Landlocked private in Senate this week.

[Khunter]

Senators eye bills to ease access for hunters, rescue teams
Emily Yehle, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, July 28, 2014

Hunters and rescue teams would more easily gain access to public lands under two bills that senators will discuss at a hearing this week.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining will take up S. 1554 and S. 1049 on Wednesday, as part of a broader hearing that will also solicit testimony on several other bills on land conveyances.

The "Hunt Unrestricted on National Treasures (HUNT) Act," or S. 1554, would require the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies to develop public access plans for lands larger than 640 acres that allow hunting and other recreational activities. S. 1049 would make it easier for nonprofit search-and-rescue teams to look for lost visitors on federal land.

For the "HUNT Act," the aim is to improve access to some of the country's most remote and largely inaccessible public lands. New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich (D) introduced the bill last year, citing complaints from sportsmen who see inaccessibility as the greatest threat to hunting and fishing.

As an example, Heinrich has pointed to New Mexico's Sabinoso Wilderness, which was protected in 2009 but remains landlocked by private land.

His bill would set aside 1.5 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase road and trail easements, boat landings and rights of way from willing sellers of private property that sits next to inaccessible public lands.

"The HUNT Act will open up these areas to hunting and fishing and grow our thriving outdoor recreation economy in the process," Heinrich said when he introduced the bill. "Hunting and fishing are a way of life for millions of Americans."

But hunters aren't the only ones who find some public lands hard to reach.

In 2012, the National Park Service declined help from volunteer divers when it could not find the body of Air Force Staff Sgt. Antonio Tucker, who had drowned at the Lake Mead Recreation Area. The divers -- who made up a so-called Good Samaritan search-and-rescue team -- found Tucker 10 months later. Most of that time was spent getting the right special-use permit to conduct the search.

In a similar case last year, another volunteer rescue team found the body of murdered cab driver Keith Goldberg at Lake Mead, after more than one year of wrangling with NPS over permits and insurance.

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) introduced S. 1049 to ease such bureaucratic hurdles by directing the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to expedite access to federal lands for volunteer search-and-rescue missions. The companion bill in the House -- Nevada Republican Rep. Joe Heck's H.R. 2166 -- passed that chamber in January (E&E Daily, Jan. 28).

 

[double_a85]

His bill would set aside 1.5 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase road and trail easements, boat landings and rights of way from willing sellers of private property that sits next to inaccessible public lands.

Isn't this the sole reason they are inaccessible to begin with? Landowners are not willing to grant access to the public lands?

 

[Khunter]

Isn't this the sole reason they are inaccessible to begin with? Landowners are not willing to grant access to the public lands?

If by grant you mean let people cross for free, then yes. Surely some landowners can be induced to sell an easement.

 

[Muskeez]

Hard to argue with common sense. Unless it involves politics. I generally stay away from all of these topics, but as a Midwesterner and one that relies on public lands to enjoy what I love to do I felt I had to do my part. I have contacted the Senators of the states that I hunt in and asked them to support this. When I have more time I will expand my emails to other senators. Thanks for the heads-up Khunter!

 

[Topgun 30-06]

IMHO a corner crossing bill that would allow the public to get into the millions of acres that are locked up that way would be a better start that the bill being discussed. I don't think there will be many landowners that will of their free will sell easements when they can continue locking up the public land and making more money from leasing to outfitters. We really are our own worst enemy in that people pay these ridiculous prices to hunt on private lands with outfitters. If everyone stuck together and boycotted these outfits and the high prices that many can't afford, maybe some of this public land could be opened up for everyone to recreate on. One outfitter in Wyoming advertises that he has almost one million acres under lease in Wyoming and Montana and I know for a fact that a lot of it is landlocked BLM land that we all should be able to hunt on without paying $4500 for a 5 day hunt with him. The guy charges $3000 just for a 3 day quality antelope hunt and the problem is that people are stupid enough to pay those kind of prices. That just results in a guy like that going out and tying up more ground each year and that many more people then lose access to good properties they've hunted for years.

 

[Bowhuntrben]

IMHO a corner crossing bill that would allow the public to get into the millions of acres that are locked up that way would be a better start that the bill being discussed.

I agree with this. I would also think that even if some landowners would be willing to have an easement, knowing which lands had easements would be a lot more difficult for hunters to know as opposed to just knowing you can cross corners. Any step in the right direction is better than no step in the right direction though!

