"This land is no longer your land"

Long article and first time through, find it hard to follow the politics. The theme seems to imply, follow the money. I do agree with the cited survey about the public disdain toward those who would advocate the locking up of public land for private gain. I don't believe that exclusive access for the wealthy was ever the intent of the government in its creation of public land.

Its happening a lot out there. Its the trend. Yes many locals are upset also.

quote Pinetree: "Its happening a lot out there. Its the trend. Yes many locals are upset also."

Indeed many locals are upset..........about Federal government overreach. The Monuments law, for example, was never intended to allow the Federal government to declare arbitrarily that huge swaths of land could suddenly be seized from States and the citizens of that State and "declared" a National monument.

As per the fences what does the law say? We need to go back to being a nation of laws instead of a nation of "feelings". If we don't like the law then it needs be changed and then it needs be enforced. If the ranchers are not supposed to be able to exclude public access then they are breaking the law and can be fined or punished. If the law says that their lease does allow for public exclusion then change the law. Why wring our hands like there in nothing we can do except point the finger and claim "all of those people are bad and we should dislike them".

As per to many folks ruining our wild places.........that has some merit. We are currently at 330 million. We are on pace for 500 million.............be very careful what you allow to happen. Despite what you hear on the nightly news coming here isn't a "human right". Wake up folks.

The locals meaning residents of like Montana and Wyoming are being shut out of using roads they have used for a 100 years. The over reach is by certain groups or individuals tying things up for their own use.

quote Pinetree: "The locals meaning residents of like Montana and Wyoming are being shut out of using roads they have used for a 100 years. The over reach is by certain groups or individuals tying things up for their own use."

Of course I understood where you were coming from Pinetree........but the article also talked in some detail about the misapplication of the Monuments law.

My position is clear........what does the law say concerning the leases of the individuals or groups? Perhaps the the people suddenly denying access have reasons which were not put forth in the article. Maybe lots of yahoos are tearing everything up or stealing cattle or whatever. There was some reason they locked the gates.

Its not overreach if its within the law. Did it occur to the author that the leaseholders were doing a public courtesy by allowing access and that courtesy was abused? Quite possible thats the case, I don't know. I try and keep an open mind about things and just go where facts lead and seldom let one source sway my thinking.

Does it have the ring of truth that someone can go on public lands, spend tens of thousands of dollars on fencing and say "I have decided this is all mine, keep out"? But that was the thrust of the article. I might have been born at night but I wasn't born last night.

To guarantee access, maybe the Feds need a program to buy right of ways like the state of Minnesota does. I know “my road” went through the process.

A pic of the East side of the Crazy Mtns going into Half Moon Camp Ground, and waterfall right behind the campground, that was mentioned in the article.
The road going into the campground and trailhead go within feet of the one of the buildings of the lodge. You can see the lodge if you zoom in.
It's one of the prettier campgrounds I have ever stayed in and I've stayed in many.

I believe the article is speaking of people who are blocking off a road through their private land and not land that is under easement or a grazing easement.

quote inspector13: "
To guarantee access, maybe the Feds need a program to buy right of ways like the state of Minnesota does. I know “my road” went through the process.


"

I like that idea.

Thank you for the clarification Linden........the article was a bit hard to follow IMO.

The same type of issue hit several northern Minnesota Counties a few years back when pulp producing companies started selling of tracks of land. New land owners started blocking off roads that crossed their property, which had provided access to publicly held land for decades.

“My road”, which is described in my deed as an easement for me, passes through my neighbors’ properties. It leads to a huge amount of public acreage that would be land locked if it didn’t exist. A few years back one of them sold and a nice house was built. I think people started to worry that their access would be cut off, since now the road passes through a yard area, not just past an old hunting shack.

quote mastertangler: "As per to many folks ruining our wild places.........that has some merit. We are currently at 330 million. We are on pace for 500 million.............be very careful what you allow to happen. Despite what you hear on the nightly news coming here isn't a "human right". Wake up folks. "

You are correct. And neither is excessive breeding. Any child beyond #2 that survives to reproductive age (very likely in the modern world) will add to population growth. It is a cold, mathematical certainty.

We worry about outside forces destroying America, but it will almost certainly be domestic stupidity.

quote LindenTree3: "A pic of the East side of the Crazy Mtns going into Half Moon Camp Ground, and waterfall right behind the campground, that was mentioned in the article.
The road going into the campground and trailhead go within feet of the one of the buildings of the lodge. You can see the lodge if you zoom in.
It's one of the prettier campgrounds I have ever stayed in and I've stayed in many.


I believe the article is speaking of people who are blocking off a road through their private land and not land that is under easement or a grazing easement.


"

I know those places and have camped, fished, and backpacked there.

Many of these situations are the result of land grants to railroads. These grants, besides the right-of-way, included every other section along the corridor. Grant corridors typically extended 6 miles from the track, but sometimes was as far as 40 miles. Railroads have long ago sold off these tracts.

This "checkerboarding" causes other management issues besides recreation access. Forest management for insect pests and diseases is difficult, as is planning prescribed fires for fuel reduction.

There are efforts to consolidate federal lands into more contiguous blocks through land trades. This needs volunteer cooperation from the private land owners and is a very convoluted process. The Trust for Public Lands is active in these efforts.

These railroad grants ended in the 1870s I believe. Nobody thought of the problems that would develop in the future. They just wanted to encourage the railroads to build transportation infrastructure to build a viable western economy.

It did create a huge mess.

You can step across from one federally owned section of land to another where they meet at a corner. You are on trespass if you drive across on a corner for your tires touch private land. This allows a private land owner to fence out and exclude private citizens from large tracts of federal land.

quote smoke: "You can step across from one federally owned section of land to another where they meet at a corner. You are on trespass if you drive across on a corner for your tires touch private land. This allows a private land owner to fence out and exclude private citizens from large tracts of federal land."

I agree with you on the corner stepping. But Wyoming actually has a law that says that is illegal and I think Montana does also. I also think few if any people have went to court over it. Its a law most sportsmen etc. says it is illegal. But it shows how certain groups are trying to control land access.

corner crossing

Wyoming Fish and Wildlife access page:
Crossing or entering private lands without landowner’s permission may result in a violation of Wyoming’s game and fish or criminal trespass statutes. The game and fish trespass statute prohibits a person from entering private land to hunt or intend to hunt without permission. In Wyoming, some public lands adjoin by only the corners of the public land parcels touching. In 2004, the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion that “corner crossing” from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt that other public parcel, depending on the factual situation involved, may not violate the game and fish trespass statute, but may be a criminal trespass violation. The factual situation would include whether the person doing the “corner crossing” was hunting or intended to hunt private land at the time the corner was crossed.

I took a back packing trip in the Crazy Mountains in the mid eighties,. The trip started following Sweet Grass Creek high into the mountains the lakes at the source of the creek. Last year I went to revisit that hike only to discover that it is no longer possible to take the road to the mouth of Sweet Grass Canyon. I did hike out of the Half-moon camp instead, I think getting back to the Sweet Grass would require a couple of days commitment.

I am sympathetic to public lands being, well, public.

On the other hand I am also a strong advocate of private property rights. The United States is somewhat unique in regards to individual liberty and private property rights when taken in a global historical context. Our Constitution is unique as it provides legal protection to the individual regardless of what the "masses" might think. So one needs be careful concerning unintended consequences about demonizing and being punitive towards those who wish to do what they want with what is theirs.

On the other hand if they are breaking the law then by all means let justice be swift.

Why couldn't the USFS just claim imminent domain and purchase a few eight foot wide slivers of land that lead to the public areas from the current owners? I'm sure the land owners wouldn't be thrilled, but it would clear up any future disputes over land use. Frankly, I'm surprised the USFS just "assumed" it could always continue using private lands as access. Why not ensure the access to the public lands the same time you made the lands public in the first place?

I found this on the US Forest Service website:

"Landowners with property inside a National Forest boundary are legally entitled to access that allows for “reasonable use and enjoyment” of their property, but first a permit or easement is necessary to construct driveways or new roads across federal lands. The Forest Service determines the terms of such access in a manner that will best protect natural resources, the public interest, and the agency’s management options."

I wonder if the same could be said for the public accessing public lands across private lands when there is no other access. The equal protection clause of the US Constitution would seem to allow this.

I'd like to see the matter go to court.

You would think they could establish a road via eminent domain law.........but undoubtedly that raises all sorts of issues which we are not privy to. As a landowner would you want a road knifing through the middle third of your property? Would you need to put a fence along the road to protect livestock? If so you who pays? And you have just cut your usable land potentially by one third. And indeed the court case might go all the way to Supreme court level wether state or federal.

But if the government can kick a bunch of folks out of their homes in order to put up a strip mall (was it New Jersey that happened?) then surely they can just seize some ranchers property........after all, he's got plenty.

I think there would have to be some sort of reasonable access solution that does not screw over anyone.

Amen. Surely there is.