Acessing Public Land through Private Property

[.270]

i look at private land a little differently. you guys mostly are refering to "vehicle" access across private property being denied as a problem. go around. walk in, ride a mule. h e l l, parachute if you want to. when you get there you won't have much competition either, because the other guys are out there trying to find a way to drive in. if you want to hunt a place bad enough, you can almost always find a way to do it. private land is just that, private. if the landowner won't let you cross it, that's just the way it is. it is their prerogative. there has been some real good work done to get folks to allow sportsmen to cross private land. i can think of one place where the landowner flat out got raped by a warden years ago. but he now allows people across his place. somebody had to do some real sweet talkin' to get that to happen. compared to most other states, Az does not have a private land access problem. some of the checkerboard stuff is a pain and i don't know if the rules have ever been completely figured out there. but in the vast majority of cases, if there is a vehicle access problem across private land, if you want to work a little, you can go around find a way in. and as far as a road across someone's private property, if they built the road, it doesn't really matter, it's their road. if the road was built with public funds or is maintained with public funds, that's a different story. they probably can't legally lock it. the gate way down aravaipa canyon a few years ago is a prime example. i think graham county was quite timid in dealing with her, but eventually they won and opened it back up. it helped that she got busted for counterfitting and some other stuff, too. private land can be a nuisance, but pissin' off the landowner ain't gonna do anyone any good. in a lot of states, leased state land can be locked up just like private land. Az ain't that way. you can hunt state land with little problem. sometimes vehicle access is denied, but you can still walk in, or ride an equine. go hunt some other places and you'll have a real appreciation for Az public land. a lot of places i hunt in new mex and colorado, the entire unit is private land. in some states almost all of the little public land there is are state parks that you can't hunt anyway. Lark.

[Coach]

Coues79, you are dead on. I can point to situations where idiots have messed things up for us all day. I can also point to situations where a lease-holder - not even an owner of the public land - has gone ape-sh!t over some minor situation and closed a gate that holds the access to public land.

 

One of the best things about AZ is how much of it is available to us. A few disagreements over water or property damage, and AZGFD and USFS cave to what I consider a tiny minority of special interest groups. Why should you or I be banned from public land because of what some slob or idiot did?

 

I'm an advocate for private property rights, but in AZ, so many have abused those rights by benefiting from public services when it suits them, then trying to claim ownership rights to land they lease from you and I to prevent access to OUR land. Really pisses me off, if you can't tell...

[audsley]

This subject is too complicated for forum posts, and the pain meds I'm taking from last month's knee replacement surgery isn't helping me concentrate. But I've been actively working public lands access for some time now, and I can speak to a couple of the issues that have been raised.

 

Starting with Str8Shot's question about public funds for maintenance of private roads, the courts have said that's OK as long as the public is allowed to use the private stretch of road and thus receiving a benefit from having it maintained. But once a landowner locks out the public, that landowner is then responsible for taking over the maintenance. There can be exceptions and qualifications involving the health and safety of third parties, but that's generally how it works. Consequently, we should not be funding what Coach has called "very long driveways" to private ranches, but it's my understanding that this sometimes happens anyway. Any citizen who encounters locked gates on roads maintained by taxpayer dollars should approach the county BOS for an explanation. If the county's response isn't satisfactory, try going to the newspaper or even taking the county and the landowner to court and asking the judge to make the defendants pay your legal fees when he rules against them.

 

Several government entities have the power of eminent domain and could legally take possession of private stretches of road while compensating the landowners at fair market value, but they'll never do it for recreational access. They will do it for developments and major highway construction, but not just so people can go hunting. The US Forest Service and BLM could do it, but they almost never do because of the political fallout associated with government taking private property. ADOT and any county can do it, but they don't want the political fallout either. There is a federal law, RS 2477, that allows historic routes existing at the time of statehood to be declared public roads regardless of current ownership, but only state or county transportation agencies can invoke it, and state and county governments won't do it for public access to federal lands.

