Using RS 2477 to steal private property

The Sierra Times ^ | February 13, 2004 | Mark Boslough

[musanon]

Great article on this issue:

WCVEF - The Grassroots Advocate
Address:http://www.wcvedfund.org/GAv5n30BLMEnforcesLaw.htm


" --- Although State Director Pierson instructed this new statewide policy be implemented this year, the laws it is intended to enforce are not new.

The policy is only a commitment by BLM to begin to enforce decades old existing laws which forbid obstructing or denying legal access to public lands by private landowners.
At least three of the existing laws which the policy is intended to enforce are cited in State Director Pierson's directive:

a. Grazing Regulations, 43 CFR 4140. 1(B)(7): "Interfering with lawful uses or users including obstructing free transit through or over public lands by force, threat, intimidation, SIGNS, barrier or locked gate." (emphasis added)

b. Unlawful Enclosures Act; 43 USC 1063: "No person by force threats, intimidation, or by fencing or enclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine any confederation with others to prevent or obstruct any person from peaceably entering upon any tract of public lands subject to entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands."

c. Taylor Grazing Act, 43 USC 315: "Nothing in this act shall be construed as in any way altering or restricting the right to hunt or fish within a grazing district in accordance with the laws of the United States or of any State or as vesting in any permittee any right whatsoever to interfere with hunting or fishing within a grazing district." Nothing herein contained shall restrict the acquisition, granting or use of permits, or right-of-way within grazing districts under existing law; or ingress or egress over the public lands in such districts for all proper and lawful purposes. . . "


Other authority which Pierson cites in his memorandum sent to all BLM District Field Offices in the state to enforce this sign policy include:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; Highway Safety Act of 1966 (as amended); Surface Transportation Act of 1978; Title 23, United States Code, as codified by the Act of August 27, 1958; Title 8, United States Code, Section 4124; American Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Departmental Manual, Parts 135, 425, and 485.


These are not new regulations and laws BLM has decided to enforce, but have been in effect for decades. The Unlawful Enclosures Act was enacted in 1885. The Taylor Grazing Act has been in effect since 1933 - 34. These are not new laws - but only a commitment by BLM to finally start enforcing existing laws on behalf of the public.

[stop_rs2477]

Well... except not all passes or creekbeds were used as roads 150 years ago. There are many creeks that never had roads built in them because often times there were easier routs. Or they were too rugged. Or they didn't go anywhere. Just because a rancher has a creek on his property doesn't mean he closed a road. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that a road was there 150 years ago. Again there is plenty of case law to back this up. In fact, private property is protected in the Bill of Rights (Fifth). Where in the Constitution is the right of way law that trumps the Fifth Amemdment?

[stop_rs2477]

I'm not sure how this applies to a homestead that historically never had a road across it.

[stop_rs2477]

With regard to BLM regulations. BLM does not have jurisdiction over private property. The law you cite relates to grazing permits on BLM land. Ranch land that is owned fee title by the rancher is not regulated by the BLM.

[musanon]

There are decades old existing laws which forbid obstructing or denying legal access to public lands by private landowners.



Acquiring property does not give private landowners the power to unreasonably deny access to a long established right of way, -- one that gives access to public lands beyond.


Attempts to deny access to public lands is the issue. -- Read this article:

WCVEF - The Grassroots Advocate
Address:http://www.wcvedfund.org/GAv5n30BLMEnforcesLaw.htm

[stop_rs2477]

A "long-established right of way" is not the same thing as "an alleged right of way". Who gets to decide whether a right of way is long established, and what are the criteria you apply? I don't think privatep property can be siezed to turn a game trail into an ORV park.

[stop_rs2477]

BTW your article is about BLM controlling BLM land. It says you can't post a BLM grazing alotment as "private propety". Fair enough.

But the BLM has no jurisdiction over private property. I don't want feds telling me who I can allow on my property. I don't know any rancher that would tolerate that kind of interference from teh federal government. But that's not what the article is claiming. You need to read your stuff more carefully.

[Dan(9698)]

The Unlawful Inclosures Act applies to homesteads because all laws are incorporated in the application for homestead, and grant of homestead.

The homesteader agreed in the application, to follow all laws.

The Unlawful Inclosures Act gives unrestricted right of passage across private land for access to public land.

It does not allow a road to be constructed, but must allow passage "for any and all lawful purposes".

The homesteader never had the right to deny passage. All subsequent owners take the homestead as it was granted and have the same restrictions.

The Federal Government isn't telling you anything that was not agreed to before it became private property.

