Corner Crossing

I also seriously think some of the 160 acre and less parcels which are landlocked should be sold off and each state gets 25% of the sale price for Federal lands.
As a 0.0000000003% I disagree.

I don't want to sell my investment and would like to see it gain in value.

For instance if I got in a time machine and when to 2052 and someone told me the value of this parcel was $16MM I wouldn't even bat an eye. General idea they aren't making more land. Swaps... maybe
1633104490018.png
 
+1 for swaps, not sales.

In addition to Anterradar's suggestion for higher trespass fees (agree), I think the penalty for blocking public roads or restricting lawful access should also be much higher. It's usually not the local rancher blocking a road, but rather a high $$ investor. Penalty should be commiserate.
 
Regarding restricting private landowners from public lands this is another decent idea and has been tried before but would need some fleshing out. It has also met opposition in the Courts. Another defacto way the BLM has controlled those who would not allow even BLM officials to gain access to these landlocked lands was through cancelling grazing permits.
I could see a court not liking a discriminatory prohibition - as in, land owners no, others yes, but I am not aware of any case where a court has said the fed can't close completely and equally for all - do you have such a case you can point me to?

As for leases, that is another great tool - all fed leases come with a requirement for landowner/leasee to grant pass through easements as one of the conditions of the lease.

Many many ways to solve without making tens of millions in payment to ranchers to access land that isn't theirs. But alas we lack the political will to drive the outcome. But if we wanted a strip mall and condo unit, or an Amazon.com fulfillment center on BLM you are damn sure the developer would get the govt to use eminent domain to make it happen - we live in a weird world.
 
Last edited:
As a 0.0000000003% I disagree.

I don't want to sell my investment and would like to see it gain in value.
Of course each parcel would have to be evaluated. Some of those 40 and 80 acre parcels inside the Grand Teton Park near Jackson Hole would certainly be worthy of a hefty sum. Many however, just linger on the books and are deeply landlocked and very rural like Central Wyoming or Eastern Montana, never to be utilized by the public as they’re too small to even fly into to hunt. It would be a case by case basis and perhaps some of them could be swapped as you detailed.
 
An aging @wllm1313 waits in line to pay for his corgy's latte in 2052.

iu
 
Of course each parcel would have to be evaluated. Some of those 40 and 80 acre parcels inside the Grand Teton Park near Jackson Hole would certainly be worthy of a hefty sum. Many however, just linger on the books and are deeply landlocked and very rural like Central Wyoming or Eastern Montana, never to be utilized by the public as they’re too small to even fly into to hunt. It would be a case by case basis and perhaps some of them could be swapped as you detailed.
Agree, there is likely some good swap bait out there... though also I think as a public resource you need to look waaaaaaay out there, we can't even imagine what eastern Montana will look like in 200 years.
 
I could see a court not liking a discriminatory prohibition - as in, land owners no, others yes, but I am not aware of any case where a court has said the fed can't close completely and equally for all - do you have such a case you can point me to?

A for leases that is another great tool - all fed leases come with a requirement for landowner/leasee to grant pass through easements as one of the conditions of the lease.

Many many ways to solve without making tens of millions in payment to ranchers to access land that isn't theirs. But alas we lack the political will to drive the outcome. But if we wanted a strip mall and condo unit, or an Amazon.com fulfillment center on BLM you are damn sure the developer would get the govt to use eminent domain to make it happen - we live in a weird world.
No example as you describe. If you want some entertainment look at the Frank Robins case in Wyoming. He almost won it but SCOTUS decided against him but he still to this day we call it the Clown Show Ranch from Thermopoils, Wyoming. They have fought almost like the Buddy case in S. Utah but not as violent though certainly high stakes. They had BLM agents taking pictures of guests on a dude ranch trying to go pee in the sagebrush bushes and Frank Robins even defiantly rode his mule around the BLM office in Worland like 30 circles around it with media notified. BLM locked him out and cancelled some of his leases but he fought them every step and almost one it. Today they fight Game and Fish over sheep grazing leases located too close to Bighorn sheep and grizzly bear damage claims. Almost every BLM action conceivable has been taken against these clowns. The son in law now runs the place and has great elk hunting if your willing to pay for their outfitted hunt. https://prfamerica.org/speeches/10th/RICO-ActionBLM.html
 
I also seriously think some of the 160 acre and less parcels which are landlocked should be sold off and each state gets 25% of the sale price for Federal lands.
I would be all for selling the small landlocked parcels if the proceeds went into a fund used to buy access to some of the larger land locked parcels. If the funds go into the general fund, not so much.
 
