Broomer
Active Member
- Messages
- 240
Just listened to episode 179 on Randy’s podcast. I loved it! It was super intriguing the ideas and legal commentary.
A couple points that I liked and understood for me were:
1- We know Federal and or state governments can take property through eminent domain. In the discussion of easements for access to public lands whoever initiated the “taking” or the “granting” of land has the ability to control the deal. So if government let say takes land for an easement they can decide that anyone can use the easement by any means. ATV’s, Horses, bikes, vehicles, etc. But If the landowner decides to give access by way of an easement to checkerboard land they can make the rules. So they can limit it to just foot traffic, and they can only grant 1-3 feet. They could even say it’s only for hunting access. To avoid the year round recreational guy?.
It would be wise for a landowner to decide to take the first pro active step before governments are forced to take action because of continued pressures by the public.
2- under the constitution fine print it says that a landowner can’t intimidate and create an obstacle to prevent access to public land. I believe this is called “unlawful enclosure act”
I remember being in gellette Wyoming and seeing a dummy dressed up as a hunter hanging by a noose from a tree with a sign that said no hunters. This was on privet property but it was close to a BLM corner and I just looked at that and shook my head in unbelief. The crime in this case could be federal misdemeanor. If found guilty they would have a federal felony conviction or the threat and obstacle would need to be removed.
3- the more cases that come up the more pressure for authorities to do something about it.
I don’t like government forcing anything on people so I say we promote and Lobby landowners to be proactive before they start to loose these cases.
A couple points that I liked and understood for me were:
1- We know Federal and or state governments can take property through eminent domain. In the discussion of easements for access to public lands whoever initiated the “taking” or the “granting” of land has the ability to control the deal. So if government let say takes land for an easement they can decide that anyone can use the easement by any means. ATV’s, Horses, bikes, vehicles, etc. But If the landowner decides to give access by way of an easement to checkerboard land they can make the rules. So they can limit it to just foot traffic, and they can only grant 1-3 feet. They could even say it’s only for hunting access. To avoid the year round recreational guy?.
It would be wise for a landowner to decide to take the first pro active step before governments are forced to take action because of continued pressures by the public.
2- under the constitution fine print it says that a landowner can’t intimidate and create an obstacle to prevent access to public land. I believe this is called “unlawful enclosure act”
I remember being in gellette Wyoming and seeing a dummy dressed up as a hunter hanging by a noose from a tree with a sign that said no hunters. This was on privet property but it was close to a BLM corner and I just looked at that and shook my head in unbelief. The crime in this case could be federal misdemeanor. If found guilty they would have a federal felony conviction or the threat and obstacle would need to be removed.
3- the more cases that come up the more pressure for authorities to do something about it.
I don’t like government forcing anything on people so I say we promote and Lobby landowners to be proactive before they start to loose these cases.