Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

[Guy]

That's a good question. I am certainly no legal expert, but is seems like the court systems don't really want to go there so to speak. I think they rationalize it in the fact that you as a land owner do control the immediate airspace above your land and in order to corner hop you would have to cross/trespass that airspace even if you knew exactly where the corner is because a personal cannot make themselves two dimensional/infinitely thin. I'm not really sure what I think about that explanation but that is how it was explained to me by a WY G&F game warden when I asked. What do you guys think?

-G

 

[Drhorsepower]

I think if they control the land, they should own it not just 50%. I sure would like to own just half of my lot. I see no reason why we cant borderhop, its our land.

What do you see the biggest problem is with protecting our land?

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

That's a good question. I am certainly no legal expert, but is seems like the court systems don't really want to go there so to speak. I think they rationalize it in the fact that you as a land owner do control the immediate airspace above your land and in order to corner hop you would have to cross/trespass that airspace even if you knew exactly where the corner is because a personal cannot make themselves two dimensional/infinitely thin. I'm not really sure what I think about that explanation but that is how it was explained to me by a WY G&F game warden when I asked. What do you guys think?

-G

Perhaps this is an area Game and Fish could work on with landowners and create legal crossing points.

 

[ScottR]

Perhaps this is an area Game and Fish could work on with landowners and create legal crossing points.

I would love to see a solution to this. The hardest part is that there will be people who don't do a good job following the rules when a land owner generously opens up their property. This makes it tougher for access purposes later.

 

[Guy]

That is a very difficult issue to deal with, here in WY as well. The state controls the wildlife, the feds control the land and where it gets really sticky and political is where the fed Gov controls the endangered species which usually trump everything and are being used to control everything else. The ESA is probably the most dangerous and threatening legislation to ever be produced in regard to the Western lifestyle that we all enjoy. Elections have consequences guys, even down to your local Sheriffs.

A swing toward state's rights at the federal level sure would help out with a lot of these issues.

G-

 

[Guy]

Without a doubt, politics, mostly at the Federal level. -G

 

[tim]

no new wilderness, we have enough already. I would love to see another designation that came out that still allowed access, and protection but not wilderness.

 

[tbrass]

Corner crossing would be a moot point if the proposed public land sell-offs were to occur. Before we can talk about providing better access to public lands, we need to put this anti-federal land hoopla to rest. While there's many of great ideas, programs and organizations out there that are working on the issue of public land access, it's all a waste if the land we're trying to get access to ends up being sold off.

 

[tim]

if the lands in the state are controlled by the state, who pays for the fighting of forest fires. I think an average year in Idaho is around 80 million dollars. That is a lot of money to be taken out of state budget. You would have to take the money from, schools, roads or social services. it does turn into a catch 22 when talking state lands and federal money.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

I would love to see a solution to this. The hardest part is that there will be people who don't do a good job following the rules when a land owner generously opens up their property. This makes it tougher for access purposes later.

I wonder about something like F&G installing signs at the corner crossing points. No sign…it's illegal to cross. The surveys are done in many areas and the survey hubs are in place.

 

[BrandonM]

Good point!

Corner crossing would be a moot point if the proposed public land sell-offs were to occur. Before we can talk about providing better access to public lands, we need to put this anti-federal land hoopla to rest. While there's many of great ideas, programs and organizations out there that are working on the issue of public land access, it's all a waste if the land we're trying to get access to ends up being sold off.

 

[Guy]

I would like to see some states like WY and CO that have large mineral revenues dump some of that Tax revenue money back into buying up smaller, key pieces of private land and add that back into the pot and under state control. But sometimes even the mention of that sends the cattlemen into orbit. -G

 

[Drhorsepower]

Tim,
I believe the states would be subsidized by Uncle Sam if that was the case.

 

[ScottR]

Tbrass makes an incredibly valid point! We have to have the land to be able to access it for hunting and fishing purposes. Actively let your politicians know that you don't want it sold and it won't be. They value their jobs and know that you hold the keys to their offices with your vote.

 

[Guy]

I agree 100%. Great organization that is protecting the very thing we love and use the most. Its great to see a non specie specific org fighting for land and not individual herds or species. -G

 

[BrandonM]

I wonder about something like F&G installing signs at the corner crossing points. No sign…it's illegal to cross. The surveys are done in many areas and the survey hubs are in place.

That's a good idea except for signs are expensive and the state agencies are struggling financially the way it is. Placing signs on corner crossings would be a really expensive endeavor.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

Corner crossing would be a moot point if the proposed public land sell-offs were to occur. Before we can talk about providing better access to public lands, we need to put this anti-federal land hoopla to rest. While there's many of great ideas, programs and organizations out there that are working on the issue of public land access, it's all a waste if the land we're trying to get access to ends up being sold off.

There are around 640 million acres of Federal land. Our national debt is $17.5 trillion. They would have to sell all of that land at $27,000 an acre to pay it off. Most of it isn't worth a fraction of that.

 

[BrandonM]

There are around 640 million acres of Federal land. Our national debt is $17.5 trillion. They would have to sell all of that land at $27,000 an acre to pay it off. Most of it isn't worth a fraction of that.

EXCELLENT point!!! Just shows how much our debt is and how tough it will be to pay it off.

 

[ScottR]

There are around 640 million acres of Federal land. Our national debt is $17.5 trillion. They would have to sell all of that land at $27,000 an acre to pay it off. Most of it isn't worth a fraction of that.

Good point on the dollar figures involved, but the real question is how would the money actually be spent and is what it would be spent on worth losing the resource of public land with multiple use?

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

EXCELLENT point!!! Just shows how much our debt is and how tough it will be to pay it off.

I think passing second grade math should be a requirement for a federal office.