 

[Ben Lamb]

IMHO a corner crossing bill that would allow the public to get into the millions of acres that are locked up that way would be a better start that the bill being discussed. I don't think there will be many landowners that will of their free will sell easements when they can continue locking up the public land and making more money from leasing to outfitters. We really are our own worst enemy in that people pay these ridiculous prices to hunt on private lands with outfitters. If everyone stuck together and boycotted these outfits and the high prices that many can't afford, maybe some of this public land could be opened up for everyone to recreate on. One outfitter in Wyoming advertises that he has almost one million acres under lease in Wyoming and Montana and I know for a fact that a lot of it is landlocked BLM land that we all should be able to hunt on without paying $4500 for a 5 day hunt with him. The guy charges $3000 just for a 3 day quality antelope hunt and the problem is that people are stupid enough to pay those kind of prices. That just results in a guy like that going out and tying up more ground each year and that many more people then lose access to good properties they've hunted for years.

You have little liklihood of getting a law like this passed in the West and no chance in Congress.

The HUNT Act is a great bill that places high value on both private and public property. It's a good compromise in terms of unlocking over 5 million acres of landlocked public land.

Is it the silver bullet for eliminating our access troubles? No. But you'll die of old age if you wait for the solution that will end all of your troubles.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

So Ben, what makes you think that ranchers will grant easements for money that seems to be the intent of this bill when they won't even allow a little corner crossing easement like I'm talking about? It actually wouldn't even have to be an easement, but just a stipulation that would allow a person to step from one piece of public land to another without being arrested when you aren't even touching the private ground with a boot! As far as I'm concerned a large percentage of ranchers/outfitters are just greedy bass turds that want to keep the public property as their own when the public has a right to access it and there would be absolutely no private property damage whatsoever that would be cause for prosecution.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So Ben, what makes you think that ranchers will grant easements for money that seems to be the intent of this bill when they won't even allow a little corner crossing easement like I'm talking about? It actually wouldn't even have to be an easement, but just a stipulation that would allow a person to step from one piece of public land to another without being arrested when you aren't even touching the private ground with a boot! As far as I'm concerned a large percentage of ranchers/outfitters are just greedy bass turds that want to keep the public property as their own when the public has a right to access it and there would be absolutely no private property damage whatsoever that would be cause for prosecution.

Because there is a financial benefit to the landowner rather than a directive that lessens their property rights. The corner crossing issue is a flash point in access circles for both sides. Our side sees it as keeping the public off of public land because of something silly like crossing airspace while the landowner community views it as a taking of their private property rights and as such, will present much more trespassing, intentional or not. Placing a financial gain on the allowed access makes the issues that landowners have to deal with more bearable because, at least (theoretically) the easement price will cover the cost of managing that access (cleaning up trash, fighting weeds, etc).

Corner crossing picks a winner and a loser: Something politicians abhor. The HUNT Act creates a workable situation where everyone benefits. Makes sense to me.

Politics is the art of the possible. When it becomes possible to pass a corner crossing bill that restores the rights of the public to access their land, I'll gladly be at the tip of the spear. Until then, we get what we can and we work towards a brighter day.

 

[double_a85]

Ben, I agree with you that this bill has more of a chance at passing than any corner crossing bill ever will have. Personally, I just do not see most big landowners jumping at the thought of money to allow public across their land. Some of these landowners have outfitters, so they are already getting compensated. Others just have a strong distaste for the general public hunters (usually because of bad situations in the past).

Do you think the Wilkes would be more understanding and willing to allow access to the Durfee Hills if they were offered a couple thousand dollars from this bill? I know that is an extreme example, but I would bet that that land will still continue to be inaccessible except for the ways it currently is.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I guess this is one where we'll have to agree to disagree because I feel we should take a chance and hope that the courts would rule that no property rights are being taken away from landowners in the corner crossing issue. I wish it would be taken as high in the courts as it could go if need be for a ruling to see what would happen. IMHO this airspace issue when a person doesn't even touch foot on the private property where a corner is legally marked is a crock of baloney! Even if the public paid for a 3' wide by 6' long easement at each of those applicable corners under this HUNT Act the cost should be very minimal. There also should be no reason for a landowner not to allow it other than we all know that they think they own all that inaccessbile public land to use it as they see fit to their exclusive benefit. It's time we press the issue and get a ruling one way or the other even if we would lose in the courts. This Bill may be a workable solution and I guess if it passes we'll see what happens down the mine.

