Checker Board Land Access

[stanley]

There is another thread regarding access to wildlife refuges, and the point of public land access through private was raised.  Wondering what folks thoughts on that topic are.

I've always come down fairly firmly on the side of private land owners on this topic.  If I owned a piece of property, I would like to think that I an admit or restrict as I see fit on that land.  I know though, that this opinion is definitely not share across the board.

So?  For or against the right of private land owners restricting access to public land?

S.

[CouesFanatic]

Private means private. The government should have little to no say in what I do with my land. Requiring access is over the line. Working with landowners to obtain access is the proper way to go.

[TOBY]

If I owned property and they had another way around then yes I would. If it was an egress issue and I had to let people thru then I would. Law is law. 

[bigorange]

10 minutes ago, CouesFanatic said:

Private means private. The government should have little to no say in what I do with my land. Requiring access is over the line. Working with landowners to obtain access is the proper way to go.

+1 I'd like to think most private landowners would work with government to allow access, but shouldn't be required.

[CatfishKev]

I'm all for private land owner rights, the one thing I have a problem with is corner hopping not being allowed,  that's bs in my opinion. I've heard it's illegal in AZ but I've also heard it's just a grey area.

[Flatlander]

Restricting access to your personal, deeded land is one thing. However, restricting the access to public lands by their rightful owners (citizens) is something totally different. 

To hold public lands hostage behind gates on private checkerboards is nothing less than theft of the American people in my opinion.

[TOBY]

^^^^^Agreed^^^^^

Plus a distance variable should come into play. I know there are some areas that would require a helicopter to get to with out corner hopping,  But somehow the guide$ get there.

[MULEPACKHUNTER]

That ship was built and sailed a long time ago, when they allowed sale of land in the checker pattern around state or federal lands . Nothing we can do now but buy it back and hold it in trust for the people. This is why I spend my money with foundations that do just that. 

[muledeerarea33?]

Like mulepacker said. It should of been bought for access when it was for sale or if it comes up for sale again. I don’t and shouldn’t have to give access to my land (not even the corner) if it’s my deeded land. Locking lease land is another story. G&F has built roads and access trails around some private land. It costs money though.

[MT_Sourdough]

We call it eminent domain here in the good ol' U. S. of A,  So, some guys support eminent domain when it comes to building a border wall or a Canadian pipeline across the US, but not for U.S. citizens to access their public lands?  Just wondering how people prioritize where and when people are in support of eminent domain or enforce the rights of private land owners?

[PRDATR]

13 minutes ago, MT_Sourdough said:

We call it eminent domain here in the good ol' U. S. of A,  So, some guys support eminent domain when it comes to building a border wall or a Canadian pipeline across the US, but not for U.S. citizens to access their public lands?  Just wondering how people prioritize where and when people are in support of eminent domain or enforce the rights of private land owners?

Not even close to the definition. 

[muledeerarea33?]

34 minutes ago, MT_Sourdough said:

We call it eminent domain here in the good ol' U. S. of A,  So, some guys support eminent domain when it comes to building a border wall or a Canadian pipeline across the US, but not for U.S. citizens to access their public lands?  Just wondering how people prioritize where and when people are in support of eminent domain or enforce the rights of private land owners?

That’s not what I call it. If I was offered an X amount of cash for access to my land and, I accepted.... them access would be granted. If the fed gov wanted to take and I didn’t accept the reasonable offer, then that’s what your saying.

[tontotom]

Interesting topic, public lands are managed differently and are setup for different purposes. For instance, State Trust land isn't general use land. Everyone has to be permitted to use the land. There's a long list of activities that are off limits. Comparing this to say BLM or Forest Service is apples to oranges. Checkerboard property is usually State Trust and BLM. As this discussion plays out one thought that we should keep in mind is that without the permitted grazing operation very little water development is done. Simply put, last years drought would have killed most of the deer, elk, antelope and small game on public lands if a Rancher hadn't been hauling or pumping water. We own a small ranch that is checkerboard in 2A. We provided water and minerals for way more elk, deer and antelope than we did for our cattle. The neighboring ranchers provided the same service. Quite frankly, the Mule Deer Foundation, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Game and Fish and the public hunters were no where to be seen during this time. We also allowed some hunters access for each of these species as well as a trapper targeting bobcats and coyotes.

[Explorer]

According to my interpretation of proper posting of private land if I enter state land and happen to corner hop at a corner of private property that is not posted and marked according to the standards of arizona requirements for posting private property  then i am not doing anything illegal. 

[muledeerarea33?]

Just now, Explorer said:

According to my interpretation of proper posting of private land if I enter state land and happen to corner hop at a corner of private property that is not posted and marked according to the standards of arizona requirements for posting private property  then i am not doing anything illegal. 

Correct. If not posted it’s huntable and accessible as long as your following all the other laws.