|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,164
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,164 |
We (Oregon) also have several timber companies, holding in some instances, hundreds/thousands of square miles often checker boarded among public sections. These were the product mostly of deals with the early railroads as an incentive to put in the rails with no real cost to the government. Over time those properties were sold to timber barons. Up into the early 1970's, the public was pretty much allowed free access for hunting/fishing endeavors on those lands.
With the advent of some of the radical environmental efforts, those companies began finding their equipment burned, absent oil/fuel, or seriously sabotaged. The answer was locked gates. Some properties are effectively locked up for perpetuity. Some have negotiated deals whereby the state provides funding for seasonal patrols in exchange for hunting/fishing access, and some rent/lease access directly if one will visit their office, register, and pay a fee for lock combinations.
Our county (Harney) is constantly being challenged with access cases when owners lock gates, They will rifle through past records and maps looking for evidence of historic public use and will typically side with the public with evidence or in many instances public testimony (i.e. grand dad and friends have used that road for 72 years and they're essentially country right of ways or historic livestock trails). Some of those have not seen equipment in decades.
Fortunately, about 70% of this country is public land, and I not asked for permission in the last 45 years. One of the benefits of living in the Or, Nv, Id, Wy region.
Last fall, via guide/outfitter services, I did most of my elk season on timber company lands. In that instance, the guide had free access and could run free. The public was also allowed, but had to walk past locked gates.
On fishing, any stream of substance is open to the public as long as one remains within its high water marks or floats. Again, one may not venture across deeded acres without permission, but can come in from up/down stream access points like public roads etc.
Corner jumping is also OK.
No one can own an ocean beach in Oregon, so again, find an allowed access point or a boat, and one can get there.
Again, it's a bit sad when substantial inholdings are held hostage, but I side with the tax paying property owners.
Lastly, I've seen and know of several instances where adjacent property owners have put up posted signs on public land gates in an effort to restrict access. They're pretty effective against folks from out of the region. Locals though, call the bluff and barge right on in with no issues.
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc. OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters. There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know. This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. He won the initial case, but lost in the end. That piece of water is open to the public because people got together and fought against these elitists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557 |
We (Oregon) also have several timber companies, holding in some instances, hundreds/thousands of square miles often checker boarded among public sections. These were the product mostly of deals with the early railroads as an incentive to put in the rails with no real cost to the government. Over time those properties were sold to timber barons. Up into the early 1970's, the public was pretty much allowed free access for hunting/fishing endeavors on those lands.
With the advent of some of the radical environmental efforts, those companies began finding their equipment burned, absent oil/fuel, or seriously sabotaged. The answer was locked gates. Some properties are effectively locked up for perpetuity. Some have negotiated deals whereby the state provides funding for seasonal patrols in exchange for hunting/fishing access, and some rent/lease access directly if one will visit their office, register, and pay a fee for lock combinations.
Our county (Harney) is constantly being challenged with access cases when owners lock gates, They will rifle through past records and maps looking for evidence of historic public use and will typically side with the public with evidence or in many instances public testimony (i.e. grand dad and friends have used that road for 72 years and they're essentially country right of ways or historic livestock trails). Some of those have not seen equipment in decades.
Fortunately, about 70% of this country is public land, and I not asked for permission in the last 45 years. One of the benefits of living in the Or, Nv, Id, Wy region.
Last fall, via guide/outfitter services, I did most of my elk season on timber company lands. In that instance, the guide had free access and could run free. The public was also allowed, but had to walk past locked gates.
On fishing, any stream of substance is open to the public as long as one remains within its high water marks or floats. Again, one may not venture across deeded acres without permission, but can come in from up/down stream access points like public roads etc.
Corner jumping is also OK.
No one can own an ocean beach in Oregon, so again, find an allowed access point or a boat, and one can get there.
Again, it's a bit sad when substantial inholdings are held hostage, but I side with the tax paying property owners.
Lastly, I've seen and know of several instances where adjacent property owners have put up posted signs on public land gates in an effort to restrict access. They're pretty effective against folks from out of the region. Locals though, call the bluff and barge right on in with no issues.
