More Idaho public land being closed off

[jmez]

The FS could get an easement on all of their roads if they wanted. Not a priority and not something they are interested in pursuing. Money is on the wrong side for that to occur.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

States cannot sell National Forest lands

 

[TheTone]

Since this is a hunting forum I generally don’t care to get political but I came from one of the most Democratic states in this county and if I’ve learned anything, it’s that they want to put and end to hunting completely. In my opinion, a vote to that side is basically putting the ball in their court and allowing them to continue to chip away at a hobby that we all love and enjoy. To each their own, that’s just my take.

In my book, the way to stop this kind of nonsense is to have the state stop selling land off. What they should have done was leased the land to these timber companies rather than sell it off. The state then turns a profit while keeping land for residents to enjoy. I’m sure there are all kinds of arguments on why that couldn’t work but to my simple mind, that is the solution.

Sorry to bring in the politics, but I will say that you will probably find most "D's"here to be different than what you are used to. I've never seen one here push to end hunting in any way.

A big chunk of timber company lands in Idaho aren't being sold by the state. Some are acquired through amazing sweetheart deals (I saw a deed that listed hundreds of acres sold for $1), others are old railroad sections and the weird land history that involves, and some are acquired through land trades, and others through willing buyer-seller agreements. One of the other big things that could happen is to actually tax the timber lands at fair market value instead of giving them massive tax breaks. Its sad to see the state some of the timber lands are in all while barely paying taxes on them and charging the public for access.

 

[jmcd22]

States cannot sell National Forest lands

No, they can't but they can sell land that they own that surrounds it. Compile that with allowing private land owners to block off roads and you get a situation where the National Forest or BLM is public but you can't even get to it. It's a slippery slope. From my understanding, that is what happened near the Ruby Mountains in Nevada as well as other places I'm sure.

 

[Gobbler36]

Had to know it was ****s from Texas
I live in valley nd would be willing to take a risk and rip the bitch up if anyone would wanna join

 

[jmcd22]

Sorry to bring in the politics, but I will say that you will probably find most "D's"here to be different than what you are used to. I've never seen one here push to end hunting in any way.

A big chunk of timber company lands in Idaho aren't being sold by the state. Some are acquired through amazing sweetheart deals (I saw a deed that listed hundreds of acres sold for $1), others are old railroad sections and the weird land history that involves, and some are acquired through land trades, and others through willing buyer-seller agreements. One of the other big things that could happen is to actually tax the timber lands at fair market value instead of giving them massive tax breaks. Its sad to see the state some of the timber lands are in all while barely paying taxes on them and charging the public for access.

Oh no worries, I just don't bring it up because there is no compromise...it's hard line 'R' or 'D' with most people anymore. I moved here in the late 90's but was too young for politics (I wish that was still the case in today's climate) so I don't know how public office was then but I know with all of the east coast plates and other 'D' state plates I see on a daily basis that it can't be good. I'm not sure where you are in the state but where I am gets more and more 'progressive' with each year. Who knows though...maybe they are like minded with the majority of Idaho and just came here for a better life. I'm not to judge. I just hope that whoever get elected will put the interests of outdoor recreational-ists on their list and not ignore us. Whether that's a 'R' or a 'D'.

Well, I stand corrected. There is definitely a lot of bad information out there about how these lands got into the hands of the timber companies and now into private hands. In any case, it sounds like there is/was a lot of money and we all know that money talks. It is sad to see and I hope that we can keep Idaho public...for the most part.

 

[HookUp]

Many Texans say the 2% of public land in the state is to much. You do not want Texans running or owning western lands.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Most states offer tax deductions to land designated as timber lands. Being in the timber business, let me be the first to tell you that timber profits will not support large tax rates. Rotation times are too far between harvest to survive high taxes with the low payout that it offers. Your problem isnt timber company ownership. It's a lack of tax base and a large federal land base.

It really is like all other things in life. Charge the producers more and, the consumer will pay more for it. The lucky ones to survive it. That is simply the way it is. Which is why states offer farmers, ranchers, and timber companies such tax breaks. It keeps enough supply of the commodity on the market to make it affordable.

