BLM Seeks Help

Hiker of the Woods

Active Member
Messages
623
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SEEKS HELP INCREASING ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

News Release from Bureau of Land Management Ore. & Wash.
Posted on FlashAlert: January 24th, 2020 11:39 AM
As part of Dingell Act Implementation, BLM will publish priority list of land access issues, invite public review

As part of its efforts to implement the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is seeking public assistance in identifying lands managed by the agency on which the public is allowed to hunt, fish, or use the land for other recreational purposes, but to which there is no legal public access or where access is significantly restricted. Recommendations from the public will aid the BLM in creating a report to Congress that provides options for reasonably providing access to such lands, such as by acquiring an easement, right-of-way or fee title from a willing owner.

The BLM plans to post its first priority list online at BLM’s ePlanning website by Thursday, March 12, 2020. The BLM will update the priority list every two years for at least the next decade. The public nomination period to identify parcels for inclusion on the BLM’s priority list will open on January 31, 2020, and will close on Saturday, February 29, 2020. Subsequent updates on BLM’s efforts will be published prior to the release of future priority lists in order to seek additional information and suggestions from the public.

“The BLM has worked tirelessly with other federal and state agencies, public and private partners to proactively identify and address public land access issues for many years. Our priority is to increase access to public lands wherever possible, and to increase public opportunities for hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation across the more than 245 million acres of lands we manage,” said William Perry Pendley, BLM Deputy Director for Programs and Policy. “The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act will help us expand and improve these efforts, and we welcome information from the public that will help us pinpoint barriers to access.”

All lands nominated for inclusion on the BLM’s priority must be managed by the BLM, encompass at least 640 contiguous acres and have significantly restricted or have no public access. BLM must also consider the likelihood of resolving identified access issues when determining whether to include parcels on the list. When submitting nominations, the public must include the location of the nominated land or parcel, total acreage affected (if known), a description or narrative describing the lack of access, and any additional information the BLM should consider when determining if the land should be on BLM’s priority list. BLM will not include any personally identifying information concerning owners or ownership of any parcels in preparing the priority list or related congressional reports.

Public nominations will be accepted via the BLM’s ePlanning website.

This effort advances a primary goal of the Dingell Act (S. 47), which was signed into law by President Trump in March 2019. Section 4105 of the Act directs the BLM to develop a priority list, which identifies the location and acreage of BLM-managed parcels over 640 acres open to hunting, fishing, or other recreational purposes, and which have no legal public access or where access is significantly restricted.

The BLM is working to implement Dingell Act tasks assigned in Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Utah, Montana/Dakotas, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon/Washington, and the Eastern States Office (Louisiana and Minnesota). Implementing the Dingell Act is a top priority for Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt. Implementing the Dingell Act will continue the Department of the Interior’s work to strike proper balance for land and resources management, increase access for hunting, fishing, and recreation, and create economic prosperity while protecting and preserving America’s treasures.

To learn more about the Dingell Act and how it affects your public lands, please visit https://www.blm.gov/about/laws-and-r...ns/dingell-act.
 
As do I Homer. My problem is when private property surrounds rather large portions of public property and there is no access to it. In the same vein, when said private property has had an easement to said public property and the land owner fails to recognize it and long court battles ensue. It's a complicated issue for sure and requires thoughtful solutions for all sides.
 
What’s the point of the blm having the land if no one can use it ???? Except for one jackwagon landowner that won’t grant access to it !!! I think it’s a joke , there should be an easement of some kind , preferably foot traffic only. No pkups , side by sides , snowmobiles of any kind.
 
I'm sorry but I don't think we should sell off public lands to finance our goobermint. I would rather there be a 640 nobody will ever see that whatever AOC would spend it on. Cutting off the money seems to be the only way to control the socialists who now control us.
 
I do agree with that.....use a helicopter.


BUT..do not force an unwilling property owner into an easement
 
I agree with homer leave the landowner and his land alone. And then Ill add dont sell it, and if there is no access for public, lock it down and dont allow anyone any use. And if it is ,hit it with extreamly stiff penelties and huge fines. If folks locking up the land cant use it, they might change their tune if they get nailed for tresspassing buy trying to use it. Speciial public closed land penelties for anyone who tries useing the land. Let the private land owners lock up the public land, including themselves. First offence, going rate for 10 achers of surrounding land.
 
uhuh.....you have access to it just like the landowner has....his just doesn't cost as much.
 