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc. OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters. There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know. This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. He won the initial case, but lost in the end. That piece of water is open to the public because people got together and fought against these elitists. Happy to hear it, but there are many who feel otherwise. Hell just read through this thread...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,084
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,084 |
You betcha. This Texan has years of experience with ranching BLM, Nat'l Forest, boundaries and legal issues of easements, rights of way, and of course private property. What do offer, besides the usual welfare hunter dialog? "welfare hunter" = those that collectively pay millions of dollars per year for wildlife management and habitat improvement, public land management (or mismanagement?  ) through license and tag fees, and in the case of Federal lands excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment................... and yet can have access to said wildlife and lands denied by the simple act of locking a gate on a road which had been open for "generations". Again, going way back to English common law, which if I'm not mistaken constitutes some of the bases upon which our legal system is founded, access used in the long term becomes a "right of way" of sorts. Now, I'll agree it's a completely different story with some landlocked public inholdings, where access has never been granted officially or not. In that case there is no expectation from this "welfare hunter" that I should be able to get to that land without making a deal with a surrounding landowner, either by myself or collectively with other "welfare hunters" though an .gov agency or NGO. Cool. Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022 |
We (Oregon) also have several timber companies, holding in some instances, hundreds/thousands of square miles often checker boarded among public sections. These were the product mostly of deals with the early railroads as an incentive to put in the rails with no real cost to the government. Over time those properties were sold to timber barons. Up into the early 1970's, the public was pretty much allowed free access for hunting/fishing endeavors on those lands.
With the advent of some of the radical environmental efforts, those companies began finding their equipment burned, absent oil/fuel, or seriously sabotaged. The answer was locked gates. Some properties are effectively locked up for perpetuity. Some have negotiated deals whereby the state provides funding for seasonal patrols in exchange for hunting/fishing access, and some rent/lease access directly if one will visit their office, register, and pay a fee for lock combinations.
Our county (Harney) is constantly being challenged with access cases when owners lock gates, They will rifle through past records and maps looking for evidence of historic public use and will typically side with the public with evidence or in many instances public testimony (i.e. grand dad and friends have used that road for 72 years and they're essentially country right of ways or historic livestock trails). Some of those have not seen equipment in decades.
Fortunately, about 70% of this country is public land, and I not asked for permission in the last 45 years. One of the benefits of living in the Or, Nv, Id, Wy region.
Last fall, via guide/outfitter services, I did most of my elk season on timber company lands. In that instance, the guide had free access and could run free. The public was also allowed, but had to walk past locked gates.
On fishing, any stream of substance is open to the public as long as one remains within its high water marks or floats. Again, one may not venture across deeded acres without permission, but can come in from up/down stream access points like public roads etc.
Corner jumping is also OK.
No one can own an ocean beach in Oregon, so again, find an allowed access point or a boat, and one can get there.
Again, it's a bit sad when substantial inholdings are held hostage, but I side with the tax paying property owners.
Lastly, I've seen and know of several instances where adjacent property owners have put up posted signs on public land gates in an effort to restrict access. They're pretty effective against folks from out of the region. Locals though, call the bluff and barge right on in with no issues.
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc. OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters. There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know. This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. He won the initial case, but lost in the end. That piece of water is open to the public because people got together and fought against these elitists. Happy to hear it, but there are many who feel otherwise. Hell just read through this thread... I think there are two different discussions going on here. One is about wealthy people buying land and closing off historical access, or putting gates across a publicly-used road. I haven't seen many in support of that. The other is about the government condemning private property that was never public, so that a public right-of-way can be forced onto a landowner. Apples and oranges IMO.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,599
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,599 |
Everybody doesn't have the same access, or opportunity to access said public lands, Geno.
Some waitress in Alabama pays for the same upkeep of public lands.
Yet, there's a huge probability she'll never lay eyes on said public land, nor fish or hunt or camp on it.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557 |
We (Oregon) also have several timber companies, holding in some instances, hundreds/thousands of square miles often checker boarded among public sections. These were the product mostly of deals with the early railroads as an incentive to put in the rails with no real cost to the government. Over time those properties were sold to timber barons. Up into the early 1970's, the public was pretty much allowed free access for hunting/fishing endeavors on those lands.