I'm sure you'll have a partisan response to this. But, it is simple economics that goes beyond your political favor. The true answer to these problems is not going to be found by a partisan approach. Or, any approach left up for government to solve. Its why I hate to hear such a partisan opinion concerning public lands. You get a piece of reality, tainted by a partisan approach. That happens in all government. And, expecting a party preference to change that is naive at best.

 

[TheTone]

changed my mind...

 

[Ray]

I have not studied the trespass laws of other states. the General Mining Act of 1877 set a standard of trespass that many western states adopted upon statehood. It was all for mineral access which required roads which required trespassing.

In my land use planning class in 1988 the professor cited this law as the backbone of many of the forest service roads in the western US. Its also causes the issue for public use of the roads for anything but resource access. critters were not resources in 1877 and are not resources now despite the huge amount of funds a region can obtain from selling a critter or experience. This act also is why there are so many federal forest service roads with no easement and why there are so many forest service roads on or through private land.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

changed my mind...

That's funny. About as funny as your suggestion to the OP.

 

[Chesapeake]

We the people and government made many mistakes over the years. Not securing legally defined public access to all large tracts of public lands was one of them.
It’s nice to see beach access right of ways and beach corridors included in the new state to private land transfers in Alaska. Hopefully that kind of thing is going on everywhere.

It sounds like the BLM and Forest Service need to get buisy buying right of ways and building new access roads.

Texas has no public land to speak of. If you let that mentality spread to Idaho you’ll have nothing but high fenced private hunting preserves.

Public lands and public access to those lands need written into law.

 

[5MilesBack]

Try voting for a democrat for a change.

That would be like cutting off your head because you have a hangnail.

 

[HUNTNUT]

How about this. Inform the land owner that unless the public is allowed access to the public land on the existing road, the existing road will be closed 1 mile from the land owners gate and returned to its natural state. Since the land owner is crossing public land on a public road, the entity involved (federal, state, local) should cut off all access to his property on public roads unless an easement is granted.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

How about this. Inform the land owner that unless the public is allowed access to the public land on the existing road, the existing road will be closed 1 mile from the land owners gate and returned to its natural state. Since the land owner is crossing public land on a public road, the entity involved (federal, state, local) should cut off all access to his property on public roads unless an easement is granted.

I like it it and, have suggested it more then once previously. I do believe it would end up being an extremely effective measure to ensure private owners won't prevent public land owners to access their own land. I'm as private property friendly as anyone. And, support their rights more then most. But, I'm tired of this happening. It's not right.

 

[M-Wig]

Public land advocates should love these guys. They are becoming the evil entity for everyone to rally around and put a spotlight on as a reason for reform.

 

[jmez]

The feds should have taken care of it when they built the roads. They created the problem, imagine that.

Not a private land owners responsibility to appease the public or provide them unrestricted access across private property. That's what easements are for, the ones making the laws should have known better.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[jmez]

There is a very simple solution if the gvmnt we're interested in addressing the issue. Eminent domain.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Chesapeake]

I’m of the opinion the government should work toward an amicable solution and not resort to negative behavior.
#1 they should head the warning and imediatly begin working with logging companies and other such corporations to secure right of ways for the forest service roads on thier parcels. Start with those who could be expected to be open to an easy resolution.
#2 begin both starting negotiations with the land owners who aren’t as open to an easy solution and looking for alternative access routes across neighboring land owners parcels that might be more open to an easy solution.

In short, work fast to capture all the low hanging fruit and then start working on the hard to reach stuff.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The feds should have taken care of it when they built the roads. They created the problem, imagine that.

Not a private land owners responsibility to appease the public or provide them unrestricted access across private property. That's what easements are for, the ones making the laws should have known better.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure that can all be blamed on the Federal agencies. While I agree that some of this is their fault in certain situations, a good bit of these problems can be laid at the feet of our legislative branch. If that is what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. But, the way a good bit of this land was acquired, the only concern was to ensure that the private owners that were within, had their rights of access acknowledged. With no regard to the special interest private owners would have to one day prevent public land users from accessing their own property. It is also a problem due to regional laws and influences. That really is the problem. Because no one truly understood where this was going to go years ago.




There are so many private entity's that influence government to achieve what suits them best. The only true resolve is to do as you say. But, we got no one willing to lose the campaign donations to do it.