 

Game & Fish does not have any such powers and consequently has been begging and buying public access to state and federal lands but with limited success. Each year they pay thousands of dollars to ranchers and perform work that benefits both wildlife and the landowner's livestock operation. Unfortunately, many landowners aren't interested in such arrangements. Hobby ranchers, who may be trust fund babies or made their fortunes in other businesses, don't need the money. Some landowners hate government including the land management agencies they hold grazing leases with, and many see Game & Fish as their enemy. Some see the benefits of having control over the public's federal land as being worth more than Game & Fish will pay them to share it.

 

Game & Fish does try to purchase easements for alternate access and develop rods across state trust or federal lands, but funds are limited and the topography doesn't always lend itself to an easy alternative. Roads that go through narrow canyons are sometimes the only feasible routes for motorized access. The state land dept. is under a mandate to make all uses of state trust land beneficial to the trust beneficiaries, which results in SLD requiring that roads be built to a county standard in order that it adds value to the land. This usually turns out to be a more expensive road than just a 2-track that would be adequate for hunters and thus burns up access money at a faster rate. Roadless rules and wilderness designation threaten to compound the problem by making no provision to allow alternate access roads when traditional routes are locked off.

 

The deck is stacked heavily in favor of the landowner who padlocks his piece of private land and enjoys the benefits of sole possession of state and federal land without having to pay taxes on it. That won't change until Arizona sportsmen get as worked up about it as they just were over HB 2072. Until then, the political will to end an outrageous situation just isn't going to be there.

 

Until then, chew on this: A couple of the roads in southern Arizona that cross private property and theoretically could be locked off to the public include Rucker Canyon in Unit 29 and the Ruby Road in 36B. Both of these are major roads that lead to Forest roads. Up north, the Chino Grande Ranch shut off access across the checkerboard lands costing 65 antelope hunters their permits, and I'm hearing other ranches may soon do the same. Landowners have seen that if the public can be locked out of historic sites on national forests such as Generonimo's surrender site (Skeleton Canyon), they can do it other places too.

 

Well, you've been told. If Arizona was a prison cell block, the Arizona sportsman would be everybody's b&*ch. Either get used to it or do something about it.

 

Now I need to go take a pain med before I get any crankier.

[AzHuntingAddict]

Whats up with the H.O.A. mentality here? Private is private, just deal with it. I also enjoy the bashing for spelling, really?! The issue of access onto private land is really up to the land owner, plain and simple. Your @nal enough about it, then get yourself a lawyer and save your lunch money to start a suit for access. I am tired of some other jack-waggon telling me (the land owner) what im supposed to do with MY land.

[audsley]

Got news for you, Addict: Public land is public land!

 

I don't want to hunt your private land. I want to hunt our public land.

 

.270, tell us more about the landowner who "flat-out got raped by a warden a few years ago, but he now allows people across his place." Was somebody having a Brokeback Mtn. moment out there, some "warden" we should know about?

[Coues79]

I could care less what any landowner does on their land... but if you lock it up and access to public land, make sure you're just using "your land" and not "public land" behind it that can only be reasonably reached through an access road that was put there for the intentions of public use.

[AzHuntingAddict]

Got news for you, Addict: Public land is public land!

 

I don't want to hunt your private land. I want to hunt our public land.

 

.270, tell us more about the landowner who "flat-out got raped by a warden a few years ago, but he now allows people across his place." Was somebody having a Brokeback Mtn. moment out there, some "warden" we should know about?

 

If I am not mistaken, the discussion was on PRIVATE land and access to public land. Read again.

[audsley]

I believe the discussion was about public land that is blocked by private land and what anyone can do to gain access to the public land. There were questions and statements about the laws and what agencies can, should or are doing to regain public access to public lands. I shared what I think I know about those subjects. At no time has anyone indicated a desire to trespass on, hunt on or otherwise have anything to do with anyone's private land. We just want our public land back from those who have effectively taken possession of it.

[Str8Shot]

This subject is too complicated for forum posts, and the pain meds I'm taking from last month's knee replacement surgery isn't helping me concentrate. But I've been actively working public lands access for some time now, and I can speak to a couple of the issues that have been raised.