With the advent of some of the radical environmental efforts, those companies began finding their equipment burned, absent oil/fuel, or seriously sabotaged. The answer was locked gates. Some properties are effectively locked up for perpetuity. Some have negotiated deals whereby the state provides funding for seasonal patrols in exchange for hunting/fishing access, and some rent/lease access directly if one will visit their office, register, and pay a fee for lock combinations.
Our county (Harney) is constantly being challenged with access cases when owners lock gates, They will rifle through past records and maps looking for evidence of historic public use and will typically side with the public with evidence or in many instances public testimony (i.e. grand dad and friends have used that road for 72 years and they're essentially country right of ways or historic livestock trails). Some of those have not seen equipment in decades.
Fortunately, about 70% of this country is public land, and I not asked for permission in the last 45 years. One of the benefits of living in the Or, Nv, Id, Wy region.
Last fall, via guide/outfitter services, I did most of my elk season on timber company lands. In that instance, the guide had free access and could run free. The public was also allowed, but had to walk past locked gates.
On fishing, any stream of substance is open to the public as long as one remains within its high water marks or floats. Again, one may not venture across deeded acres without permission, but can come in from up/down stream access points like public roads etc.
Corner jumping is also OK.
No one can own an ocean beach in Oregon, so again, find an allowed access point or a boat, and one can get there.
Again, it's a bit sad when substantial inholdings are held hostage, but I side with the tax paying property owners.
Lastly, I've seen and know of several instances where adjacent property owners have put up posted signs on public land gates in an effort to restrict access. They're pretty effective against folks from out of the region. Locals though, call the bluff and barge right on in with no issues.
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc. OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters. There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know. This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. He won the initial case, but lost in the end. That piece of water is open to the public because people got together and fought against these elitists. Happy to hear it, but there are many who feel otherwise. Hell just read through this thread... I think there are two different discussions going on here. One is about wealthy people buying land and closing off historical access, or putting gates across a publicly-used road. I haven't seen many in support of that. The other is about the government condemning private property that was never public, so that a public right-of-way can be forced onto a landowner. Apples and oranges IMO. I agree and basically said as much earlier. Two different issues but similar in nature in that they involve access to public property.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,084
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,084 |
Everybody doesn't have the same access, or opportunity to access said public lands, Geno.
Some waitress in Alabama pays for the same upkeep of public lands.
Yet, there's a huge probability she'll never lay eyes on said public land, nor fish or hunt or camp on it. Yes, but she has the "right" (???) to access that public land should she ever get to the West.... Just as I have the right to access USFS or other public land in Alabama should I ever get there. That's the collective benefit of our Union, such as it is. I can drive on the public roads, I can fish in the common waters, and I can recreate on the public lands.......... I just have to get to them................that's on my dime, not the collective dime. If the waitress could get here and wants to hunt coyotes on the BLM land behind my place, I'll point her in the direction of where I hear them and the pups. If she, or anyone else was nice, I'd even let them cross the 7 Acre RANCH fence..................but it would be much easier to just go 75 yards or so and open the wire gate for them. Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,369
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,369 |
Everybody doesn't have the same access, or opportunity to access said public lands, Geno.
Some waitress in Alabama pays for the same upkeep of public lands.
Yet, there's a huge probability she'll never lay eyes on said public land, nor fish or hunt or camp on it. Yes but she doesn't buy hunting licenses or tags or pays tax on outdoor equipment to help pay for outdoor sporting opportunities and everyone's taxes go to help her subsidies because as a waitress she probably doesn't make enough to support herself and her children. Works both ways
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,835
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,835 |
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc.
OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters.
There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know.
This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. Yes. Slobs are the one bad apple ruining the whole barrel. There will be wars and rumors of war until the end of time. I have a central Oregon friend with a recreational river through his property. Stay within the high water line and one is fine. Venture out, and one gets an especially eloquent lecture containing lots of 3 and 4-letter French words while viewing an AR in his crossed arms. His most frequent incidents are fires and trash. Another expensive one was a card board target propped against a stack of irrigation pipe. Shifting to stockmen and public land grazing: Eastern Oregon is mostly arid land. That is we receive less moisture than we evaporate in a year. Twelve inches of water in the winter does not generate a corn or wheat crop. That being, water is THE commodity and stockmen exploit near every opportunity to develop seeps, springs, wells, and seasonal drainages into year round sources. With no one else having a dog in the fight, their developments have converted millions of acres into functional wildlife habitat. Without their work, these guys would not be there and we'd have a lot of really empty country. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/Gt4jxHfL/2Bucks.jpg) ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/7h95FhT6/Sheep.jpg) ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/bdcZfyXb/Desert4.jpg) ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/ZqpYThvw/Chukar1.jpg)
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557 |
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc.
OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters.
There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know.
This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. Yes. Slobs are the one bad apple ruining the whole barrel. There will be wars and rumors of war until the end of time. I have a central Oregon friend with a recreational river through his property. Stay within the high water line and one is fine. Venture out, and one gets an especially eloquent lecture containing lots of 3 and 4-letter French words while viewing an AR in his crossed arms. His most frequent incidents are fires and trash. Another expensive one was a card board target propped against a stack of irrigation pipe. Shifting to stockmen and public land grazing: Eastern Oregon is mostly arid land. That is we receive less moisture than we evaporate in a year. Twelve inches of water in the winter does not generate a corn or wheat crop. That being, water is THE commodity and stockmen exploit near every opportunity to develop seeps, springs, wells, and seasonal drainages into year round sources. With no one else having a dog in the fight, their developments have converted millions of acres into functional wildlife habitat. Without their work, these guys would not be there and we'd have a lot of really empty country. I get what you’re saying so keep in mind I’m not making this argument but merely pointing out that some have said “What good is all that game and habitat if only a select few with deep pockets have access to it”.
Last edited by Dryfly24; 02/12/20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,917
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,917 |
Dryfly’, hopefully the new Commission will send stream access to court to be ruled on once and for all.
In N.M., the constitution is clear the water is public, the question becomes, who owns the stream bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557 |
Dryfly’, hopefully the new Commission will send stream access to court to be ruled on once and for all.
In N.M., the constitution is clear the water is public, the question becomes, who owns the stream bed. Yes sir, it would be nice to have a clear ruling one way or the other...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,835
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,835 |
We all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Not everyone takes on the pursuit aspect.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557 |
Dryfly’, hopefully the new Commission will send stream access to court to be ruled on once and for all.
In N.M., the constitution is clear the water is public, the question becomes, who owns the stream bed. BTW, I love your avatar pic. Cracks me up every time I look at it... 🤣
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,022 |
We (Oregon) also have several timber companies, holding in some instances, hundreds/thousands of square miles often checker boarded among public sections. These were the product mostly of deals with the early railroads as an incentive to put in the rails with no real cost to the government. Over time those properties were sold to timber barons. Up into the early 1970's, the public was pretty much allowed free access for hunting/fishing endeavors on those lands.
With the advent of some of the radical environmental efforts, those companies began finding their equipment burned, absent oil/fuel, or seriously sabotaged. The answer was locked gates. Some properties are effectively locked up for perpetuity. Some have negotiated deals whereby the state provides funding for seasonal patrols in exchange for hunting/fishing access, and some rent/lease access directly if one will visit their office, register, and pay a fee for lock combinations.
Our county (Harney) is constantly being challenged with access cases when owners lock gates, They will rifle through past records and maps looking for evidence of historic public use and will typically side with the public with evidence or in many instances public testimony (i.e. grand dad and friends have used that road for 72 years and they're essentially country right of ways or historic livestock trails). Some of those have not seen equipment in decades.
Fortunately, about 70% of this country is public land, and I not asked for permission in the last 45 years. One of the benefits of living in the Or, Nv, Id, Wy region.
Last fall, via guide/outfitter services, I did most of my elk season on timber company lands. In that instance, the guide had free access and could run free. The public was also allowed, but had to walk past locked gates.
On fishing, any stream of substance is open to the public as long as one remains within its high water marks or floats. Again, one may not venture across deeded acres without permission, but can come in from up/down stream access points like public roads etc.
Corner jumping is also OK.
No one can own an ocean beach in Oregon, so again, find an allowed access point or a boat, and one can get there.
Again, it's a bit sad when substantial inholdings are held hostage, but I side with the tax paying property owners.
Lastly, I've seen and know of several instances where adjacent property owners have put up posted signs on public land gates in an effort to restrict access. They're pretty effective against folks from out of the region. Locals though, call the bluff and barge right on in with no issues.
