cuerro viejo
WKR
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,886
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.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.
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.