Acessing Public Land through Private Property

[bonuspointjohn]

Good info Bill, as always. This subject will always be a contentious one in AZ. I have no issue with private land-owners protecting their property, but in so many cases, a publicly maintained road leads both in and out of private property. I just can’t see any justification for any land owner to block public access on publicly maintained roads to public land.

 

It’s just common sense that public land belongs to the public. But a very small, but vocal group seem to think that because they own a little chunk of land, that everything beyond their legal boundaries is somehow an extension of their land, and they feel entitled to lock out access to the rest of us who pay for their road maintenance.

 

I think this issue is going to get a lot more attention in the next few years, and the majority of folks won’t be very sympathetic when new roads are dozed right around these ranches and the county no longer maintains the locked out areas.

 

I sure hope that is how it plays out, because one of the truly great things about Arizona is the huge amount of public land that should be available to every tax-paying citizen of our state.

 

It sure would be nice to have roads built around them but I just don't think it's gonna happen. Look at all the pressure to close roads on usfs land. Active engagement with the ranchers to keep access roads open is going to have to be a top priority.

Bulldozing a road around private lands to access public lands does sound like a good idea... until you start looking at the process that is involved. You need a NEPA, followed by probably an archeaological study, and then a plan, and then the funding. Getting the Forest Service to do anything is frequently a PITA....I have witnessed worthwhile projects that get placed on the backburner for years... because the Forest Service is not able to get to them...Besides guys, I read on the other thread that someone said "If you can't find a place to hunt then you are lazy... and that "there is only flat ugly desert down that way."... I suspect that Larry will be glad to comment more on that...Nice Cane by the way Larry.....BPJ

[.270]

probly nothin' a couple dozen auction tags can't fix. Lark.

[Snapshot]

probly nothin' a couple dozen auction tags can't fix. Lark.

 

After the salaries,auction, and lobbying costs were deducted, there probably wouldn't be much left.

[bonuspointjohn]

probly nothin' a couple dozen auction tags can't fix. Lark.

 

After the salaries,auction, and lobbying costs were deducted, there probably wouldn't be much left.

If you looked at the financial returns that everyone saw, you would note that there were no salaries. There were lobbying costs paid to Suzanne... But hey, who wants to get in the way of a good rip.....Nice to know that information is useless with some folks. Why have there not been roads graded all around these locked gates then?.... Oh yeah, I remember.... If someone can't find a place to hunt in Southern AZ, then they are too lazy... Pass that on to Audsley, I'm sure he will appreciate the comment...

[ThomC]

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.

 

 

Larrys post tells it all. No government cares about your hunting rights.

 

Unless you have lots of money, then you can buy some. Ie: government or hunting rights.

[audsley]

Bonus Point John is exactly right in pointing out that creating alternative routes around private property doesn't happen by itself. There's a lot of work involved and potential roadblocks, no pun intened. AGFD and Forest Service officials spend a lot of their time and our money trying to do this.

 

If anyone is wondering, I don't really need to open more gates in order to go hunting. I do most of my hunting in Unit 33, where I backpack in, and in 36B and occasionally 36C where access isn't a serious problem. But I compete for tags in these units with people who might otherwise be hunting in 32, 34B, 35A, 29, 30A and 30B if they weren't so discouraged by the serious access problems in those units. More importantly, sportsmen and our various government entities have allowed defacto privatization of our state and federal lands to become a growing trend, and that's just plain wrong. National Forest and BLM lands are supposed to be multiple use, not single use. They are supposed to be available for recreation as well as grazing. Similarly, licensed sportsmen should be able to access most state trust lands. Except for AGFD and a few individuals in state and federal land agencies, our government have ignored their responsibility to support public ownership of public lands, and we've let them get away with it.

 

There should have been a much louder protest from sportsmen when the 19B antelope hunt was sacked last year. What will it take to light a fire under Arizona sportsmen?

[bonuspointjohn]

Bonus Point John is exactly right in pointing out that creating alternative routes around private property doesn't happen by itself. There's a lot of work involved and potential roadblocks, no pun intened. AGFD and Forest Service officials spend a lot of their time and our money trying to do this.

 

If anyone is wondering, I don't really need to open more gates in order to go hunting. I do most of my hunting in Unit 33, where I backpack in, and in 36B and occasionally 36C where access isn't a serious problem. But I compete for tags in these units with people who might otherwise be hunting in 32, 34B, 35A, 29, 30A and 30B if they weren't so discouraged by the serious access problems in those units. More importantly, sportsmen and our various government entities have allowed defacto privatization of our state and federal lands to become a growing trend, and that's just plain wrong. National Forest and BLM lands are supposed to be multiple use, not single use. They are supposed to be available for recreation as well as grazing. Similarly, licensed sportsmen should be able to access most state trust lands. Except for AGFD and a few individuals in state and federal land agencies, our government have ignored their responsibility to support public ownership of public lands, and we've let them get away with it.

 

There should have been a much louder protest from sportsmen when the 19B antelope hunt was sacked last year. What will it take to light a fire under Arizona sportsmen?

Hi Larry, I am not a frequent visitor to the site, I come in when some issues get going that are political in nature. The past week has been difficult and it got a little more ugly tonight. I talked to one of the individuals who posted a vague support of the concept of the now defunct hb2702... He was told that if they ever met him in the woods, he would never leave alive....what have we become?.... That is way over the top... BPJ

[audsley]

BPJ,

 

Your post would fit better on the other thread for HB2072, but I agree that's way over the top. I know most of the people who have been on the front lines taking fire for HB2072, and I believe most - including you, BPJ - share my values with respect to equal opportunity for all and meant well with this bill. I don't believe you or the others I know pretty well are guilty of bad intentions, just bad reasoning and possibly misplaced trust.

 

As for the men behind the curtain at AZSFW, I don't know what their full intentions were. These are some businessmen I don't know personally. But I do know that for a bill that was promoted as a means of improving hunter access, it certainly looked to me like a disaster. I'm not sure the top echelon at AZSFW has ever watched the video Opportunity for All. Any bill that creates a huge pot of money for the purchase of access across private land is a sure design for $20,000 trespass fees to let a small number of wealthy or lucky sportsmen shoot $50,000 elk or antelope on public lands the rest of us can't get to. After one look at the bill I immediately contacted a couple of people at AZSFW and asked how they could do such a thing. I was told that the scenario I depicted was certainly not their intention, and would I please send them some language that would eliminate the threat as I perceived it. I then sent language which prohibited any expenditure for access across lands that are not also traversible by the general public. Whether AZSFW would have incorporated this language into the bill will never be known since the bill was quickly pulled back and scuttled.

 

I hope we can all move on from this and that some of the people who were involved in this mess will be remembered for all that they've done over the years, not just HB 2072. That includes you, John, hard-headed though you may be at times.