There are many examples of private land owners harassing and putting up fencing and barb wire across navigable streams in an effort to keep fishermen from floating through their “private stretches”. Many claim they have to because people are trashing their places and causing problems by leaving garbage, poaching, trespassing beyond high water marks, etc. OTOH, there are many reports of fishermen who aren’t doing anything wrong and well within their legal rights being harassed by belligerent, entitlement minded landowners simply because the fisherman had the audacity to fish through “their” waters. There was a case a few years back reported in many fly fishing mags of singer Huey Lewis - who is a fly fisherman - blocking access to a stream that had historically been open to the public. If I recall, he had made improvements to said stream at considerable cost to himself claiming the stream wasn’t a stream at all but merely a man made ditch and so he had the right to block it off because many were coming in and trashing the place. Someone challenged it - maybe a local sportsman’s group - and last I heard it was going to court. I don’t know what all ended up happening. It may be ongoing for all I know. This is an ongoing problem with no easy answers. I am a firm believer in public access to public lands and waters, but some of the slob hunters/fishermen don't make it easy on the rest of us. He won the initial case, but lost in the end. That piece of water is open to the public because people got together and fought against these elitists. Happy to hear it, but there are many who feel otherwise. Hell just read through this thread... I think there are two different discussions going on here. One is about wealthy people buying land and closing off historical access, or putting gates across a publicly-used road. I haven't seen many in support of that. The other is about the government condemning private property that was never public, so that a public right-of-way can be forced onto a landowner. Apples and oranges IMO. I agree and basically said as much earlier. Two different issues but similar in nature in that they involve access to public property. Sorry, did not see that.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,599
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,599 |
Dryfly’, hopefully the new Commission will send stream access to court to be ruled on once and for all.
In N.M., the constitution is clear the water is public, the question becomes, who owns the stream bed. Except those huge water rights that Texas gets out of NM.... 
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,490
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,490 |
The public owns public land so the public should have access to what they own.
The land to build the freeway was/is taken by eminent domain so should enough to allow access to that pond the kids sawm in Eminent domain was put in place so that the benefits of the many are not restricted by the few, as you explained in your post with the interstate hwy system, it certainly would be an abuse of it to take private property to provide an avenue for a few to elf hunt. If you want axcess then pay the going rate, just like the land owner did.
Writing here is Prohibited by the authorities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,917
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,917 |
That’s a a different 50 page thread. Thieving bastids.🤣 Dryfly’, hopefully the new Commission will send stream access to court to be ruled on once and for all.
In N.M., the constitution is clear the water is public, the question becomes, who owns the stream bed. Except those huge water rights that Texas gets out of NM....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,933
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,933 |
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.
And that is a big part of the problem. I would add the same holds true for county, state, USFS, National Parks and National Monuments. The mangers of these properties see the public as an inconvenient trespasser on their land. They use lots of tactics to keep people off including declaring wilderness areas and closing roads while the spotted post turtles are mating. Private property rights are a cornerstone of our nation. Imminent Domain is subject to abuse by bureaucrats. Government owned property should be managed in a way the public can access it and resources can be harvested. Those charged with managing these lands should see that those things are done responsibly. It is much easier to continue to deny access where none exists and close off access where it does exist. Does anyone recall a movement called People for the West? One of their complaints was the government was trying to concentrate people along the interstate highway system so they could be better managed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,084
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,084 |
The public owns public land so the public should have access to what they own.
The land to build the freeway was/is taken by eminent domain so should enough to allow access to that pond the kids sawm in Eminent domain was put in place so that the benefits of the many are not restricted by the few, as you explained in your post with the interstate hwy system, it certainly would be an abuse of it to take private property to provide an avenue for a few to elf hunt. If you want axcess then pay the going rate, just like the land owner did. What kind of license and tag to I need to bag an "elf"  Geno PS, yes, I know it was a tpyo.................and a damn funny one? PPS do I need some sort of Ork made sword too?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
570 members (10ring1, 1minute, 10gaugeman, 10Glocks, 1234, 70 invisible),
2,377
guests, and
1,175
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,319
Posts18,468,418
Members73,928
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
