Colorado corner crossing bill proposed

[Szwampdonkey]

I understand, land grab is never the right option. restricting usage of private land isnt what the goal should be, Should be mutually accepted agreement, that is the least intrusive option for the land owner, home owner etc. I stated several other better options. mini gates, A frame ladder, C/z fence gaps etc.

this is Eminent Domian with no financial compensation. Any time you change private land usage post sale you are infringing.

I'm all for a corner crossing agreements, just not one that takes private or public property unless there is mutually accepted and beneficial agreement in place

Yet the problem with your argument, as all arguments i’ve seen on this topic, is there is no land grab. Just cause you don’t like it and want to label it a land grab in an attempt to bolster your weak argument doesn’t make it a land grab. Bottom line, no land is being taken from land owners, period. You’ll have to find a different angle to push.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Yet the problem with your argument, as all arguments i’ve seen on this topic, is there is no land grab. Just cause you don’t like it and want to label it a land grab in an attempt to bolster your weak argument doesn’t make it a land grab. Bottom line, no land is being taken from land owners, period. You’ll have to find a different angle to push.

you loose use of YOUR land its a land grab. No different if someone cuts off a corner and room of your house. You may still own it, but you cant use it and will still pay taxes on it as if you do

 

[Szwampdonkey]

you loose use of YOUR land its a land grab. No different if someone cuts off a corner and room of your house. You may still own it, but you cant use it and will still pay taxes on it as if you do

No, you don’t. It’s still your land.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

I’ve still not seen a fellow landowner ever present a valid argument i can get on board with. Just the same old tired arguments going around and around. I’d actually have more respect for those that just come out and say, “Well, i just like having all that public back there all to myself”. Then at least i know you’re an honest dude and we can have an honest disagreement in which we can then work on a solution.

 

[cuerro viejo]

No, you don’t. It’s still your land.

you loose use of your land with fence requirements… its that simple. There are better options that dont take away landowner use

 

[Szwampdonkey]

you loose use of your land with fence requirements… its that simple. There are better options that dont take away landowner use

But i thought you said it’s a land grab? Which is it?

 

[cuerro viejo]

But i thought you said it’s a land grab? Which is it?

if you cant use it and are fenced from using it its essentially a land grab.

 

[Matt Cashell]

You guys are arguing over nothing.

The text of the bill only restricts building a fence more than 5 feet high within 4 feet of the corner.

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023A/bills/2023a_1066_01.pdf

Excellent bill. I am going to send it to my reps in MT.

 

[Flyjunky]

if you cant use it and are fenced from using it its essentially a land grab.

Kind of like the public land?

Public has no access = public shouldn’t have to pay for it.

If we can’t access public then I say close it off to EVERYONE.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Kind of like the public land?

Public has no access = public shouldn’t have to pay for it.

If we can’t access public then I say close it off to EVERYONE.

I agree take away all access and lease opportunity until a non-discriminative mutually agreed upon public access agreement can be put into place. In process also need to change open range laws to “fence out”.

 

[Customweld]

I've read several articles and threads on "corner crossing"
All I can say is WOW !!!
What a mess this has all created
I can understand both sides but the questions loom What was done before this became an issue or has it always been an issue?
What started all the concern about corner crossing?
Was it disrespect towards the land owner and his/her fence by destroying or damaging it ?
From what Ive seen things like this usually start because the actions of a few people and not the land owner

I think it has been going around for a long time with folks that were familiar with being able to read government maps. It was kicked into high gear with the new gps chip and apps showing ownership. Folks started realizing how much landlocked parcels there are. As for concern for crossing, there is a lot for landowners to lose when they can't block the public out of that exclusive use of said parcel.

 

[KHNC]

those are typically put in place pre sale and existing are grandfathered exceptions.

Well, they arent making anyone tear down existing structures for sure. However, anything new must be permitted and that wont be granted until the area is flagged and inspected first.

 

[Flyjunky]

I agree take away all access and lease opportunity until a non-discriminative mutually agreed upon public access agreement can be put into place. In process also need to change open range laws to “fence out”.

I'd be down with that.

Taking away all access, including grazing rights if the land is being used for that, would possibly change some minds on allowing the public to access their lands.

Many, probably most, were sold a bill of goods when that land was bought that the public land adjacent to theirs was "theirs" as well. If this landlocked public wasn't accessible by anyone it sure would lower values of their land and make them more "agreeable" to allowing public access to our lands.

 

[sewbadithurts]

This is what Brandi Law Bradley posted today…….


