No person has the right to trespass upon another's property. Prove an existing easement. Or buy a right of way.
I agree.
There are costs to a landowner if they are forced to grant access. Anybody that doesn't see this as a tricky situation isn't thinking about both sides.
Honestly, I don't think there is a truly fair solution. Eminent Domain is a socialist idea. One that has to be used to create certain situations for "The public good". Being told that me land is for sale, and I don't even get to set the price?
We fought a revolution over less.
Rambling, yep!
Because on this topic my thought go back and forth to both sides.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
The precedent for blocking the land goes way back before Idaho was a state. Early ranchers in the great plains, legally or illegally, got homesteads surrounding all the water sources. Since no one could homestead the waterless areas, the ranches owned it all by default. It was public land but theirs to use exclusively because no one else could get to it. The practice rapidly spread to other territories. I can think of any number of rivers in Idaho that were homesteaded on the farmable land on either side from the water line to the bottom of the very steep hills where farming was impossible. The roads needed to be in the flat land and had private land on either side running for many miles.
Some years ago I drove up what's called Slaughterhouse Gulch out of Bellevue, ID. It's a long riverbed with minimal flat land on either side bordered by very steep hills. At the bottom was a sign on a post "Spirit Woman Ranch. Keep Out". After several miles of driving, the signs were still every couple hundred yards on either side of the road. For the most part, the fence line between Spirit Woman and public land was less than 100 yds off the road but there was no way through it. I finally got to the ranch. It was a cement pad, a postage stamp lawn with a few flowers, and a huge motor home on the pad. Some wealthy retiree had got hold of the ranch and fenced it all off, blocking access to millions of acres of public land.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
Dont confuse state school land with national forest and BLM
The state land is supposed to generate school funding, 1 section in a township. The homesteads did lock up land behind them.
The few feet asshast are a new and different story.
There was a wolf loving Colorado " rancher" who bragged about all his thousands of acres, when actually his ranch of a few hundred blocked access to BLM and forest sk he claimed it as his by default
Actually, there are 2 sections in each township for schools. In Idaho, at least, state land is open for hunting unless it's under some kind of special lease. A rancher might lease it for grazing but he can't lock you out.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
Dont confuse state school land with national forest and BLM
The state land is supposed to generate school funding, 1 section in a township. The homesteads did lock up land behind them.
The few feet asshast are a new and different story.
There was a wolf loving Colorado " rancher" who bragged about all his thousands of acres, when actually his ranch of a few hundred blocked access to BLM and forest sk he claimed it as his by default
Does anyone have any articles, references, news stories or links to such?
I keep hearing about this, but can't actually document when or where it has happened.
Carol King moved to Idaho and closed off the entire north end access to the White Cloud mountains by claiming individuals only drove across her land to see her. The access road was gated and locked with a judge's approval. She's right up there with Hanoi Jane on my list.
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
There is a landlocked piece of BLM around 30,000 acres between the Klamath River and the Oregon line that had been open to the public for generations, via one road. A new owner locked it up, we asked permission...hell no! No means no, so we went to BLM office in Medford OR and presented our problem. We were assured that no, legally, he can not restrict access, yes, they were aware of it, and no, they don't have money budgeted to straighten it out....sorry guys. It's a moot point now, the great Obama land grab turned it into the Pilot Rock National Monument. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
The precedent for blocking the land goes way back before Idaho was a state. Early ranchers in the great plains, legally or illegally, got homesteads surrounding all the water sources. Since no one could homestead the waterless areas, the ranches owned it all by default. It was public land but theirs to use exclusively because no one else could get to it. The practice rapidly spread to other territories. I can think of any number of rivers in Idaho that were homesteaded on the farmable land on either side from the water line to the bottom of the very steep hills where farming was impossible. The roads needed to be in the flat land and had private land on either side running for many miles.
Some years ago I drove up what's called Slaughterhouse Gulch out of Bellevue, ID. It's a long riverbed with minimal flat land on either side bordered by very steep hills. At the bottom was a sign on a post "Spirit Woman Ranch. Keep Out". After several miles of driving, the signs were still every couple hundred yards on either side of the road. For the most part, the fence line between Spirit Woman and public land was less than 100 yds off the road but there was no way through it. I finally got to the ranch. It was a cement pad, a postage stamp lawn with a few flowers, and a huge motor home on the pad. Some wealthy retiree had got hold of the ranch and fenced it all off, blocking access to millions of acres of public land.
I wonder if the land they're blocking were to catch fire if they'd let public funded fire crews on to put it out. Or if the public that is blocked from access should even allow public funds go towards putting it out.
I wonder if the land they're blocking were to catch fire if they'd let public funded fire crews on to put it out. Or if the public that is blocked from access should even allow public funds go towards putting it out.
Do private land owner taxes paid go towards firefighting efforts?
Or maybe we should just let it burn up to your house (private property) and see if you change your tune on that?
What you suggest sounds eerily familiar. The environmental terrorists often say they would rather a forest burn than be harvested, and are more than okay with all life lost in said forests as well.
I wonder if the land they're blocking were to catch fire if they'd let public funded fire crews on to put it out. Or if the public that is blocked from access should even allow public funds go towards putting it out.
Do private land owner taxes paid go towards firefighting efforts?
Or maybe we should just let it burn up to your house (private property) and see if you change your tune on that?
What you suggest sounds eerily familiar. The environmental terrorists often say they would rather a forest burn than be harvested, and are more than okay with all life lost in said forests as well.
I have personally seen them say it.
Don't be obtuse. I am currently surrounded by NF and am intimately aware of the dangers posed. I didn't say anything about letting the "ranchers" land burn. Simply pointing out it's hunky dory to keep everyone out until in this hypothetical they'd need to cross to put out the fire.
Don't be obtuse. I am currently surrounded by NF and am intimately aware of the dangers posed. I didn't say anything about letting the "ranchers" land burn. Simply pointing out it's hunky dory to keep everyone out until in this hypothetical they'd need to cross to put out the fire.
I personally have not seen firefighters ask anyone for permission to trespass while fighting a fire.
Don't be obtuse. I am currently surrounded by NF and am intimately aware of the dangers posed. I didn't say anything about letting the "ranchers" land burn. Simply pointing out it's hunky dory to keep everyone out until in this hypothetical they'd need to cross to put out the fire.
I personally have not seen firefighters ask anyone for permission to trespass while fighting a fire.
Nor have I. My point is the "rancher" isn't likely to stop them. You either need another cup of coffee or are being intentionally dense.
Can’t speak to other states, but most of the “new” access problems in N.M. I’m aware of, are/were created by the definition of “publicly maintained roads”. Roads that for years people have used to access public ground are now being locked/gated and people get the idea the LO’s took the road when the road was never actually a public road. Some new LO’s are also petitioning County Commissions to vacate county roads that cross deeded ground.
Don't be obtuse. I am currently surrounded by NF and am intimately aware of the dangers posed. I didn't say anything about letting the "ranchers" land burn. Simply pointing out it's hunky dory to keep everyone out until in this hypothetical they'd need to cross to put out the fire.
I personally have not seen firefighters ask anyone for permission to trespass while fighting a fire.
Nor have I. My point is the "rancher" isn't likely to stop them. You either need another cup of coffee or are being intentionally dense.
You are the one that brought up fire fighting efforts. I think your intent was plain.
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
I wonder if the land they're blocking were to catch fire if they'd let public funded fire crews on to put it out. Or if the public that is blocked from access should even allow public funds go towards putting it out.
