Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Business, Finance & Legal › What people do when…
More and more, that answer is a resounding “NO” because far too many never make an effort to ask. I have had to repair the same fence in the same place three times in the past two years. The tree stand is about 50 feet from that spot in the fence. The first sign of a problem is when I notice my cattle in my neighbor’s pasture. So, I get the pleasure of separating mine from his, pushing them out a gate onto the road, down the road and into a gate on my place. Then gather supplies, drive across my neighbor’s pasture to get to the same spot again with fresh cut marks and four-wheeler tracks.
@jitterboogie I live in small town, New Jersey, what’s left of it and the township is the biggest one (by area) in the largest county. More than 1/2 of the land area is either farms or State forest with the total population being 6K people. All of us old time residents know each other by name and face and there is nowhere in town that I can go without knowing somebody personally.
I’m not one into FB shaming people, I took the higher road and told the locals in the area about the situation, a considerable number of which are hunters. The bag it and tag it approach doesn’t work if you “find it” on your own property and don’t have to transport it, but asking for permission to legally collect it from private property is required by law to prevent a trespassing charge.
I guarantee that beautiful farm fed buck did not make it 100 yards from the fence line with all of the froth from the lings in the blood trail.
My understanding is that this case has been a long time coming. The checkerboarding of public and private sections in some western states creates access issues for non hunters as well.
I grew up in Maine where everyone is guaranteed access to water and the right to fish and foul. The public holds a blanket easement making it impossible for an individual to exclude fishing and waterfowl hunting access to a river or lake. If a landowner does not post their property, anyone is allowed to hunt it. I was flabbergasted when I found out that the opposite was true in the west. No matter, different strokes for different folks but it has the feel of, “I’ve got mine, now to heck with you”.
I lean towards staunch support of landowner rights, but go to Google Earth and look at some of the areas in question and tell me it doesn’t seem absurd that a law abiding citizen should be prohibited from corner crossing on foot, public to public.
Understood.
In Colorado, if an angry land owner refuses to allow access(their rights) and then they post it on Facebook and don’t have a license, The Cpw wildlife manager will go up and ticket them, and that’s that. I like shaming wrong doers, esp if the really deserve it.
And I understand why you’re not. I’m like Switzerland, highly confrontational if you invade my space but otherwise amiable.
Mr Kow, however, is mote and wall isolationism, and I can appreciate the frustration, but access isn’t an absolutely solid right or privilege and needs to be discussed, and worked out.
The idea that there is no intent to retain access to remaining lands is beyond absurd when the grantor is the federal government.
The grantor in many cases anymore is a private citizen or entity placing what was private land into the public lands. That is how many of the checkerboards came about. The problem did not exist until the Government acquired those landlocked tracts.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of public land that is economically useless. When it was offered for homesteading, no one wanted it for that purpose for any one of fifty reasons, including access to water. Thus, it has stayed unwanted.
And the Railroad Grants.
That opened a whole barrel of worms across the west and southwest especially when the Reservations were being determined.
Funny too. Have to stop here before I get into trouble.
???Edited wrong thread???
I’m not sure if the out-of-state hunter point, wealth and entitlement, is directed at the plaintiff or the defendants. For consideration, the Wyoming “resident”:
Eshelman <cough> North Carolina.
I believe that personal property rights are the issue you’re reacting to. If so, I get it and I believe in them. However, I also see it being like the very wealthy (new) homeowner’s that try to close undedicated beach/ water access after 50+ years of public use. When the natural ‘amenities’ you grew up with become the protected playgrounds of the rich (incorporated, perhaps), or their vacation extortion rackets, it’s equally frustrating. And from where I stand, money almost always carries the courts; mainly through attrition.
It’s not my intent to reply and run but, I’ve got to get out of here. I’ll circle back.
Just noticed this was a 4 pager. Later, I’ll read the rest and, I note that the above response was off the cuff.
- Posted by: @holy-cow
The grantor in many cases anymore is a private citizen or entity placing what was private land into the public lands. That is how many of the checkerboards came about. The problem did not exist until the Government acquired those landlocked tracts.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of public land that is economically useless. When it was offered for homesteading, no one wanted it for that purpose for any one of fifty reasons, including access to water. Thus, it has stayed unwanted.
What you described is an exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of the checkerboard lands are public domain, not federally acquired land. The federal government does not make practice of acquiring land without securing access.
There is no excuse for the trespassers who damage property. The book should be thrown at them, but anyone who wants to prosecute someone for corner crossing needs a new perspective on life.
Private owners blocking access to public land and public rights of way are a scourge. I did my part this past month by cutting the locks on gates blocking access to Forrest Service land via a Forrest Service acquired easement and a RS-2477 right of way.
Ah, but they do and they will continue to do so. Much of what is currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program through the Natural Resources Conservation Service will end up being owned by the US Government when these programs expire. Much of the land enrolled is owned by absentee owners who only want the rights to hunt on the land. They are currently destroying the possibility of returning such lands into the hands of private agricultural concerns. Programs come and programs go. It has been that way since the early 1930’s. I have worked on several of the WRP tracts which require boundary surveys while staying a minimum of forty feet from the true boundary of the land owned.. Access rights are not written into the current contracts. One I worked on requires over three-quarters of a mile across an adjoiner to get to the closest corner from a public road. Land that was producing nearly 200 bushels per acre of corn is critter habitat and nothing else.
But, those owners will be first in line when the 30×30 program offers come out to permanently put the land in Federal hands. As long as they can hunt for the rest of their lives, they will take the big bucks and quickly snap up other ground to hopefully get signed up. It all works towards the same end. Watched the Chairman of the Board of a nearby major corporation present to a County Commission meeting encouraging everyone to sell their land to the Feds, as his company plans to do with over 5000 acres, to make the goals of 30x 30 become reality.
- Posted by: @holy-cow
But, those owners will be first in line when the 30×30 program offers come out to permanently put the land in Federal hands. As long as they can hunt for the rest of their lives, they will take the big bucks and quickly snap up other ground to hopefully get signed up. It all works towards the same end. Watched the Chairman of the Board of a nearby major corporation present to a County Commission meeting encouraging everyone to sell their land to the Feds, as his company plans to do with over 5000 acres, to make the goals of 30x 30 become reality.
The 30×30 “program” isn’t going to offer to buy their land. Land in conservation easements already count for the administration’s conservation goals.
The attached PDF is an article that appeared in this morning’s Billings (Montana) Gazette.
This article features an analysis showing what a big issue the corner-crossing controversy is in the western states. Wyoming has more affected acres than any other state, mainly due to the grants to the Union Pacific Railroad across the southern part of the state.
GB
For those with weak stomachs, do not scroll down further than the subject story. You are welcome.
Log in to reply.