 

Starting with Str8Shot's question about public funds for maintenance of private roads, the courts have said that's OK as long as the public is allowed to use the private stretch of road and thus receiving a benefit from having it maintained. But once a landowner locks out the public, that landowner is then responsible for taking over the maintenance. There can be exceptions and qualifications involving the health and safety of third parties, but that's generally how it works. Consequently, we should not be funding what Coach has called "very long driveways" to private ranches, but it's my understanding that this sometimes happens anyway. Any citizen who encounters locked gates on roads maintained by taxpayer dollars should approach the county BOS for an explanation. If the county's response isn't satisfactory, try going to the newspaper or even taking the county and the landowner to court and asking the judge to make the defendants pay your legal fees when he rules against them.

 

Several government entities have the power of eminent domain and could legally take possession of private stretches of road while compensating the landowners at fair market value, but they'll never do it for recreational access. They will do it for developments and major highway construction, but not just so people can go hunting. The US Forest Service and BLM could do it, but they almost never do because of the political fallout associated with government taking private property. ADOT and any county can do it, but they don't want the political fallout either. There is a federal law, RS 2477, that allows historic routes existing at the time of statehood to be declared public roads regardless of current ownership, but only state or county transportation agencies can invoke it, and state and county governments won't do it for public access to federal lands.

 

Game & Fish does not have any such powers and consequently has been begging and buying public access to state and federal lands but with limited success. Each year they pay thousands of dollars to ranchers and perform work that benefits both wildlife and the landowner's livestock operation. Unfortunately, many landowners aren't interested in such arrangements. Hobby ranchers, who may be trust fund babies or made their fortunes in other businesses, don't need the money. Some landowners hate government including the land management agencies they hold grazing leases with, and many see Game & Fish as their enemy. Some see the benefits of having control over the public's federal land as being worth more than Game & Fish will pay them to share it.

 

Game & Fish does try to purchase easements for alternate access and develop rods across state trust or federal lands, but funds are limited and the topography doesn't always lend itself to an easy alternative. Roads that go through narrow canyons are sometimes the only feasible routes for motorized access. The state land dept. is under a mandate to make all uses of state trust land beneficial to the trust beneficiaries, which results in SLD requiring that roads be built to a county standard in order that it adds value to the land. This usually turns out to be a more expensive road than just a 2-track that would be adequate for hunters and thus burns up access money at a faster rate. Roadless rules and wilderness designation threaten to compound the problem by making no provision to allow alternate access roads when traditional routes are locked off.

 

The deck is stacked heavily in favor of the landowner who padlocks his piece of private land and enjoys the benefits of sole possession of state and federal land without having to pay taxes on it. That won't change until Arizona sportsmen get as worked up about it as they just were over HB 2072. Until then, the political will to end an outrageous situation just isn't going to be there.

 

Until then, chew on this: A couple of the roads in southern Arizona that cross private property and theoretically could be locked off to the public include Rucker Canyon in Unit 29 and the Ruby Road in 36B. Both of these are major roads that lead to Forest roads. Up north, the Chino Grande Ranch shut off access across the checkerboard lands costing 65 antelope hunters their permits, and I'm hearing other ranches may soon do the same. Landowners have seen that if the public can be locked out of historic sites on national forests such as Generonimo's surrender site (Skeleton Canyon), they can do it other places too.

 

Well, you've been told. If Arizona was a prison cell block, the Arizona sportsman would be everybody's b&*ch. Either get used to it or do something about it.

 

Now I need to go take a pain med before I get any crankier.

 