 

[SFC B]

To me, this would be an appropriate situation to use eminent domain. It is reasonably necessary to have access for the public to public lands. Just compensation for the "taking" would be minimal, especially if we are talking about foot/horse traffic ways. The only real opposition the landowners really would would be that they are losing the ability to solely use public land for large amounts of profit. The place where we have our elk/deer camp is in the wilderness but the first .5 mile or so of the last jeep trail to get there goes through private land. There are specific instructional signs about staying on the trail and I am pretty sure this is how the feds secured that passage way.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I agree with you that this bill has more of a chance at passing than any corner crossing bill ever will have. Personally, I just do not see most big landowners jumping at the thought of money to allow public across their land. Some of these landowners have outfitters, so they are already getting compensated. Others just have a strong distaste for the general public hunters (usually because of bad situations in the past).

Do you think the Wilkes would be more understanding and willing to allow access to the Durfee Hills if they were offered a couple thousand dollars from this bill? I know that is an extreme example, but I would bet that that land will still continue to be inaccessible except for the ways it currently is.

No. I don't see the WIlkes doing much of anything other than trying to eliminate your public land for their own benefit. However, I do see a way to get some folks who have purchased amenity ranches and have some valid concerns about access (Letterman, for example) using this as a way to provide access while ensuring their own protection, both personal and property.

As I said, it's not perfect, but it is a good thing. It's been used under LWCF in the past to great effect and by mandating 1.5% of LWCF be used for it, we now have a steady source of funding to apply to the issue.

Look at the private timber lands in the Northwest. As Randy has pointed out, there is no mechanism to ensure that these private lands remain open. Places like the Flathead have seen these lands, traditionally used by hunters & anglers for decades, become subdivisions, private little kingdoms of the uber-wealthy and that access is lost. If a landowner sells a perpetual easement under the HUNT Act, then that access is guaranteed forever. Isn't that worth spending a little money if the seller is willing? I think so.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess this is one where we'll have to agree to disagree because I feel we should take a chance and hope that the courts would rule that no property rights are being taken away from landowners in the corner crossing issue. I wish it would be taken as high in the courts as it could go if need be for a ruling to see what would happen. IMHO this airspace issue when a person doesn't even touch foot on the private property where a corner is legally marked is a crock of baloney! Even if the public paid for a 3' wide by 6' long easement at each of those applicable corners under this HUNT Act the cost should be very minimal. There also should be no reason for a landowner not to allow it other than we all know that they think they own all that inaccessbile public land to use it as they see fit to their exclusive benefit. It's time we press the issue and get a ruling one way or the other even if we would lose in the courts. This Bill may be a workable solution and I guess if it passes we'll see what happens down the mine.

Understood and I respect your position.

There is a very real reason why most sporting groups have not pushed for an Attorneys General position across the west on this: We very likely could lose and make this expressly illegal. Your approach can either blow the door wide open, or shut it tighter than a frog's fanny. It also will cause significant blow-back if you are successful. Again, I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of corner-crossing, just pointing out what I see as potholes in the road.

 

[Nemont]

Understood and I respect your position.

There is a very real reason why most sporting groups have not pushed for an Attorneys General position across the west on this: We very likely could lose and make this expressly illegal. Your approach can either blow the door wide open, or shut it tighter than a frog's fanny. It also will cause significant blow-back if you are successful. Again, I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of corner-crossing, just pointing out what I see as potholes in the road.

Ben,

Thanks for being reasonable

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

Thanks for being reasonable

Nemont

Maybe just more tired of fighting the same danged fights where everybody loses.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Ben,

I fully understand your position and do realize it could backfire as you mentioned. Maybe it is best to leave things the way they are because I know in Wyoming where I hunt every year the G&F brass issued a directive to their GWs a few years ago to not pursue any corner crossing issue after they lost a court case when a hunter went to court and won over a corner crossing trespassing ticket he was issued. It is my understanding that some counties will also not touch it, so it depends where you're hunting to find out what the particular County Prosecutor's position is on it. If the Prosecutor will not prosecute a case, then the County Sheriff normally will not issue a ticket knowing that he will not have any backing if the defendant takes the issue to court.

 

[WyOpitz]

I would be more ok with this, not much, but a little bit as long as they paid property taxes for that landlocked public land. I bet they'd be singing a different tune if they did. We are subsidizing that land for them. Then some landowners get more money from the state for damages due to wildlife. That should not happen.

 

[Jorgy]

Because there is a financial benefit to the landowner rather than a directive that lessens their property rights.

Sorry for jumping in the middle of this, and just pulling one quote from you Ben, but here is my take on this.

I see no way this could work with the vast majority of landowners. Having an easement does de-value their property. Even if there were multiple landowners that are blocking access, and you can get one to agree to this to open access, he/she is going to get run out of the county for de-valuing everyone elses property.

 

[sweetnectar]

Corner crossing picks a winner and a loser: Something politicians abhor. The HUNT Act creates a workable situation where everyone benefits. Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me too,