Developing the whole countryside

[JVS]

I have seen section after section being developed over the last few years in my old stompin grounds. Houses going in where I used to hunt deer. It's getting absolutley ridiculous. I was out huntin' pigs last weekend with my dad, and we counted over 6 miles of county road that has nothing but locked gates. Just .25 miles behind the gates are public lands, but no way to get to it. Not even foot traffic is allowed which is a crock of crap. Private landowners are obligated to give "resonable access" to landlocked public lands according to state law. Where are the G&F access people? Where's the FS and BLM? Why should I get reamed by a rancher because I tried to cross an unmarked portion of his private land to get to "public lands" which are landlocked by this freakin wheener? I'm getting tired of this access issue, and I'm dang near tot he point of going to 2222W Greenfield Rd in Phx and throwing a tyrate until someone gets something done with this access BS. We all need to throw fits to the local govts, including, but not limited to the G&F, FS, BLM, county board of supervisors, etc. If the private lands I see (not including the hundereds of thousands elsewhere) are developed with homes, we might as well hang it up. It's hard enough to get access now. If we wait for another five or ten years to take action, we'll all be limited to road hunting off the highway right of way. We need to get it through the thick skulls of the landowners that 40 acres of private land at an access point doesn't create a reason to lock up 10,000 public acres. We also need to get through the thick skulls of gov't officials two words....D-10 cat. Blade around these inconciderate private landowners!!! just my two pennies. Is anyone with me?

[KGAINES]

D-10 cat. Blade around these inconciderate private landowners!!! just my two pennies. Is anyone with me?

Why blade around, if they block access we should blade through or over, we should start with the tapia lady. Let them know that public lands stay public and should always have access, it sucks when one person can screw it up for thousands.

[ronaldo]

Typical game and fish not doing anything, then when they do, its always the wrong thing....no surprises here. We need to do something about this land locking...I agree...!00%

Ron

[Diamondbackaz]

Let me chime in on this since I have worked for the Forest service. Access is a problem and is getting worse. JVS there is no state or federal law that requires a private land owner to provide any type of access to public lands with out just compensation. Pima county has an an ordinance that can require land access as a part of a zoning change. Keith, it isn't as easy as it sounds to build a road around private land. There are EIS's that have to be done, and then if you have to deal with the state land department, it gets even more difficult.

[Dan H]

Thats what happened to all the killer quail, javelina, and mule deer huntin I used to do near the superstitions. Gold canyon and Peralta road wiped out access to some awesome area. I think some of it was set on fire years ago deliberately so developers could move in.

I even have 2 WT sheds from on top the flatiron. Wonder if there still up there?

 

Like the agent said on the Matrix.

You people are a plague.

Just keep spreading, using up all your resources,..theres like this film or stench that I can't get off of me.

 

EEEEEEEHHHHHH

 

Dan

[lfootmatt]

Diablo Mountain in 36b is completely privately owned now. I've been told that the owner is planning to develop it. It definitely shows as private on my new topo map for 36b.

 

I know access is a problem, but according to the AZF&G regs I read this year they are required to post the property for no hunting/tresspassing in a very specific manner in order to be valid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean I can hunt on private land even if it is fenced and gated? So the rancher can get on you all he wants, but unless it's posted properly he can't do squat. Of course it would be very rude to not leave at his request, but you wouldn't have to. At least that's what the regs seem to say.

 

Perhaps we need to better pay attention to the State Trust Land auctions and file the appropriate protests when they don't accomidate adequate public access to public lands. Without the access, these sales are effectively giving additional land away to the buyer.

 

My $0.02

 

Matt

[Diamondbackaz]

Diablo Mountain in 36b is completely privately owned now.  I've been told that the owner is planning to develop it.  It definitely shows as private on my new topo map for 36b.

 

I know access is a problem, but according to the AZF&G regs I read this year they are required to post the property for no hunting/tresspassing in a very specific manner in order to be valid.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean I can hunt on private land even if it is fenced and gated?  So the rancher can get on you all he wants, but unless it's posted properly he can't do squat.  Of course it would be very rude to not leave at his request, but you wouldn't have to.  At least that's what the regs seem to say.

 

Perhaps we need to better pay attention to the State Trust Land auctions and file the appropriate protests when they don't accomidate adequate public access to public lands.  Without the access, these sales are effectively giving additional land away to the buyer.

 

My $0.02

 

 

 

Matt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wrong, please look at a forest service map or BLM map, and you will see that Diablo is on both State and forest land. The access through Chavez siding is a public access and will remain open. The access through the Sopri Ranch has been closed

[Coues79]

Diablo Mountain in 36b is completely privately owned now.  I've been told that the owner is planning to develop it.  It definitely shows as private on my new topo map for 36b.

 

I know access is a problem, but according to the AZF&G regs I read this year they are required to post the property for no hunting/tresspassing in a very specific manner in order to be valid.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean I can hunt on private land even if it is fenced and gated?  So the rancher can get on you all he wants, but unless it's posted properly he can't do squat.  Of course it would be very rude to not leave at his request, but you wouldn't have to.  At least that's what the regs seem to say.

 

Perhaps we need to better pay attention to the State Trust Land auctions and file the appropriate protests when they don't accomidate adequate public access to public lands.  Without the access, these sales are effectively giving additional land away to the buyer.

 

My $0.02

 

Matt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I had a friend of mine get tagged on trespassing in Unit 32 a few years back. He took it to court and I believe won because the land was not properly marked for private property/no trespassing/no hunting. As far as I know, it does have to be marked in a specific manner in order for it to hold up in court. It would just be a matter of wanting to try the system or not.

