Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Idaho to fix problem of blocked access to public land?

Maybe. We'll see how far this goes. Many of Idaho's legislators are farmers who I'm guessing will vote no. We have huge tracts of public land that are inaccessible without hiking for miles to get around posted land. When the land was homesteaded, they often claimed long narrow strips in valleys with water down the middle and farmable flat land on both sides. Their fences block access to public land on the hills on both sides, often for miles.


BOISE — For the second time in a week, Idaho lawmakers considered introducing legislation that aimed to improve access to public land. For the first time, they voted to move it forward.

The Senate Resources and Environment Committee on Monday voted to print a bill that would mean fines for people who knowingly block public land access.

Sen. Fred Martin, R-Boise, sponsored the legislation Monday. Last Wednesday, the House Resources and Conservation committee swiftly voted down printing a comparable bill, which was sponsored by Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise.

Martin told the Senate committee that public land is an incredibly popular issue — he said when sharing posts on social media about public land access, he sees much more engagement than he does for posts about his work in the Senate or about his grandchildren.

If a person knowingly blocks access to public land, the first violation is a warning. A second violation in two years warrants an infraction and $200 fine, while a third violation would be a misdemeanor carrying a $1,000 fine. No jail time is associated with the bill.

The proposal also would allow individuals to file a civil suit if they can show proof of damages.

“Law enforcement doesn’t have the resources to address these disputes,” Martin told the committee.

It’s not the first time Martin has raised the issue with the Resources and Environment Committee. During the 2019 session, he sponsored a more broad version of the bill, which was drafted by the Idaho Wildlife Federation, a local conservation nonprofit. The 2019 bill got some traction in the Senate committee, though it eventually died there.

At the time, some legislators echoed concerns from the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Cattle Association and representatives for DF Development, a company owned by Texas billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, that the bill would open landowners up to constant litigation.

Sen. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon, and Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, raised the same issues on Monday. Brackett said it’s a serious endeavor for landowners to try to match longtime fencing with updated GPS property boundaries.

“Many fence lines are not on property lines,” Brackett said. “They weren’t when they were put in 100 years ago, and they’re still not. … I don’t know where my fence lines are, many of them.”

In an interview following the committee hearing, Martin told the Statesman he’s sensitive to the legislators’ concerns.

“For lots of Idahoans, access to public land is extremely important,” Martin said. “Now the balance is the agricultural industry has some legitimate concerns that their private property (won’t be) illegitimately crossed. Sen. Brackett did a good job of saying, ‘Hey, I’m concerned.’ ”

Public land access remains an important issue for Idahoans
Though Martin’s district is a suburban one, he said his constituents are proponents of public land access. The senator said it’s perhaps one of the top issues in his district behind education and property taxes.

Idaho Wildlife Federation Executive Director Brian Brooks said it’s heartening to have the senator’s support following the bill’s defeat in the House. Last week, Brooks told the Statesman he didn’t think public land access would be addressed in the 2020 session. He was taken by surprise when Martin expressed interest in reviving the legislation.

“Somebody is listening,” Brooks said in a phone interview Monday. “Sen. Martin said, ‘This is a really good bill.’ … I’m relieved that there’s bipartisan support for it.”

Martin cited Boise Ridge Road as an example of a situation he hopes the legislation can prevent. In 2018, the Wilks brothers gated the popular road in the Boise Foothills because it crosses land owned by their DF Development company. Critics said the road is a public right-of-way with a longstanding easement.

“There is an honest dispute in respect to that road, whether it’s public or private,” Martin said, noting that the gate is currently open.

Though the Wilks have drawn much of the public ire over access, a 2019 study found millions of acres of public land inaccessible. Martin said the problem is widespread across Idaho.

He hopes the legislation could serve as a catalyst for landowners to keep access available.

“The main thing is it does set up an avenue for dispute through the court system,” Martin said.

Hahaha! Youse guys have Wilkses too?

Fun eh?

Yeah, they bought a bunch of land north of Boise. I'm quite a ways from there but I hear about it on occasion. They're a real pair of A-holes from what I hear.

Idaho's real problems came to light years ago when singer Carol King bought the Robinson Bar ranch in central ID. There was road going through it to a bunch of houses on up the road. She locked the gate saying it was a private road. The other homeowners had to detour 20 miles to get around it. They sued saying it had been a public road for several decades but she could afford better lawyers and the gate stayed locked. She's long gone and it's been sold a couple times since. I don't know the current status.

