WY Corner crossing update

[Wyobohunter]

There should be a laws stating that ONLY federal employees and contractors (firefighters, law enforcement, park officials, etc) can access landlocked public land until such time public access is established.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment. I’d rather see that energy be put toward just getting access opened up though.

 

[BBob]

If the corner crossing issue gets ironed out, next thing I would like to see in Wyoming is stream access.

After a recent court ruling NM got their access back so maybe there’s hope in WYO.

“New Mexico Department of Game and Fish sent letters to the private landowners who had previously held non-navigable certifications under the rule. These letters informed the landowners that the certificates they had been issued were now void, that any signage referencing the certification and restricting access to the watercourse must be removed and that, unless otherwise authorized by law, any barriers limiting access to legally accessible water must also be removed.”

Game Commission Acts Swiftly Following Supreme Court Ruling - NMDGF

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Public contact, Information Center: (888) 248-6866 Media contact, […]

www.wildlife.state.nm.us

 

[BuzzH]

Yea, i agree. By the numbers, it would make a much bigger difference in terms of youth participation in a state like Pennsylvania. If we are talk about stream access and participation, bang for the buck may not be in WY.

Do you ever have anything positive to say?

 

[Arctic Hunter]

There should be a laws stating that ONLY federal employees and contractors (firefighters, law enforcement, park officials, etc) can access landlocked public land until such time public access is established.

I agree.

 

[Bighorner]

Take it for what's it's worth, but I think there are legal avenues to get to better stream access in wyoming. Not being a lawyer l, it seems to be spelled out pretty clearly in the interstate commerce act.

I want access to land locked public land as much as the next guy, but forcing easements via eminent domain is not the right course of action, in my opinion.

What may be a better course of action is to look at the BLM policy of multi use. If the ground is landlocked and used only for grazing. It should shoulder a larger financial burden. I will be the first one to admit that folks that have grazing leases that are open to the public have more to deal with in terms of having people on the grazing lease. If the lease is getting exclusive access, that should be reflected in the price of the grazing leases. If the lessee chooses to grant an easement to the grazing leases. That leasee is taking on an additional burden, but keeping with the BLM policy of multi use, and the price of that grass should reflect that.

For an outfit like the Rock Springs Grazzing Association they could see a massive befit for allowing access. For another outfit that treating that ground as private, they would see that exclusive use reflected in the price of their leased grass.

I think we need to keep in mind that if the folks that see corner crossing as an unjust taking of our right to access public land that we dont turn around and call for an unjust taking of private land. The best policy is that of good neighbors.

 

[Bighorner]

I agree.

Just curious, how do you feel about cost sharing the price of fire suppression when Federal wildland firefighters respond to fires on private surface? As opposed to a private response from the landowners?

I realize everyone gains, and I do mean each person who uses public land and tax payers, when fires are caught early.

I am almost certain those laws exist in the form of tresspass laws and lease agreements. As far as maintenance of the lease and exclusion of the general public.

 

[Arctic Hunter]

Just curious, how do you feel about cost sharing the price of fire suppression when Federal wildland firefighters respond to fires on private surface? As opposed to a private response from the landowners?

I realize everyone gains, and I do mean each person who uses public land and tax payers, when fires are caught early.

I am almost certain those laws exist in the form of tresspass laws and lease agreements. As far as metainence of the lease and exclusion of the general public.

I guess I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. Fire suppression is typically funded by governmental agencies, which are funded through tax dollars. Local volunteer departments seldom work alone for wild fire suppression, and likely still receive funding. So I would say the cost are already shared. It has to be in order to better protect life and property.

 

[CJ19]

Do you ever have anything positive to say?

Stop trolling buzz. My comment was very positive. Absolutely nothing negative about it. If you are looking for participation numbers, the sheer number of people that could benefit from accessing streams in a relatively close distance to their homes, Pa or NY would make perfect sense. Im just looking at this from a practical sense. You will need to explain to me why that is in any way negative.

 

[Bighorner]

I guess I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. Fire suppression is typically funded by governmental agencies, which are funded through tax dollars. Local volunteer departments seldom work alone for wild fire suppression, and likely still receive funding. So I would say the cost are already shared. It has to be in order to better protect life and property.

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm firmly in the respond first, figure out where it was at later. I was playing devil's advocate.

Atleast in wyoming, to the best of my knowledge, when a wildland fire occurs on private ground, but spills onto BLM, there is a portion of the response covered by the BLM. Same goes for if it starts on BLM and spills onto private. The BLM will pick up part of the tab for that fire, particularly if they were unable to respond to it. I'm sure there are a lot of folks more familiar than me on fire policy.

It's just another thought on the give and take on the private/public land relationship. And what being a good neighbor looks like.

