Land Access

[AntlerObsession]

Just a quick story to illustrate how tough it is to ranch with hunters accessing your grazing land. My buddy owns a ranch up by the Salt River, runs cattle all along the river, but has to walk a fine line with reservation land, avoiding overgrazing and not losing his shirt. Last December a hunter legally accessed his lease and, did his thing, and forgot to shut one gate on his way out. It took 2 hours for 100+ cattle to slip through into land they shouldn't have been on, causing all sorts of problems, let alone the hundreds of hours it took to move them back into the proper area.

 

It's one thing when a hunter/trespasser is malicious and vandalizes, but there are so many things we hunters don't quite grasp when it comes to ranch management, we can cause problems without even meaning to.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

For me it is simple... maybe too simple... but here it goes.

 

First, We own the wild life... every single person in this state, we do have a right to access what is ours.

 

Second, checker boarding is a double edged sword to both sides... they (technically) cannot keep us off unless they properly fence and post each "private section" off from the State land (no one is gunna do that). However, by only having gates on the Private sections, they can stop vehicle traffic on all of it. WE own the "State sections" and cannot be stopped from non-vehicular access to those sections unless someone properly fences/posts the Private from the State... you have access to all.

 

Third, when one small (or large) piece of Private blocks public land access, they are blocking us, (John Q Public) from lands and animals that we fund, support and own... there for I believe they (State & Land owner) have a couple of choices. Condemn the road and make it public, fencing both sides of it as private and post it, or declare eminent domain on the road way and fence/ post both sides, or give the land owner the option to provide for the cost of cutting a road around the private on the public land, allow the land owner to designate an “easement for public access on the private”, or simply leave the road open to the public with mandatory sign in and sign out.

 

Yes too simple… however we need simplicity in this ever skewed, and bureaucratic system.

[.270]

seems to me that most of the gripe with private land is that you can't drive across it to public land. get on ol' shanks mare and walk around or come in the other way. there are a lotta ways to access public land other than a vehicle. private land is "private" land. you can't condemn it because you want to drive across it. what if your neighbor behind you decides he can access his backyard easier through your backyard? you have to respect private landowners rights, even if sometimes they are jerks about it. look at the mess in aravaipa canyon a few years ago. took awhile, but legal finally won over illegal and stupid. checkerboard land is another problem all in it's own. there is public land between the private land, but it's been taken to court quite a few times, and you can't access the public land without permission of the private landowner, if he doesn't want you to. sucks, but that's the way it is. one thing that grates me is when these jerks lock up state trust land. you can hunt on it legally but there are sure a bunch of em that try to keep you from it. Az has very little private land compared to public land. go to colorado or new mexico or wyoming or montana or utah and you'll see what it's like to be locked out. about the only way you can make a landowner open his place to allow you to drive across it is if there is a road built or maintained by public money. i've hunted all over Az and i've never not hunted somewhere that i wanted to because of a locked gate on private land. if i want to hunt a place like that, i'll go around and come in a different way. someone on here was complaining about the 76 ranch locking people out. they do on the private land. seems like the 76 has around 10,000 acres of private land. but there are a jillion other ways to hunt the public land on it. takes a little work is all. i don't buy the private land "excuse" in Az. too much wide open country to hunt to worry about a few acres with a gate on it. if a landowner can be enticed to open his place up, great. but even if they can't, quit worrying about it and go hunting. if you can't find a place to hunt in Az, you can't find a place to hunt anywhere. Lark.

[DesertBull]

When the courts ruled that you cannot cross a corner post on checker board land, it screwed us all.

[stanley]

seems to me that most of the gripe with private land is that you can't drive across it to public land. get on ol' shanks mare and walk around or come in the other way. there are a lotta ways to access public land other than a vehicle. private land is "private" land. you can't condemn it because you want to drive across it. what if your neighbor behind you decides he can access his backyard easier through your backyard? you have to respect private landowners rights, even if sometimes they are jerks about it. look at the mess in aravaipa canyon a few years ago. took awhile, but legal finally won over illegal and stupid. checkerboard land is another problem all in it's own. there is public land between the private land, but it's been taken to court quite a few times, and you can't access the public land without permission of the private landowner, if he doesn't want you to. sucks, but that's the way it is. one thing that grates me is when these jerks lock up state trust land. you can hunt on it legally but there are sure a bunch of em that try to keep you from it. Az has very little private land compared to public land. go to colorado or new mexico or wyoming or montana or utah and you'll see what it's like to be locked out. about the only way you can make a landowner open his place to allow you to drive across it is if there is a road built or maintained by public money. i've hunted all over Az and i've never not hunted somewhere that i wanted to because of a locked gate on private land. if i want to hunt a place like that, i'll go around and come in a different way. someone on here was complaining about the 76 ranch locking people out. they do on the private land. seems like the 76 has around 10,000 acres of private land. but there are a jillion other ways to hunt the public land on it. takes a little work is all. i don't buy the private land "excuse" in Az. too much wide open country to hunt to worry about a few acres with a gate on it. if a landowner can be enticed to open his place up, great. but even if they can't, quit worrying about it and go hunting. if you can't find a place to hunt in Az, you can't find a place to hunt anywhere. Lark.

 

 

+1

 

As usual; words of wisdom from Lark.....