The Wilkes have given the same excuse here in MT for not allowing hunting. I think if there is public land within a landowners boundaries than the public should have access to that land, either by a walking path or road depending on the distance. The largest elk herd in the state resides on Wilkes land which surrounds a few thousand acres of public land that also holds the elk. It is nothing to see a few hundred bulls on their place from the county road. When CWD gets there it won't be pretty.

The fines involved in this bill are insignificant to people like the Wilkes. If it passes, they'll just pay the fines and keep it locked up. They spend more in a night of drinking that what the fines will be.

Bolt cutters and battery powered angle grinders make short work of padlocks and chains. Gate hinges, too!
Jerry

There are some big ranches around my land in MT, and those ranches surround lots of landlocked public land. I generally like ranchers, but I don't quite get the benefit of blocking access to public land. I know that one of the ranchers near me leases hunting rights to outfitters, who effectively have sole access to the landlocked public land, so I guess there is a financial aspect involved. That and keeping people off their ranch land are obvious reasons for ranchers blocking access, but are there other things in play as well?

P.S. [I'm not trolling with this question, I honestly don't know much about the issue]

P.P.S. [Flave didn't ban himself]

Id support forced easments to landlocked public land.

Those fines are a joke. We have the same problem here in NM.

There is a place we hunted last year in 27 with very similar drama. One guy actually went so far as to buy strips of land only a few feet wide that run parallel with and between the public access roads and public land just keep people from getting to them. You have to walk for miles around to get to public land bordered by private land strips you could almost jump across. It’s a blatant and known issue made possible by a couple crooked politicians that were bought off by the landowner.

Money talks. Those with the most have the loudest voices.

Years ago, Idaho's fines for poaching were a joke. We'd get over run by Utah pheasant hunters on opening weekend and most didn't buy a license. The fine for hunting without a license was lower than the cost of the license. That's been changed, thank goodness.

[
P.P.S. [Flave didn't ban himself][/quote]
Yeah, he kind of did ban himself.Nobody else was on the keyboard typing his trash talk.

I have cattle on about 12 sections of state lease land and I enjoy hunting, observing wildlife and getting out by myself as much as anyone. I experience both sides of this issue. During hunting season we have to constantly check to make sure gates haven't been left open, fences cut or drinkers vandalized. Recently we had a power line to a pump shot with a shotgun. Power company said there was buckshot in the line. Don't know if that's what burned up the motor or not, but the pump wouldn't start when the power was restored. Had to replace the motor.

I quit hunting and buying licenses in Arizona because the state game and fish department would not enforce access to public land. If it is public land it should be accessible to the public. If you purchase private land over which the public must pass then deal with it. You should not be able to block public access to public land.

In Arizona, state land is not considered public land. It is considered state trust land held in trust and managed for the state school system. I don't agree with this interpretation. I think it belongs to the taxpayers first. The state manages it to benefit the taxpayers who benefit from the school system. At any rate, you have to have a permit to trespass on state trust land. You can buy a recreation permit, hunting license or fishing license. We have to leave at least one gate unlocked so the public can access our leased land. We protect ourselves by having a cattle guard at the gate so if the gate is left open, we dont have cattle out on the road. We only lease the grazing rights to that land. We dont have total control of the land.

Government at all levels should work for the people. The constitution never intended the people to be slaves of the government.

Yeah, he kind of did ban himself.Nobody else was on the keyboard typing his trash talk.[/quote]

How do you know it wasn't his wife typing for him..........I've seen reports it has happened at least once before on this forum.

Geno

45-100,

thanks for a pretty well reasoned opinion by a rancher with "skin in the game" so to speak.

Geno

Waiting for the TX response we know is coming.

I hope those that landlock public land and refuse access break their leg and die of exposure on that land, same as an outfitter leasing it.

No person has the right to trespass upon another's property. Prove an existing easement. Or buy a right of way.

If the public has enough interest in the matter, ROW could be granted by the court through Eminent domain.

Agreed on both counts.

Private property rights HAVE to mean something.

If eminent domain is used and proven in a court of law, as it has to be, then the landowner is compensated a fair market value.

Owning a survey company in NM for years, I see that's pretty bizarre. I would not have surveyed anything like that, and would have reported it to the state.

It's also against NM state law to even survey, or sell, or convey any tract of land that is landlocked, land locks another tract.

There's also a thing known as "Historical Easement"... If you have used an area of private property as ingress/egress to other land, that access is considered an historical easement, and suit should be brought in district court to turn such pathway into a valid prescriptive easement by district court order.

I get a kick out of "public land owner" types.


You dont have any rights to that land. Just go ask some overzealous BLM or Reclamation type.