 

[BuzzH]

Stop trolling buzz. My comment was very positive. Absolutely nothing negative about it. If you are looking for participation numbers, the sheer number of people that could benefit from accessing streams in a relatively close distance to their homes, Pa or NY would make perfect sense. Im just looking at this from a practical sense. You will need to explain to me why that is in any way negative.

Not really, Wyoming youth would benefit from stream access, you dismissed that and turned it into a new York and Pennsylvania discussion.

Start a new thread about stream access in those states if you're so concerned about it.

Better yet go to those states and start dealing with and make things happen.

 

[Arctic Hunter]

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm firmly in the respond first, figure out where it was at later. I was playing devil's advocate.

Atleast in wyoming, to the best of my knowledge, when a wildland fire occurs on private ground, but spills onto BLM, there is a portion of the response covered by the BLM. Same goes for if it starts on BLM and spills onto private. The BLM will pick up part of the tab for that fire, particularly if they were unable to respond to it. I'm sure there are a lot of folks more familiar than me on fire policy.

It's just another thought on the give and take on the private/public land relationship. And what being a good neighbor looks like.

I guess I was having a hard time comparing access for wildfire suppression and general access for hunting/fishing/recreation.

 

[Wyobohunter]

Not really, Wyoming youth would benefit from stream access, you dismissed that and turned it into a new York and Pennsylvania discussion.

Start a new thread about stream access in those states if you're so concerned about it.

Better yet go to those states and start dealing with and make things happen.

I think if the feds made all navigable waters public (all fall under Army Corps of Engineers if I’m not mistaken) it’d be good for all of us. Doesn’t matter where it’s done. That’s how I took CJ19’s post anyway. I tend to take a Wyoming centric view, I don’t think corner crossing is a Wyoming only issue (as I’m sure you don’t either). Not trying to start a fight about it, I generally agree with most things you post, just not this time.

 

[Bighorner]

I guess I was having a hard time comparing access for wildfire suppression and general access for hunting/fishing/recreation.

You are right, certainly not the same thing at all. I could have thought that out better. I was thinking of it more in terms of a mutually beneficial relationship as opposed to an adversarial one between public and private ground.

 

[CJ19]

Not really, Wyoming youth would benefit from stream access, you dismissed that and turned it into a new York and Pennsylvania discussion.

Start a new thread about stream access in those states if you're so concerned about it.

Better yet go to those states and start dealing with and make things happen.

Fair enough. But i didnt feel like it was being negative bud. I would welcome better stream access in wyoming just like i would any other state.

 

[Arctic Hunter]

You are right, certainly not the same thing at all. I could have thought that out better. I was thinking of it more in terms of a mutually beneficial relationship as opposed to an adversarial one between public and private ground.

I agree. I wish there was a way to make everybody happy. But as long as people continue to use landlocked public ground for their own benefit, I doubt they will be happy with other people being there. (Unless they’re fighting a wildfire).

 

[SWFLhntr]

If the corner crossing issue gets ironed out, next thing I would like to see in Wyoming is stream access.

Everyone says how much we want youth involved in fishing and hunting and to get outdoors.

Yet, kids can't even walk down the ordinary high water line of a local stream and wet a line without being cited for trespass.

Not being able to throw an anchor on a stream bed and spend a half hour fishing is trespass?

What a joke.

Montana and NM have both addressed this in favor of public access correct? Should be some strong precedent to get it done in WY. Sounds like an important, worthy cause.

 

[BuzzH]

I think if the feds made all navigable waters public (all fall under Army Corps of Engineers if I’m not mistaken) it’d be good for all of us. Doesn’t matter where it’s done. That’s how I took CJ19’s post anyway. I tend to take a Wyoming centric view, I don’t think corner crossing is a Wyoming only issue (as I’m sure you don’t either). Not trying to start a fight about it, I generally agree with most things you post, just not this time.

Won't happen with federal legislation has to be fought state by state...it was a battle in every state that has stream access.

The cases are argued over commerce and past use of waterways for same.

COE has jurisdiction of altering stream beds on navigable water ways, but not over the public's right to access them to the ordinary high water mark.

Look into Montana's case...wasn't that long ago.

 

[BuzzH]

Montana and NM have both addressed this in favor of public access correct? Should be some strong precedent to get it done in WY. Sounds like an important, worthy cause.

No doubt...would be nice. It's not easy I remember when it was slugged out in Montana...lots of hurt feelings, fighting, and arguing.

 

[BuzzH]

It’s still illegal in Montana.

No it's not, Montana has stream access.

 

[Arctic Hunter]

No it's not, Montana has stream access.

You’re correct. I thought he was speaking about corner crossing.