MAPLand Act, waddya know?

[robby denning]

Hey Roksliders
we try to support these conservation orgs pursuits when it makes sense.

What do you know about this Act that's going before Congress?


Seems to be something that we'd want to support, but I don't always completely understand the issues. Let me know what you know.

We'd be support TRCP on this project if we decide it's a go. Below is a blog post from Rokslider member and TRCP rep @mmw194287

Thanks!

MAPLand Act: The Basics | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Landmark new legislation in Congress promises to bring public land access into the 21st century.

www.trcp.org

 

[Pezboat]

#huntingispolitics

 

[robby denning]

#huntingispolitics

of course, but what do you know about this effort?

 

[jek5224]

This is the first I have heard of it, but it seems like a good idea (without having read the bill). Basically it looks like federal agencies would be required to make knowledge of already-existing public easements more accessible to the public. It also opens up discussions/awareness regarding the landlocked parcels of public land. It sure seems easier for the government to convince a landowner to sell an easement over their property rather than selling the entire parcel. The only people I can see being opposed to this (at least in the hunting community) would be those who have spent some time digging through the microfilm in their county recorder's office and know of public easements that they want to keep hidden from the masses.

 

[Joelweb]

Full disclosure. I work for TRCP.

You can read the actual bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6169/text

 

[jek5224]

After reading the bill I still think it is a good idea, at least in theory. I imagine there will be some eyebrows raised at the thought of spending 31 million dollars in the next three years to establish federal easement and road/trail databases, and an undetermined amount going forward. There are certainly worse ways to spend the money, though.

 

[Bubblehide]

"and for other purposes "

I can imagine the regulatory agencies that would also use this information. But overall, from the sounds of it, as long as the public has access to the information... it sounds like it could be beneficial.

 

[robby denning]

Thanks to all those who chimed in. I think we'll support this effort.

 

[Trial153]

After reading the bill, this makes total sense to me. To have a modern foundation of information going forward will only help access and will make it easier for public land users to gain information .

 

[tam9492]

I work for NDA:

National Deer Alliance | NDA

 

[sneaky]

As long as it isn't a go- round to identify landlocked parcels that they'll push to sell off instead of creating easements to access. You can't trust anything the govt does 100%. It'll cost $31mil for the govt to make the database, and less than 10% of that if a quarantined computer junky was paid to do it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

As long as it isn't a go- round to identify landlocked parcels that they'll push to sell off instead of creating easements to access. You can't trust anything the govt does 100%. It'll cost $31mil for the govt to make the database, and less than 10% of that if a quarantined computer junky was paid to do it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Boom.

“Those lands are locked in by private lands with no opportunity to create an easement. The highest and best use of the land for the people of _______is to sell them to the adjacent landowners and put the money in the _________budget.”

 

[Joelweb]

Thanks, ODB and Sneaky. I appreciate your concern about people trying to sell off public land, and can assure you this bill is about supporting access acquisition.

Several bills have passed in recent years that are focused on boosting public access to inaccessible lands. These include the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the passage of the HUNT Act.

Specifically, the Land and Water Conservation Fund includes the following provision:

“(c) Recreational public access.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the amounts made available for expenditure in any fiscal year under section 200303, there shall be made available for recreational public access projects identified on the priority list developed under paragraph (2) not less than the greater of—

“(A) an amount equal to 3 percent of those amounts; or

“(B) $15,000,000.

At full funding, that's $27 million a year specifically for access acquisition through LWCF!

And the HUNT Act includes the following regarding the development of public land priority access acquisition lists:

(b) Priority lists required.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter during the 10-year period beginning on the date on which the first priority list is completed, the Secretary shall prepare a priority list, to be made publicly available on the website of the applicable Federal agency referred to in subsection (a)(1), which shall identify the location and acreage of land within the jurisdiction of each State or regional office on which the public is allowed, under Federal or State law, to hunt, fish, or use the land for other recreational purposes but—

(A) to which there is no public access or egress; or

(B) to which public access or egress to the legal boundaries of the land is significantly restricted (as determined by the Secretary).

Because most permanent easements are still held on paper file, even the federal agencies do not have a thorough understanding of where they do and do not have access to their own lands, let alone all of us not knowing. That needs to be remedied if we want the BLM and Forest Service to have the greatest impact in opening their lands to the public -- especially given these awesome programs they have at their disposal. The public also has a right to know where permanent, legal access has already been secured.

 

[Justin Crossley]

This sounds good to me.

 

[robby denning]

Here is an update on it. Looks like 150+ companies jumped on to sign.

150+ Hunting and Fishing Companies Ask Congress to Pass the MAPLand Act | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Retailers, outfitters, media companies, and gear manufacturers from across the country call on Congress to modernize public land mapping for outdoor recreation.

www.trcp.org

 

[303TrophyHusband]

Here is an update on it. Looks like 150+ companies jumped on to sign.

150+ Hunting and Fishing Companies Ask Congress to Pass the MAPLand Act | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Retailers, outfitters, media companies, and gear manufacturers from across the country call on Congress to modernize public land mapping for outdoor recreation.

www.trcp.org

I'm just spit balling here but would it be possible for some of these companies to also pledge dollars to the initial efforts to get the programs up and running if/when the bill passes?

 

[303TrophyHusband]

As long as it isn't a go- round to identify landlocked parcels that they'll push to sell off instead of creating easements to access. You can't trust anything the govt does 100%. It'll cost $31mil for the govt to make the database, and less than 10% of that if a quarantined computer junky was paid to do it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not all, but in some of the cases of those landlocked parcels, the landowner has no interest in purchasing, why would they need to? They pay a minor lease fee to the state or fed that is WAY below what they would pay in property tax, and are still able to treat it like private lands and reap the benefits of the land.