• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

type example: be afraid, very afraid. Idaho land purchase

Consider yourselves fortunate, in a way. There is a chance at least one could talk to these people and strike a rapport. The answer is always no, unless you ask.

You could be dealing with the corrupt B.L.M. under the corrupt Obama Administration where your chances of talking to anyone intelligent are next to zero.

Good luck.
 
There was a similar climate in the south fifty or sixty years ago. Timber and paper companies bought up huge tracts of land and after harvesting they replanted with pines. Hunters who had grown to adulthood having access to those lands were suddenly shut out as some was posted against all tresspass and some was leased to hunting clubs.
After thousands and thousands of acres burned before maturing the companies became somewhat more hospitable and some gave up and sold their holdings.
I'm not suggesting that as a course of action... just saying that it has happened.
 
TiredRetired said:
Consider yourselves fortunate, in a way. There is a chance at least one could talk to these people and strike a rapport. The answer is always no, unless you ask.

You could be dealing with the corrupt B.L.M. under the corrupt Obama Administration where your chances of talking to anyone intelligent are next to zero.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

I believe, sir, you're correct. There are more instances of government removing access to public lands, even on newly purchased or gifted land than the other way around.

One case in point:

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/ford.htm

I also recall a situation in the Northeast where a former privately owned parcel was willed to the government and was closed to the public.

I also remember lands in California purchased by government for the purpose of restricting usage.
 
Yeup, that's being a shitty neighbor.

No idea if it's the same there as in NH, but here all land owners get a tax break for keeping lands like that open to the public. Anyone that posts their land falls under a 'current use' bracket and pays significantly more to the county than those that allow access. It may not hurt a billionaire, but they didn't get there losing money. And a solid tax hit by the county on 172K acres each year would certainly be noticed, especially when it could be eliminated by allowing access.
 
To clarify Davenet's statement.
"current use" encompasses all land enrolled in that state program. It is open to forestland and agricultural and changes the valuation of the land for the purpose of real estate taxes.Vacant land Not in Current Use might be valued at $4000/acre but in Current Use it is valued by what is growing on it for trees/crops. Can be around $100/acre or less.
Once your land is in 'current use', you can get further discounts for allowing recreational use.Recreational means people are allowed to walk, hunt and picnic on the land. Reacreational use does not include use by motorized things. You are also allowed to post the land against hunting or tresspass but not get the recreational discount. A forest management plan gets you more discount.

Land in most of New England is presumed to be open to walking/hunting Unless it is posted. This isn't true in Canada or other parts of the country.
 
pixie said:
To clarify Davenet's statement.
"current use" encompasses all land enrolled in that state program. It is open to forestland and agricultural and changes the valuation of the land for the purpose of real estate taxes.Vacant land Not in Current Use might be valued at $4000/acre but in Current Use it is valued by what is growing on it for trees/crops. Can be around $100/acre or less.
Once your land is in 'current use', you can get further discounts for allowing recreational use.Recreational means people are allowed to walk, hunt and picnic on the land. Reacreational use does not include use by motorized things. You are also allowed to post the land against hunting or tresspass but not get the recreational discount. A forest management plan gets you more discount.

Land in most of New England is presumed to be open to walking/hunting Unless it is posted. This isn't true in Canada or other parts of the country.
Click to expand...

State laws vary. I'm not sure what they are in Virginia. When I lived in Colorado, you could not trespass for any reason without permission. I you posted land for a specific reason, then that posting also applied to you. You could not hunt your own posted land. The exception was trespassing.

You seldom saw a no hunting sign on private lands.

Slightly off topic, but you could also run afoul of adverse possession if you allowed the public or even an individual to use your land without written permission for a specific number of years.

Here in Va. land use tax is not a reduction of taxes but a deferral. Once you ask to develop or if you sell, the back taxes become due.
 
I know in Alaska the ownership of land opens you up to legal responcabilitys if some one gets hurt on your land so we are seeing a lot of large land owners posting their land to limit their liability
 
Snowtrac Nome said:
I know in Alaska the ownership of land opens you up to legal responcabilitys if some one gets hurt on your land so we are seeing a lot of large land owners posting their land to limit their liability
Click to expand...

That's another issue. And a valid one.

People do get sued for failing to provide adequate safety on their own private property.
 
We have some good discussion here. I think the worrisome aspect is the lack of communication the new owners have shown, and the fact that their restrictions "island" public property. Access restrictions on property vary so much that you must know the law for your locale.

I know that, in Oregon USA, one of the reasons that large land owners block off roads is the "adverse possession" clauses and such. "we've always used this road, so we must have access". Problem is when the road is damaged, used as a logging landing/loading, and the public insists that they must be able to use it. Liability concerns are sometimes overruling common sense.