 

S.

 

[.270]

folks had better be a lot more conerned about getting locked off of public land than griping about what little private land there is in this state. if the forest circus, blm and state land dept could, they would, and they continually look for ways to do it. Lark.

[azslim]

Truer words were never spoken Lark, there is a pretty good contingent of senor FS, BLM, etc that are anti-hunting, anti-livestock, super conservationists that are getting mgmt positions. They will have a bigger impact than a few ranchers closing off their ground.

[audsley]

Can't tell you how excited I am to see someone else starting this thread on public lands access and so many participating. I've focused on this subject for some time now and here's some basic information some might not already know.

 

Condemning land for public roadways - State, county and federal agencies have the legal authority to do this, but it's very controversial and you'll never see them do it for recreational opportunities. They'll do it for developments and highway projects, but not just so someone can go hunting or birdwatching.

 

Public access provisions for grazing lessees - At the federal level, the written lease agreement grants the forest service (and probably BLM too, although I don't know as much about them) access to cross the lessee's private property for purposes associated with the agency's administration of the grazing lease. For any other purpose involving wildlife, timber harvest, mineral extraction, monitoring forest conditions unrelated to grazing or recreational issues, the federal agency has no legal right to cross the private land of a grazing lessee without permission, and permission can be denied. In actuality, that does happen. As a law enforcement agency, AGFD can go anywhere it wants when investigating a possible crime, but AGFD can't cross private land without permission just to survey the antelope or deer.

 

Under Gov. Hull the commission proposed inserting provisions in all state grazing leases that would allow the public access across the leaseholder's private property to reach state trust land. The governor's administration refused to support it and the idea died.

 

Programs for conservation/access easements - These do work in some cases, but don't be fooled by all the brochures and glowing PR about the program. While the sportsmen's access program has been going on, we've been steadily losing more access. Some landowners simply aren't interested.

 

Who is a landowner? We tend to think of landowners as ranchers, but much of the private land blocking access to the national forest/BLM lands/state trust lands is actually owned by investment banks, developers, mines, out-of-state owners and commercial entities who simply make it a policy to lock gates as soon as they acquire property and don't give it a second thought.

 

Bad sportsmen behavior as a cause of locked gates. Yes, it's a big factor, but it's also a smokescreen in many cases. With no legal guidelines in place, each landowner is free to decide how much impact is tolerable. Some want to be good citizens and will accept a certain amount of damage, perhaps recognizing that their low public lands grazing fees partly reflect the expectation that they'll share the land with the public, but others lock gates over the slightest excuse. There are several instances of landowners having vast portions of federal lands as private hunting preserves for themselves, their friends and family, and business associates, not to mention hunting guides who contract with them for exclusive access to federal lands. Gated subdivisions and ranchette communities can demand higher selling prices for exclusive federal lands access for residents only. We all pay the taxes to administer the lands, but they get the benefits.

 

My solutions: Federal government offers to pay willing sellers for permanent right of way. Unfortunately, this is a poor time to suggest government expenditure, but frankly I consider the federal government to have an interest in facilitating the public's access to the lands it holds in trust for all of us. Access to federal land boundaries is an important component that is missing from our nation's public lands program. There are limits to how effective this would be since wealthy hobby ranchers and big commercial outfits probably wouldn't find the money attractive enough, but some of the smaller independent ranchers who are struggling would be grateful for the opportunity.

 

At the state level, grazing leases should require access across the lessees private land, subject to certain conditions including a sign-in kiosks and perhaps brief periods when the ranch is closed for a specific reason following notice given to AGFD and the state land dept. This law would be very tough to get passed because ranchers would fight it, and much of the public, including hunters, is under-informed and confused about the subject.

 

We need to pass a constitutional amendment allowing specific land swaps by ballot initiative. This hasn't worked in the past because the public doesn't trust land swaps and does not understand the need for them. First we would need a public education offensive on this subject.

 

For big companies such as mines and solar power plants, we need to impress upon them that it's in their interest to maintain good relations with the community where they're situated. We could even sweeten the pot with property tax breaks for good land stewardship PLUS controlled public access.

 

Again, I can't tellyou how pleased I am to see this subject on this forum. I'm sure there are folks in AGFD, BLM and the forest service who share my sentiments.

[BikerRN]

Audsley,

 

Thank you for that very informative reply.

 

I am learning a lot as I read through these threads, and quite frankly there is a lot I am not liking. If it's public land it should be accessable to us all. We, hunters, outdoor enthusiast, and others of our ilk, are often our own worst enemies it seems.

 

If a Guide wants access to government land beyond what the mere private citizen has, let him or her pay a significant sum, and pay for all the management of that land. Otherwise, jump in the same boat as the rest of us. I view public land much like a river in the desert. The law says a landowner cannot dam a river and keep water from inhabitants downstream. However this is basically what happens when private landowners lock a gate and prevent us, the public, from accessing our public lands.

 

Nobody said life was fair, but by God there needs to at least be the appearance of fairness and access. That's not happening today in many places. As much as it pains me, I will vote against agricultural interest if it gets the public access to the lands we rightfully own by our citizenship.

 

I'd love to see this discussion continue. Maybe somebody can spark a fire that helps to settle this matter once and for all.

 

Biker