[JVS]

I guess where I want to go with this is to see what options we have to get the g&f, BLM, FS, etc involved and get us access. I know of several EA's (environmental assesements) that have been completed for the sole purpose of blading around private lands, but nothing has happened. These agencies so gunshy worried they might piss off a landowner they won't take the necessary steps to get 'er done. So what if the agencies piss off a landowner or two by blading around them...It serves them right for not providing access to landlocked public lands. Besides that, there's a whole lot more pissed off hunters, hikers and campers than pissed ranchers. It's time to squeek our wheels. It is our right to have access to public lands. Yeah, those same lands I pay tax dollars to the DOI, etc to manage. If we are vocal enough, the agencies will do what it takes to shut us up. Let's quit paying for access with hertitage funds and get our own dang access! I'll do my part, and I am writing a letter of concern tonight and it will be mailed to each and every interested party involved. Call these agencies, ask questions, let's bug the crap out fo them until they give us what we want. Who's with me?

[JVS]

Wrong, please look at a forest service map or BLM map, and you will see that Diablo is on both State and forest land. The access through Chavez siding is a public access and will remain open. The access through the Sopri Ranch has been closed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Make sure the state land hasn't been sold...It's selling like hotcakes. Not sure if it is selling in that area, but near Phx, etc, it's going fast. State lands department is dang near hiring an inhouse auctioneer!

[audsley]

JVS,

 

If you're in Morenci and not already acquainted with the Southeastern Arizona Sportsen, I suggest you get in touch with them. I'm sure they would be glad to have your help with this issue.

 

East of the San Pedro, whitetail tags have declined 21% since 1992. The decrease in units west of the San Pedro was only 4% during that time. Cochise and Graham Counties have experienced a lot of land closures by private owners. I believe a legislative solution will ultimately be required, but that's going to be tough. In the meantime, there are some other things we can do.

 

Anyone who is seriously interested in working sportsmen's access problems in southern Arizona should contact me at laudsley@aol.com. I'm part of a group that does that, and we could use more help from interested sportsmen who would be willing to attend some of the meetings held by BLM, Forest Service and US Fish & Wildlife, and which are currently dominated by enviros and anti-hunters (if you'll pardon the redundancy.)

 

And yes, development is a real problem. Unfortunately, the early settlers claimed the best land as private and left the worst for the government. Now the ranchettes and subdivisions are going in where the water is. Get ready to lose the Willow Springs Ranch and probably the Falcon Valley as well. Ranches, even ones with houses down in the draw next to the cottonwoods, could support large animals. Subdivisions cannot. And if you think ranchers are touchy about people hunting around the house, try hunting around a subdivision full of soccer moms.

[JVS]

Yes, I'm a member of the club. I'm hoping this will be one of the club's pushes in the next year or so.

[billrquimby]

JVS,

 

If you're in Morenci and not already acquainted with the Southeastern Arizona Sportsen, I suggest you get in touch with them.  I'm sure they would be glad to have your help with this issue.

 

East of the San Pedro, whitetail tags have declined 21% since 1992.  The decrease in units west of the San Pedro was only 4% during that time.  Cochise and Graham Counties have experienced a lot of land closures by private owners.  I believe a legislative solution will ultimately be required, but that's going to be tough.  In the meantime, there are some other things we can do.

 

Anyone who is seriously interested in working sportsmen's access problems in southern Arizona should contact me at laudsley@aol.com.  I'm part of a group that does that, and we could use more help from interested sportsmen who would be willing to attend some of the meetings held by BLM, Forest Service and US Fish & Wildlife, and which are currently dominated by enviros and anti-hunters (if you'll pardon the redundancy.)

 

And yes, development is a real problem.  Unfortunately, the early settlers claimed the best land as private and left the worst for the government.  Now the ranchettes and subdivisions are going in where the water is.  Get ready to lose the Willow Springs Ranch and probably the Falcon Valley as well.  Ranches, even ones with houses down in the draw next to the cottonwoods, could support large animals.  Subdivisions cannot.  And if you think ranchers are touchy about people hunting around the house, try hunting around a subdivision full of soccer moms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well said, Larry Audsley.

[lfootmatt]

 

 

DiamondbackAZ,

 

Accoring to my brand new BLM Topo map of 36b, and the guys I was hunting with, Diablo mountain is now privately owned by a developer.

 

It clearly shows all white on the map with a small leg connecting all the way down to the top of 4141. It isn't posted but has been recently surveyed.

 

The guys I was with said that this was a relatively recent event like in the past year or 2.

 

The only access it threatens is the immediate vicinity of Diablo mountain.

 

Matt

[Diamondbackaz]

 

 

DiamondbackAZ,

 

Accoring to my brand new BLM Topo map of 36b, and the guys I was hunting with, Diablo mountain is now privately owned by a developer.

 

It clearly shows all white on the map with a small leg connecting all the way down to the top of 4141. It isn't posted but has been recently surveyed.

 

The guys I was with said that this was a relatively recent event like in the past year or 2.

 

The only access it threatens is the immediate vicinity of Diablo mountain.

 

Matt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I stand corrected, I see that you are talking about the private land that is about a section in size that Diablo peak is on. Actually that piece has been private for a long time and was probably sold as part of the Sopri Ranch. I have been waiting for this ranch to be developed for about 10 years now. I had thought that you were talking about all the land around there. The important thing is that Red Spring pass and the raod north of Diablo stay open.