I don't know what we, as a group, can do to help the situation, but this is becoming more an issue than in the past. More tracts of our state forests are behind locked gates than before. Not that they are locking the area, but transit to the area is blocked.

CT
 
I agree that it's a shame access to this land is now in serious doubt, but I have a different "take" on it...

Using land that is privately owned, or owned by federal or state governments, is a "privilege". It is not a "right". To keep that privilege we, as users (whether our activities are hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, etc - it doesn't matter) must act responsibly. Not doing so puts that use in jeopardy. There are several well funded environmental groups trying to restrict access, and not respecting land plays into their hands.

Several times a year I go to southern Utah and use a Polaris RZR to explore Sand Hollow State Park, as well as a huge amount of contiguous BLM land. It disgusts me to see the amount of trash people leave behind.

I'm not jumping to the conclusion that this happened with the land the Wilks purchased, but if I owned a big chunk of land land and graciously allowed people to use it, and they then made a bunch of new trails and left their trash... I'd close it too.

As others have pointed out there are possible legal issues with allowing ongoing access, as well as potential legal liability if someone is hurt on their land. So why should they open themselves up to that liability?

The Wilks brothers rose from humble beginnings. I suspect they're relatively normal guys and my guess is if one were able to speak directly to either of the Wilks brothers and asked nicely, they'd probably give you permission.
 
Cidertom said:
We have some good discussion here. I think the worrisome aspect is the lack of communication the new owners have shown, and the fact that their restrictions "island" public property. Access restrictions on property vary so much that you must know the law for your locale.

I know that, in Oregon USA, one of the reasons that large land owners block off roads is the "adverse possession" clauses and such. "we've always used this road, so we must have access". Problem is when the road is damaged, used as a logging landing/loading, and the public insists that they must be able to use it. Liability concerns are sometimes overruling common sense.

I don't know what we, as a group, can do to help the situation, but this is becoming more an issue than in the past. More tracts of our state forests are behind locked gates than before. Not that they are locking the area, but transit to the area is blocked.

CT
Click to expand...

It seems to me, though, that the reality is different from the perception. The reality is that over half the land in the lower 48 belongs to the public. States also have their share. I live in a subdivision surrounded by an 8500 acre state park. In Alaska the percentage is far higher. The problem, if there is a problem, is with public lands, not with privately owned land.

Since each of us has our own idea of proper use of public land, generally self centered and often conflicting, there will always be controversy over the usage.
 
Today the state of NY announced their potential plan to restrict access to new "wilderness" lands purchased for the public in the Adirondack Park. (20,500 new acres.) They don't even want bicycles in there (on some dirt roads that already exist). They call that "mechanized" transport. (Seems like that used to mean something with an engine.)

The battle used to be over snowmobiles--now it is over bicycles and horses! It just seems too hard to believe! The state has been working on (they count debating and evaluating/approving a snowmobile trail system there since the 1980's!)

The debate over this particular new land issue will probably go on for many years. In the mean time, as I understand it, nobody will be legally allowed to even hike or canoe in there. I think once they make a decision they have to create an implementation plan (which will probably take many more years).

[They also want to tear down the oldest log cabin in the Park because it will be on "wilderness" lands.]

It just seems to me that mountain bikes and horses seem harmonious with woods. I wonder what it would be like to go to one of the meetings and ask where the snowcat trails are?

If you ask locals why they will say that the state just wants the humans living there out of the Park. (The state only owns about half the six million acre Park.) It seems to me that there are fewer people living in the Park and visiting each year.
 
I don't know anything about State lands in NY, but Federally designated Wilderness Areas don't allow bikes, not even a two-wheeled cart that you pull. That's OK with me, its the whole point of wilderness.

We share 1/2 mile of property boundary with the BLM. The men and women who we deal with from the BLM are pretty reasonable. Most of them are very professional (if you don't begin the conversation like a prick), and all of them have a better outdoor ethic than many of the people who visit here for "recreation". Trash, poached deer and elk, human feces and T.P. left unburied at campsites, you name it and we deal with. One group left old upholstered furniture (couch and a lazy-boy) at their camp when they left, along with several dozen busted bottles. Yeah, these are our fellow Americans.
 
It seems like a pretty simple concept to me:

You either believe in private property rights or you don't.

I'm dealing with trespassing slob hunters at my place tight now. The way they have trespassed in the past leads me to believe they have been doing it ever since they've been out here. They've been doing it so long, they think "they" own the land, not me.

Public land on the other hand? The Gov't/Enviro-weeenies have gone way too far in cutting off and restricting public land across the country. They say they want to save it for "future generations". That's BS of the highest order.