Brandi Law Bradley (R)
As the bill sponsor, I will tell you the impetus for writing this bill was to protect private landowners, and to help them with trespassing charges against those that do ill will on their property. The bill was also to protect the public to be able to access public lands that have been given to all of us. This bill is a great bill, one that could bridge the gap between private property ownership and public land access. I have had multiple stakeholder meetings and I’m going to post pone the bill so that we can get more input from the community. that’s what a good legislator does. I didn’t see this Facebook group coming to my defense to help prevent Covid vaccine mandates for minors or to protect women in athletics by banning biological males from participating in girl sports. Where was the public testimony from this group to help protect women in sports or the unnecessary harmful effects of the Covid vaccine in our children? It’s funny that Republicans like to come after strong conservative Republicans on social
Media platforms instead of picking up the phone or having a meeting. The Democrats don’t do that to their own. This is why we lose almost every race in Colorado. I have a servants heart, and I’m doing the best to represent the Constituent base that voted me into office. I am not reaching across the aisle because the Democrats don’t want anything good to come out of Colorado. They just banned property owners from being able to shoot on their own property so if you don’t think that they’re going to build trails through corner, crossing or take it or make it mandatory, you guys are sadly mistaken. I was trying to get in front of the large bus headed for private property owners rights. Next time call me and I’ll let you know what the bills intent was.  and just to clarify, if you happen to read the bill, it said, in the very first section that you were not able or allowed to stop on private property.

One wonders at why Colorado voters chose to send only a tiny rump of republicans to the state house last year. Not.

No bill can pass without democratic support.

Regardless, Colorado has a uniquely receptive structure that creates a lot of disfunction but gives engaged citizens a huge voice. EVERY bill must have a public hearing. BC that happens in committee, each committee member can't be an expert at everything that comes through and they are not engaged with legislators that aren't on the committee or a bill sponsor. They really do eat up well argued public comment. Don't even bother contacting your house rep bc that won't matter until a bill gets to the floor and you can usually count on bills that get out of committee to pass.

Go testify Monday if you can, it is sort of fun. Keep your testimony to under 3 mins bc there is a timer.

Otherwise email all the committee members.

Protip: make the legit best arguments you can and tailor them to the legislator you're emailing.

Now I'll concede that a lot of folks would rather hold onto their precious grievances than get shizz done buuuuut, I just laid out a very simple and effective way to get shizz done at gold dome high. Cheers

 

[Fordguy]

I’m all for public access on public lands, but I think it should be done in a way that respects the traditional uses of the land in that area. In other words, don’t make it more difficult for ranchers to make a living. The story behind the court case in Wy highlights an unlikable, rich, out of state landowner going out of his way to lock hunters out, but there are a lot of multi generational ranching families that could be hurt by this if it’s done wrong.

As a non-resident hunter I’d love more land to hunt, but I’m not so self-important that I place my recreation above the needs of locals to make a living. Having hoards of people corner hopping across every checkerboard area could be disruptive. So would having tons of hikers, bird watchers etc. To just say that it’s public land so it should be available to everyone isn’t wrong, but it also ignores 150+ years of historical use and local practice. Hopefully they can find a balance.

Until relatively recently, access was commonly granted to those who asked permission. There wasn't really an overarching need for a law to guarantee access even 50 years ago. Heck even in the early 2000s a guy could buy a license, drive out, knock on some doors, politely ask permission and find access to public and usually private land as well. Odds of that happening today are much lower everywhere

 

[Overdrive]

Time to ramp up production, this is a late 80's model I'll do some adjustments and get the weight down. Time to unlock your hunting experience!

 

[Flyjunky]

Until relatively recently, access was commonly granted to those who asked permission. There wasn't really an overarching need for a law to guarantee access even 50 years ago. Heck even in the early 2000s a guy could buy a license, drive out, knock on some doors, politely ask permission and find access to public and usually private land as well. Odds of that happening today are much lower everywhere

agreed, a little courtesy on both sides could go a long way to solving this problem.

 

[BT_707]

Respectfully, I don't want to take any land away from an owner, I'd just like to place my right foot on public land, step my left foot across to the other piece of public land & continue on my way to hunt on public land.
Essentially what is happening now is the private land owners are taking away our land because we can't access it.
I know this is not the same scenario but all across the country there are zoning laws that limit how close a property owner can put a fence or any other structure relative to their property line. That doesn't mean they don't still own the land.

Exactly!

 

[EJFS]

Oh

I’m all for public access on public lands, but I think it should be done in a way that respects the traditional uses of the land in that area. In other words, don’t make it more difficult for ranchers to make a living. The story behind the court case in Wy highlights an unlikable, rich, out of state landowner going out of his way to lock hunters out, but there are a lot of multi generational ranching families that could be hurt by this if it’s done wrong.

As a non-resident hunter I’d love more land to hunt, but I’m not so self-important that I place my recreation above the needs of locals to make a living. Having hoards of people corner hopping across every checkerboard area could be disruptive. So would having tons of hikers, bird watchers etc. To just say that it’s public land so it should be available to everyone isn’t wrong, but it also ignores 150+ years of historical use and local practice. Hopefully they can find a balance.

The poor multi generational land holders with their millions of dollars in land, exclusive access to public land, grazing permits, outfitting permits, land holders tags... Yes they're really struggling so we need to be sure to keep the racket going for them.

 

[WCB]

Oh

The poor multi generational land holders with their millions of dollars in land, exclusive access to public land, grazing permits, outfitting permits, land holders tags... Yes they're really struggling so we need to be sure to keep the racket going for them.

You really hate private landowner ship eh? Do you think "millions of dollars of lands" equals that landowner being wealthy? I'm guessing you are one of the people that with prices going up out west just think landowners getting priced out should just sell and buy a cheaper ranch somewhere else if they want to keep ranching.

Some people open their mouth and prove how clueless they are.