Well that ain't gunna happen (trespass fees). Be skeptical of the goobermint's motives when it comes to opening up federal lands for economic prosperity. Follow the money and make sure who its getting opened up for........thats all I'm saying. If someone puts a gas well on it its still habitat gone.
 
I have never posted our land, and dont care if folks use it as access, or even hunting. In 50 years only problem we had was a cow elk gut pile in our driveway. If you own land you have the right to use it how you want. You dont have rights to anything other than your land. If i used a helicopter homer, i couldnt hunt for 24 hours. Id pay for the helecopter, an extra day, and a helecopter to get me out. Whats that gonna cost. How about a special land locked use fee that totals 2 chopper rides and a days wage...
 
that is alaska....but regardless....it is not the landowners fault if there are time limits between flying and hunting
 
if you fly into a piece of landlocked BLM and the surrounding land owner complains.....I will support you.
 
We will just have to agree to disagree. And i wont be useing a chopper any time soon to access my hunting areas, i mostlt use a tote gote.lol
 
lol....me too


I was mostly pulling your chain....but....I am firmly for property owners rights.
 
I’ll agree with the property owner rights comments as I am a landowner also. I just don’t think it’s right that one landowner gets certain chunks of blm all to themselves just out of pure coincidence of where it’s located. Anyway we look at it it’s a touchy subject. I can honestly say I’d have no problem with foot traffic in a designated path across mine to public though.
 
I think if there is private property surrounding Blm land with no access The land owners should have to pay all the taxes on that land.
Especially if we can’t access it...
 
Maybe if they are the exclusive users of that blm land, they should at least pay the going rate for leasing
 
Maybe if they are the exclusive users of that blm land, they should at least pay the going rate for leasing
they probably do pay permit fees....BUT....I do know that some tell the blm to pound sand.....fence me off
 
You are more likely to see a BLM ranger (LEO) than a fish cop around these parts. They are seroius about their jobs and look forward to enforcing the rules.
 
I hunted on a ranch that had a section (640 acres) of Forest Service, land locked in the middle. How does that even happen? That's just idiotic planning and a waste.

And why does the BLM want the public's assistance in identifying these properties? They don't have a map? No wonder there are hundreds of illegal marijuana grows on public land in California. They don't even know where their own land is, let alone how to manage it. Government owns land the same way they do everything else, piss poor.
 
owners of land pay property taxes.....not neighbors of land...
Homer I know they pay taxes and so do we..
There are only 2 different groups that can access the land the land owner and the BLM department

The land is public land but we can't access it why should we have to pay the taxes on that land..
I think if the land owners won't allow public access threw there property to get to that land then the land owners need to pay more taxes on that section of land...
 
How nice would it be to buy land back in the day and the government let you buy all around it, there is some places in Utah that are checkerboard, buy a couple of hundred acres get a hundred free thanks to taxpayers
 
5ADD6D4F-C3E1-4714-AB2D-0243034434CE.png
 
without landowner permission....the BLM can't access their land locked land if there is no easement......as it should be. The BLM can use a helicopter. They have their own.....Now...picking that kind of fight with a government agency might not be the best play....

Is it the land owners fault that the land locked party doesn't have an easement??
 
To the best of my knowledge the federal government doesn't charge itself property taxes. If they need money they just tax YOU more. One of the BLM's primary responsibilities is to pimp out our public lands. Im all about somebody negotiating an easement for hunters. Drillers or miners, not so much.
 
Does it make it right that some crooked politicians let the sale happen and people(taxpayers) should pay the cost of a few crooked politicians?
 
Does it make it right that some crooked politicians let the sale happen and people(taxpayers) should pay the cost of a few crooked politicians?
Bluehair yes they do its called "payments in lieu of taxes" takes the place of property taxes to go to local municipalities.
 
Ahh, I do seem to remember the pilt thing. Hard to keep up with all these handouts. Regardless, I don't know if jealousy is a good reason to open up yet more federal lands to potential development.

If I lived next to some blm that somebody taxed me for, it would be because I was the new owner. The tax bill will probably be a hell of a lot less than the fair market value. Wouldn't that be an ironic final payoff to those greedy landowners.

Maybe Homers right. We could sell it to pay for woofs.
 
why not??
Page 97 of the regulations.

• To use aircraft, including unmanned aircraft, to locate game or furbearing animals and communicate location to persons on the ground, or to use any helicopter to transport hunters, gear, or game except at established landing fields.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom