OnX hypocrisy

[cuerro viejo]

Let me try to simplify this for the guys not understanding with an example.

A guy says "Dont landlock lands, and restrict access. Public land should be accessible to everyone"

Same guy who said that goes and leases land that borders landlocked land and restricts access to only paying customers.

I can't help you if you don't understand that. Practice what you preach.

Also the thread is starting to get derailed a bit with the way point theories. The thread is meant to bring up a discussion on the hypocrisy of Eric choosing to keep a landlocked piece of public ground landlocked, even though his articles and videos suggest he vehemently is against said actions.

He has no say in who can access any land with in his lease. The land owner has strict control via the lease. Leases specifically only grants access to those specified in the lease. Thats how lease access works.

You are basically pissed he leased private land. You had same the opportunity to lease land and abided by the covenants in the lease, but you choose not too.

He isnt keeping any thing land locked, The state laws keep that land locked. He did an excellent job bringing public attention to the amount of land locked public land. He has ZERO ability by him self to change state law. The man solution to the issue is to change the ability to land swap private to public, well groups like BHA adamantly oppose this and try to stop it when they can. Crazies sound familiar

this isn't an access argument, this is just whining about private property rights if being able to subsidize costs, through trespass agreements.

 

[WKR]

I'm curious, how long would private leased land remain in that lease if it was turned over to public.


I can't imagine the liability of it, pretty certain about no company would provide insurance for it.



Does this make anyone who is a proponent of public lands and access a hypocrite if they also hunt private? Or is it only if you pay to hunt private, or if you are a land owner who doesn't open your land to the public? Especially if you owned the land previous to 1976.


I need to know how much of a hypocrite I am.

Thats depends....how many videos and articles have you written condemning land locked public lands? How often do you claim to be championing the cause? Did you create #project landlocked???

Because this Eric guy did all those things. We aren't talking about just some random guy here.

 

[WKR]

He has no say in who can access any land with in his lease. The land owner has strict control via the lease. Leases specifically only grants access to those specified in the lease. Thats how lease access works.

You are basically pissed he leased private land. You had same the opportunity to lease land and abided by the covenants in the lease, but you choose not too.

He isnt keeping any thing land locked, The state laws keep that land locked. He did an excellent job bringing public attention to the amount of land locked public land. He has ZERO ability by him self to change state law. The man solution to the issue is to change the ability to land swap private to public, well groups like BHA adamantly oppose this and try to stop it when they can. Crazies sound familiar

this isn't an access argument, this is just whining about private property rights if being able to subsidize costs, through trespass agreements.

Wrong

 

[cuerro viejo]

Wrong

About what specifically?

 

[mmw194287]

I have seen onX raise awareness about the land-locked issue and advocate for policies/funding that help open up landlocked parcels through easements, land acquisitions, and voluntary access programs. They've always been very careful to respect the private property rights of landowners. Never once have they said that we have a right to access every piece of landlocked ground.

I've never seen something from them that says "Every landowner needs to let the public cross their lands immediately"--if that were the case, this would be a glaring hypocrisy. It would also be a different story if there was existing access to these parcels Eric had taken away. Because they haven't, this is a case of oversimplifying the facts to stir the pot.

 

[Billy Goat]

Thats depends....how many videos and articles have you written condemning land locked public lands? How often do you claim to be championing the cause? Did you create #project landlocked???

Because this Eric guy did all those things. We aren't talking about just some random guy here.

Let me give you a hint.

Him leasing that ground has nothing to do with that area gaining access. That is upto the landowner.

 

[WKR]

I have seen onX raise awareness about the land-locked issue and advocate for policies/funding that help open up landlocked parcels through easements, land acquisitions, and voluntary access programs. They've always been very careful to respect the private property rights of landowners. Never once have they said that we have a right to access every piece of landlocked ground.

I've never seen something from them that says "Every landowner needs to let the public cross their lands immediately"--if that were the case, this would be a glaring hypocrisy. It would also be a different story if there was existing access to these parcels Eric had taken away. Because they haven't, this is a case of oversimplifying the facts to stir the pot.

Maybe you should read the articles and watch the videos in the OP

 

[WKR]

Let me give you a hint.

Him leasing that ground has nothing to do with that area gaining access. That is upto the landowner.

Oh really??? Then how is he guiding clients on the landlocked blm???
If he stayed on the leased lands, we wouldn't be having this conversation

 

[deerhunt1988]

I've been debating posting an OnX thread myself in regards to another issue. We are soon going to be the product.

I work for an entity that OnX approached back earlier in the year about a partnership. A couple coworkers and I spoke up against the "partnership" to our new fancy pants marketing guy. At the time the "deal" was OnX would give our entity a 10% kickback of sales (i assume tied to our promotional code) and free subscriptions for employees. Selling out for such an insignificant source of revenue would be stupid. OnX had MUCH more to gain from it then us.

Fast-forward to the past month. I'm informed we brokered the deal! Our newsletter comes out and sure enough there's our new promo code for our little kickback. I dig for more info and our marketing genius divulged some disturbing info. We agreed to share data to OnX. What data, I do not know. It could just be public land shapefiles (boundaries). It could be location data on the free accounts we are supposed to get. You can bet your ass I won't be using the free account and will encourage my coworkers to do the same. BUT THERE'S MORE!

OnX got some pretty big investments from tech companies. Why? The goal is for the users to be the product. Eventually they plan to sell some form of our data to advertisers. I assume it will be recent location data so users can get personalized ads and such. Taking the Google/Facebook route.

Curious, I googled "OnX investments" and this article popped up from a year ago.

onX Secures $87.4M in Series B Funding | onX Maps

This growth investment will support onX as the company reimagines the outdoor experience and works to protect the landscapes that host recreational pursuits.

www.onxmaps.com

I have to applaud them for turning the mapping app into the empire it is today. Pretty dang impressive. And they stand to grow even bigger if these future plans come to fruition.

 

[mmw194287]

Maybe you should read the articles and watch the videos in the OP

Which part of what I've written is incorrect?

 

[Billy Goat]

Oh really??? Then how is he guiding clients on the landlocked blm???
If he stayed on the leased lands, we wouldn't be having this conversation

Apparently that went right over your head.

 

[Yoder]

I’m curious to see where we are in 20 years.
I’ll bet the industry will be shit.I’m sad for my kids and future grandkids.Sure hope this fourm stays strong in its values.

If this country exists in 20 years I will be surprised.

 

[WKR]

Apparently that went right over your head.

Ditto

 

[WKR]

Which part of what I've written is incorrect?

Have you read those articles?

 

[5MilesBack]

Oh really??? Then how is he guiding clients on the landlocked blm???

Probably with an outfitting permit from the BLM.

 

[mmw194287]

Have you read those articles?

Yes. I thought they fit my earlier characterization. I didn't see anything in there that suggested that landowners who own property adjacent to landlocked were obligated to let people across. I didn't see anything that characterized those landowners as bad guys. They're actually pretty consistent in their messaging.

 

[WKR]

Yes. I thought they fit my earlier characterization. I didn't see anything in there that suggested that landowners who own property adjacent to landlocked were obligated to let people across. I didn't see anything that characterized those landowners as bad guys. They're actually pretty consistent in their messaging.

I would use the word obligated, but its strongly suggested that was their goal.

 

[deltadukman]

Someone drop a pin to said land locked location. I've got a friend with a helicopter and unlimited funds. We'll go in and see how it goes and film it like they did.

 

[mmw194287]

View attachment 616132

They say "we rightfully own" these lands and support efforts to improve and create new access opportunities. Doesn't say we have a right to access.

 

[Jethro]

I completely agree with @WKR. Got no problem with an outfitter leasing ranches that gives access to otherwise inaccessible public. But not when that outfitter is the voice of OnX - championing the landlocked access cause. Siegfied is talking out of both sides of his mouth. A quality I don't care for in anyone.

Edit to add - I'm not so worked up about it that I'm dropping and boycotting OnX.