job of communication and at times compromise or else the liberals will intercede and we all lose. I do NOT feel someone should have to pay me to cross my ground if I surround a land locked portion of public ground. There should be access, without me paying for it.
 
Last edited:
I hear ya Shanksalot its happend to a friend of mine up here and pissed a lot of us off...

Get this there is a stream that runs to a large area (like a huge lot) Square shaped you cant trespass on the land around to get to this land but the water is a travel route straight to the area Traveling on water is NOT TRESPASSING as long as your in the flood-line of the stream... Grab a canoe and ride the stream to the hunting area... There are ways around the [beeep] if you know how.. Some people in this world are put in their place real quick with a lil'knowledge...and other's are just to ignorant to deal with anyway they'll get whats comming to them in the long run....
 
Getting permission is very unlikley. Thats both to hunt private land, or just to cross to the public land. Everyone almost always says no. Some times they say no apalogeticaly, but mostly they say it with great enthusiasem. It can be a very hard investigation finding the right person to ask. I have some permission to hunt preditors as of lately, but its not very good hunting. Previos attempts in 30 years yielded 1-2 acceptances. 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". That would be more constitutional, to me. And land owners who have lots of BLM blocked out think that they own all the wild life on both their land,and the public that they block out. Its the liability thing with some, bad expierinces with some, and selfishness with alot of the land owners. Alec
 
"Its the liability thing with some, bad expierinces with some, and selfishness with alot of the land owners."
Same thing up here.
Funny how people have changed around here.Very few Farmers here posted their land and even less kicked anyone off or had them arrested,especially us locals.Now people are almost freakish about property lines in brush and fields and everyone wants their personally managed zoo to hunt in.
Of course their always willing to accept your help if their stuck in the snow or need a jump start or if their hunting on someone elses property and you help them drag their deer.I prefer the previous generations to mine.We're a selfish,jealous,paranoid bunch.
 
Last edited:
I know in Nevada a road or path that exists for 10 or more years is a permanent right of way. I'm not sure of the exact details. But land owners get out of this by posted signs stating access can be revoked at any time. A new land owner cannot puchase land and block a permanent right of way.
 
Originally 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?
 
Originally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: TrapShooter12But if you want to fix it so that you can have access so that you can cross to public land. Have legislation enacted that if you cannot cross to public land the said Rancher does not have access to public grazing rights...


The rancher pays for public grazing rights, he does not get free access. If the rancher chooses to not pay for grazing rights on public land, you're still not going to have access across private lands. Whether or not he chooses to pay for grazing use, shouldn't affect the use of his private land one bit. Suppose I'm on 14th St and the only way to get to 23rd Ave is thru your backyard. They're both public streets and your private property is in the way. I should be able to tramp thru your yard, right?

Let's try this instead...how about you pay for access to his private land to get to public lands? Actually... that's what the "Open Gate" policies are all about and we have those right here in NM.

What you're suggesting is simply vindictive, not fair. You can't have access across private land to public land and it's his fault.



I didn't say that their grazing was free and since they own their land and can do whatever they want like not allow anyone to cross it to gain access to the public land that I pay Taxes for and they have locked up for their personal game preserve. Then they shouldn't be able to use it for grazing.

No Access no Grazing pretty simple method.
 
To answer the original question:

Quote:There is some public land that is fenced off and surrounded by farmers fields. The only way I can find to get to it is to drive on farmer roads and walk through a field to access this land. Is it a requirement to allow people to cross your land to access areas like this for hunting?

It's not a general requirement in most states, but it is very common that there is an access easement. Check with the local authorities (whichever "public" entity owns the land).

If not, then follow Kag's advice above.




Quote: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". That would be more constitutional, to me.

No Alec, that would be UNconstitutional according to the 10th amendment.
 
Originally Posted By: TrapShooter12I didn't say that their grazing was free and since they own their land and can do whatever they want like not allow anyone to cross it to gain access to the public land that I pay Taxes for and they have locked up for their personal game preserve. Then they shouldn't be able to use it for grazing.

No Access no Grazing pretty simple method.

It seems to me that you're upset because you can't get to the public land. However, the fact that he's paying for grazing use is a totally separate issue. AGAIN, If he wasn't paying for grazing, you still wouldn't be able to cross his private land and he still would have access to this "personal game preserve". It seems to me that you're trying to use his grazing lease as leverage.

Never mind the fact that he also pays taxes and if you have the right to harvest The Public Animal, then he should have the right to harvest The Public Grass and not have to pay additional fees to use public land!

The correct way to solve this issue, IMHO, is with an access easement which would stand regardless of whether or not a grazing lease was involved.

 
Originally Posted By: NM_HighPlainsOriginally Posted By: TrapShooter12I didn't say that their grazing was free and since they own their land and can do whatever they want like not allow anyone to cross it to gain access to the public land that I pay Taxes for and they have locked up for their personal game preserve. Then they shouldn't be able to use it for grazing.

No Access no Grazing pretty simple method.

It seems to me that you're upset because you can't get to the public land. However, the fact that he's paying for grazing use is a totally separate issue. AGAIN, If he wasn't paying for grazing, you still wouldn't be able to cross his private land and he still would have access to this "personal game preserve". It seems to me that you're trying to use his grazing lease as leverage.

Never mind the fact that he also pays taxes and if you have the right to harvest The Public Animal, then he should have the right to harvest The Public Grass and not have to pay additional fees to use public land!

The correct way to solve this issue, IMHO, is with an access easement which would stand regardless of whether or not a grazing lease was involved.



You hit two nails on the head. The first one is getting access to public land and that is the only point really. But if they won't allow an access point then a leverage point needs to be created.
 
Originally 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.
 
nmleon I can't remember which amendment is the 10th. Please pm me a reminder. I've got an idea for a new law. Any land locked public land that is used by an adjacient land owner, in any capacity, must be made available to the public by easment by that adjacient land owner. Alec
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top