The big property owners out west that this thread is about: Too bad, so sad, but they own the land, they make the rules. Reminds me of those morons that built their homes on property they didn't own, then screamed bloody murder when the new landowner decided to not renew their yearly leases. What kind of idiot builds his "dream" retirement home on land he leases year-by-year????
 
FTG-05 said:
Reminds me of those morons that built their homes on property they didn't own, then screamed bloody murder when the new landowner decided to not renew their yearly leases. What kind of idiot builds his "dream" retirement home on land he leases year-by-year????
Click to expand...

Whoa, where was that?

Good luck with your trespassers. Do you have some support from your local conservation officer/warden?
 
I guess I just still have some sour apples about the state "reclassifying" a nice chunk of my land once. Emotionally it was pretty ugly. Luckily the ending wasn't bad. Just seems like us citizens get the short end of the stick when they just take away what we used to enjoy.

It's a pretty emotional issue in the Adirondack Park (since they started all their classifications in 1973. Now mostly they have evolved into "reclassification" and more weaselly ways.)

I guess it bugs me too that I can't even legally bike on a dirt road through the woods.
 
Some ways, I'm sorry I brought it up. I think that most of us here value the individuals property rights.

I've (that means me, not you) have always had good relations with the federal property managers. But then, I've worked real hard to show what I wanted, would help them somehow.

My biggest concern, and what prompted the initial post, is the islanding of public lands. My old stomping grounds has many many square miles of land I am free to enjoy, except I can't get to them (legally). Many of the high country areas that are public owned require transit across private lands to access them. A communication site I used to use, (and the reason I bought the cat) while on public lands, required a contract that cost our university several thousand dollars to use each year to transit a stretch of private land.

The reason for the post was to raise awareness that more of the land, while public, wasn't accessible. And the number seems to be growing. In some cases it only takes the phone call/ email, but in many the answer is NO.


CT
 
Cidertom,

I too am floored by public lands 'islanded' by private land. I've found this in upper Michigan and near Boulder Colorado. The surrounding land has all been sold to private owners, who then closed off all access roads into the public land.

I have no problem respecting private land. We've got around 500 acres here, and I have to deal with "drifters" (to put it politely) from time to time. But respecting others' land is sometimes why I can no longer get to the public land.

So when land that contains access route/s to public land is sold or owned privately, then I think those access routes need to remain open. IIRC, last time I was in Colorado, there was some talk about if a road was published on a map prior to a certain date, then it had to remain open. I don't know if this is true or not., but it wasn't being observed.

Bottom line to me, public land ought to be accessible to the public. Otherwise, it ain't public.
 
FTG-05 said:
http://www.newswest9.com/story/32697882/wagner-ranch-residence-being-evicted


Yes, both the local TWRA Game Warden and sheriff have been very supportive. But it's a big county, almost 600 sq. miles and it's one GW.
Click to expand...

That's crazy, I can't imagine building a house on land that we had no control over. Maybe they have money to throw away?

Same situation here, we have an excellent GW but he's spread real thin. Last week someone shot and gutted a deer right on the road below us, the vehicle must have been within sight of our house, but somehow we didn't hear any shots and missed the whole thing. (Entered my mind that maybe it was a crossbow?) On our other side we found a 4 point buck that someone shot and failed to track down. Our view here is warped because we have no contact with most of the more ethical hunters who are in the backcountry.
 
Red130 said:
That's crazy, I can't imagine building a house on land that we had no control over. Maybe they have money to throw away?

Same situation here, we have an excellent GW but he's spread real thin. Last week someone shot and gutted a deer right on the road below us, the vehicle must have been within sight of our house, but somehow we didn't hear any shots and missed the whole thing. (Entered my mind that maybe it was a crossbow?) On our other side we found a 4 point buck that someone shot and failed to track down. Our view here is warped because we have no contact with most of the more ethical hunters who are in the backcountry.
Click to expand...

Land leases are not uncommon. Typically more in commercial land, but also in highly desirable residential areas like beachfront areas or mountain cabin sites.

Generally people know what they are doing, do it anyway, then whine when it doesn't work out.
 
When I used to live next to a big chunk of private land owned by a forestry company, I used to walk my dogs in it all the time. I approached the first land manager I could find, told him who I was and where I lived and asked him if it was ok for me to walk around in there. I also asked for his contact information so I could report any bad stuff going on. I think he was really happy to have an extra set of eyes in there. Over the years, I reported lots of suspicious stuff that I think he appreciated.

I think people that own large amounts of private land are always happy to share with responsible people that are willing to help them out. If you need access to an "island" of land - just approach the owner or their agent with your needs and ask them what you can do to get through. One life lesson I have learned is it never hurts to ask politely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top