Audsley ... I am aware of most of what you were stating and my biggest question comes from the use of Easements/roads as a right of way as it pertains to the History behind such road. It has been a while but I do believe that an easement by prescription could easily be enforced by a party (i.e. Arizona residents/taxpayers) on the majority of Tax dollar maintained roadways that have been used for decades as ingress and egress to the public land blocked by a private parcel. If I recall I remember this to be the case as stated here "To establish a prescriptive easement in Arizona, a party must actually and visibly use the alleged easement for the requisite statutory period of ten years and commence and continue the use under a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the owner."(Jay C. Jacobson,http://www.sandersandparks.com/CM/Articles/Prescriptive-Easements.pdf.) I seem to also recall that there are grandfather clauses as well as expressed right of way easements based on public dedication (as stated earlier) To me, it seems that any roadway/easement that has been shown to historically be the primary ingress and egress to public land with out any other reasonable means of ingress or egress, as well as the history of public funds used to maintain such roads would easily constitute a easement of right of way to public lands by prescription. Searching records it may be found that such use of easement already exists as expressed or enacted through public dedication. Either way it would seem that the law would be in favor of opening up gates or creating new public access right of ways to allow access to the historical public lands of our fathers and grandfathers in many units, if pursued by the right individuals representing Arizona sportsman and women.

 

To those that think I started this about access to public land read again ... It is about accessing land that is for all and was once able to be accessed by all. I also stated that I understand the reasons some ranchers lock up gates, but IMO locking the majority out of our right to use public land is far worse. To think that any individual can act as the gate keeper to a public hunting ground and let who he or she decides($$$$) access to large chunks of Public land to hunt areas once open to everyone is also wrong.

I personally do not want to see no tax dollars spent maintaining any part of a road that ends at a locked gate where a once/currently maintained road still goes 1 - 5+ miles past the private property to Public land, and I think the majority of Sportsman and women feel the same way.

Sorry if any feathers got ruffled but the fact about private lands are easements can be imposed for numerous reasons that a landowner can do little about (look up utility easements), but the majority of right of ways/roads/easements I speak of have had a long history as public use and maintained.

[Str8Shot]

Easements on private land only allow access to a section of land to those that file the easement. Electric, irrigation or right-of-way easement is placed by a service provider or municiple interest. You can access public land, BLM, BOR, USFS etc. with a hunting license. Private land that abuts a public land is not required to allow the public access throgh the property. If the private property has an easement for right of way, say a roadway, then one could argue the access, but the land owner has the right to restrict the access unless there is a resonable request for access. To really argue the easement use, you need to find the deed or assignment of easement and read who has the authority to use the said easement. This is all spelled out in the legal description and the rights or grants of easement.

 

 

If a road goes through a ranch to public land and it is expressed,prescribed, or dedicated as a public use roadway and maintained by public funds, sorry to burst your bubble but locking access would be a violation of law. I am not trying to start a pissing match but get information as it pertains to Everyone's right to access public lands. Being rude about the situation with the majority i.e. the guys and gals that want fair access is not the best way to work out solutions. Working with the hunting community, and AZGFD is most likely a better way to find solutions.

 

As more blocks of state trust land go up for sale and boundary lines go up using historical roadways that close up sections of public use lands, more and more individuals will be buying these properties with the intentions of limiting access and profiting from the exclusivity of the Public lands they Gate. For those who think it is not happening now and will not happen more in the future of our state and sport. THINK AGAIN!

[AzHuntingAddict]

Easements on private land only allow access to a section of land to those that file the easement. Electric, irrigation or right-of-way easement is placed by a service provider or municiple interest. You can access public land, BLM, BOR, USFS etc. with a hunting license. Private land that abuts a public land is not required to allow the public access throgh the property. If the private property has an easement for right of way, say a roadway, then one could argue the access, but the land owner has the right to restrict the access unless there is a resonable request for access. To really argue the easement use, you need to find the deed or assignment of easement and read who has the authority to use the said easement. This is all spelled out in the legal description and the rights or grants of easement.

 

 

If a road goes through a ranch to public land and it is expressed,prescribed, or dedicated as a public use roadway and maintained by public funds, sorry to burst your bubble but locking access would be a violation of law. I am not trying to start a pissing match but get information as it pertains to Everyone's right to access public lands. Being rude about the situation with the majority i.e. the guys and gals that want fair access is not the best way to work out solutions. Working with the hunting community, and AZGFD is most likely a better way to find solutions.

 

As more blocks of state trust land go up for sale and boundary lines go up using historical roadways that close up sections of public use lands, more and more individuals will be buying these properties with the intentions of limiting access and profiting from the exclusivity of the Public lands they Gate. For those who think it is not happening now and will not happen more in the future of our state and sport. THINK AGAIN!