Last edited:
As for leases, that is another great tool - all fed leases come with a requirement for landowner/leasee to grant pass through easements as one of the conditions of the lease
I am no lawyer, but what would stop me from taking the antlerradar land and cattle Co and dividing it up in the antlerradar land Co and the antlerradar cattle Co. The land company owns the land and the cattle co owns the cattle and the public leases plus the small amount of base property needed ?The land company then leases the Cattle co the grazing on the private. How do you demand access across property that is not owned by the public lease holder. I am sure it would be a accounting nightmare, but there must be some other benefits as I know of a few ranches that are currently set up this way.
 
One simple way to even it up would be for the feds to block access to any federal lands which are landlocked to any person regardless of adjacent property. Then we could have a fair negotiation on a compromise, win-win, outcome. Otherwise, it just remains a hostage negotiation.
The state of Montana tried something similar to this when recreational access to state land first became an issue. It was a miserable failure.
 
I also seriously think some of the 160 acre and less parcels which are landlocked should be sold off and each state gets 25% of the sale price for Federal lands.
What is the rationale and the precedent for states receiving compensation for sale of federal lands? (It reminds one of the push to "return" federal lands to the states. The states have no ownership nor vested interest which warrant the 25% compensation.)

I do agree that proceeds should go to increasing public access to other larger parcels, rather than to other funds.
 
One simple way to even it up would be for the feds to block access to any federal lands which are landlocked to any person regardless of adjacent property. Then we could have a fair negotiation on a compromise, win-win, outcome. Otherwise, it just remains a hostage negotiation.
You mean specific vehicular access right? I mean they still own the public land at the same rate we do, so you can't prevent them from walk across it.
 
I am no lawyer, but what would stop me from taking the antlerradar land and cattle Co and dividing it up in the antlerradar land Co and the antlerradar cattle Co. The land company owns the land and the cattle co owns the cattle and the public leases plus the small amount of base property needed ?The land company then leases the Cattle co the grazing on the private. How do you demand access across property that is not owned by the public lease holder. I am sure it would be a accounting nightmare, but there must be some other benefits as I know of a few ranches that are currently set up this way.
I am no BLM lease expert, but my understanding is there is a built-in preference for adjacent land, so having antlerlandco do the leasing puts you in a better spot vs other potential lessors. Even without that, you can have your BLM lease require an easement from any "commonly owned or controlled entities" - very common in deals. But what if antlerwife owns one and antlerhusband owns the other. You also can have language around "insiders" and "affilatiated parties". The tax-dodging folks have tried it all, but most of it can be buttoned up with proper drafting.
 
You mean specific vehicular access right? I mean they still own the public land at the same rate we do, so you can't prevent them from walk across it.
No, I meant any access. The Feds can absolutely ban any human from accessing public land. Legally, the fed is the owner not us and they can set whatever access rules they want.
 
Curious as to why it failed?
Landowners were happy with the agreement and ether didn't hunt the state or looked the other way if there friends did. Opened up very little state to the general public.
As a landowner I would be thrilled if I could tell john public. " No, you can not cross my property to the BLM. Federal Government doesn't want anyone there." Takes all the pressure off of me. I am sure it was the same with landowners with state land.
 
Last edited:
Landowners were happy with the agreement and ether didn't hunt the state or looked the other way if there friends did. Opened up very little state to the general public.
As a landowner I would be thrilled if I could tell john public. " No, you can not cross my property to the BLM. Federal Government doesn't want anyone there." I am sure it was the same with landowners with state land.
Interesting- thanks.
 
This was the case in the distant past. Not so anymore.
The reality is that with the vast majority of the landlocked parcels and much of the accessible public the adjacent landowners are the only option that makes economic sense dew to fencing, water and access issues.
 
Back
Top