 

I think the hard part to all of this is finding the real documentation of what is really easement or right of way. Game and fish can talk to a land owner and work an agreement to access public land adjacent to the property. As pertaining to public land that is being leased, I agree that the land should have access. I was in unit 37a over the weekend and came up on a section of land that had a roadway (existing dirt road) that went through the private property and would access state trust land north of it, and had a locked gate. Game and fish spelled out that there was access to some water catchments along a certain road, and this was blocked with the gate. What ended up happening was a creation of wildcat trails and roads that followed around the fencing of the private property. The property was private and not leased state land, so should this land owner be forced to open the gate since the original dirt road went through to access public land? I am not sure how I feel about that. It sucked having to go back around to access the north side, but thats what needed to happen. Now had the said property been leased land from the state, perhaps the lease holder should allow access.

[Snapshot]

As someone mentioned "Private land is private". If that private land is blcoking access to choice public land hunting,or recreational activity, the G&F, as well as the State of Arizona should come up with a solution if the public need warrants it.

If I was a ranch owner scratching out a living, I certainly would not want a bunch of yahoo's driving through my property at all hours of the day and night, and possibly, littering, cutting fence,injuring my cattle,shooting water tanks, and whatever else that could possibly happen. We have all seen the damage done by disrespectful slob hunters. It is the bad apples out there that have created the "no access" mindset of most ranch owners, and I don't blame them.

 

As far as the county maintaining ranch roads, just remember that ranchers are tax payers also. These guy's have paid their dues and many of these ranches have existed long before any of us, as well as our parents, were born.

 

Being a hunter does not entitle us access as we see fit. Would you want all your neighbors walking through your backyard beacuse it offered them better access to the local park.? I doubt it!

[Snapshot]

There are other states where public access is a huge problem. In 1991 I guided archery hunters for an outfitter in the upper Madison valley of Montana.It was right next door to the famous Sun Ranch, and not far away from a ranch owned by the actor Steven Seagal. An area of vast tracts of private property. This particular ranch was at the base of a huge mountain range, and we hunted the mountains right behind the ranch on public land. The only way to access this prime hunting area was through the ranch, or a 10 mile hike across very steep terrain. The hunting was primo for undisturbed animals. As you can imagine, most land owners and outfitters jealously guard their domain from outsiders.

[billrquimby]

"... It is the bad apples out there that have created the "no access" mindset of most ranch owners, and I don't blame them. ... The only way to access this prime hunting area was through the ranch, or a 10 mile hike across very steep terrain. The hunting was primo for undisturbed animals. As you can imagine, most land owners and outfitters jealously guard their domain from outsiders.?

 

Who really created that no=access mindset? A very few "bad-apple" hunters or the growing number of landowners and outfitters who jealously guard "their" domains from the public?

 

Bill Quimby

[Snapshot]

"... It is the bad apples out there that have created the "no access" mindset of most ranch owners, and I don't blame them. ... The only way to access this prime hunting area was through the ranch, or a 10 mile hike across very steep terrain. The hunting was primo for undisturbed animals. As you can imagine, most land owners and outfitters jealously guard their domain from outsiders.?

 

Who really created that no=access mindset? A very few "bad-apple" hunters or the growing number of landowners and outfitters who jealously guard "their" domains from the public?

 

Bill Quimby

 

Both! The selfishess of our society creates our mindset in many ways. I am no different. If it was my property I would do everything I could to keep everyone else out, except for my friends of course. Most public land is accessible. Its just a matter of how hard a person wants to work to get there. Do I want to hike 5 miles around the outskirts of a ranch to gain access to prime hunting, or do I want to drive there and compete with 50 other guys? A matter of choice I guess?

 

Would a landowner that is an outfitter, want to allow access through his/her land and jeapordize the quality of a hunting area, even if it is public land? Not in today's world.

 

If I was a ranch owner in Arizona, and I was not worried about overcrowding any good hunting grounds, I would certainly consider working with G&F to offer an access easement on the edge of my property, but I would not carve a road through the middle of it.