[musanon]

A "long-established right of way" is not the same thing as "an alleged right of way". Who gets to decide whether a right of way is long established, and what are the criteria you apply?

Our courts, and juries decide, - and common geographical sense applies.. -- IE, -- aquiring a foothill ranch does not give you the power to block off access to the public lands in the mountains behind.

I don't think privatep property can be siezed to turn a game trail into an ORV park.

No one is 'seizing property' by using an established right of way.

I don't want feds telling me who I can allow on my property. I don't know any rancher that would tolerate that kind of interference from teh federal government. But that's not what the article is claiming. You need to read your stuff more carefully.

You need to listen to your peers. You cannot lawfully block our long established rights of way to access public lands. When you bought your land you did not buy that power.

[stop_rs2477]

"When you bought your land you did not buy that power."

You are incorrect, but the key to your mistake is the fact that my ranch was homesteaded by the first folks who came to the area. There weren't any long established right of ways across it, because nobody had been there to make them. Any road was made by the owner. Now that city folks want to drive ATVs and weekend hunters want to take a short cut, it suddenly becomes a "long established right of way". Only someone with no sense of history, and no western roots would make such a claim. In fact, if you knew your history you'd know that the vast majority of so-called "established roads" that cross private ranchland were made by ranchers for their own use. That's why "government confiscation" is the correct term for what you are promoting.

[musanon]

You need to listen to your peers. You cannot lawfully block our long established rights of way to access public lands. When you bought your land you did not buy that power.

--- the key to your mistake is the fact that my ranch was homesteaded by the first folks who came to the area. There weren't any long established right of ways across it, because nobody had been there to make them.

So you claim. Do you really believe no one ever crossed that land before it was homesteaded? -- But in any case, -- are you aware that homesteads were laid out so that the section lines were access easements? It is an arguable fact that anyone can use a section line easement to gain access to sections landlocked by the property in question.

Any road was made by the owner. Now that city folks want to drive ATVs and weekend hunters want to take a short cut, it suddenly becomes a "long established right of way".

Or it could be that the wannabe 'land barron' wants to gain control of access so he can sell suddenly valuable hunting rights to those weekend hunters..

Only someone with no sense of history, and no western roots would make such a claim.

Bull. - I'll match my historical roots with yours anyday.

In fact, if you knew your history you'd know that the vast majority of so-called "established roads" that cross private ranchland were made by ranchers for their own use.

I'd suggest you look up your rights to section lines. Try to tell me you can forbid access to owners of landlocked adjacent sections.

That's why "government confiscation" is the correct term for what you are promoting.

I'm promoting access to public lands for the publics use. You want to use private land to deny access to public lands. You don't have that power, and never had it.

[stop_rs2477]

"So you claim."

Yes, I do claim. If you think otherwise, then you need to prove it in court. Otherwise, your trespassing.

"Do you really believe no one ever crossed that land before it was homesteaded?"

Don't know, but some trapper or Indian going somewhere doesn't make an established right of way.

"are you aware that homesteads were laid out so that the section lines were access easements?"

You must be from the flatlands. Wouldn't work on the western slope of Colorado.

"It is an arguable fact that anyone can use a section line easement to gain access to sections landlocked by the property in question."

Nope. Maybe in Kansas or Texas, but not in western CO.

"Or it could be that the wannabe 'land barron' wants to gain control of access so he can sell suddenly valuable hunting rights to those weekend hunters."

My right. Land ownership carries certain rights, and that happens to be one if them. If that was what I wanted, I'd do it, but I don't care to have green city folks with guns on my land.

" Bull. - I'll match my historical roots with yours anyday."

Adam and Eve. Can you beat that? Or are you a monkey man?

"Try to tell me you can forbid access to owners of landlocked adjacent sections."

I'd never say that. Everyone has the right of access to their own property. That don't make it a public access thoguh.

"I'm promoting access to public lands for the publics use. You want to use private land to deny access to public lands. You don't have that power, and never had it"

Nope, I don't have that power. I can keep you from taking a short cut through my pasture or up one of my creeks, but I can't stop you from getting there on a public road by driving AROUND my property.

[stop_rs2477]

"So you claim."

Yes, I do claim. If you think otherwise, then you need to prove it in court. Otherwise, your trespassing.

"Do you really believe no one ever crossed that land before it was homesteaded?"

Don't know, but some trapper or Indian going somewhere doesn't make an established right of way.

"are you aware that homesteads were laid out so that the section lines were access easements?"

You must be from the flatlands. Wouldn't work on the western slope of Colorado.

"It is an arguable fact that anyone can use a section line easement to gain access to sections landlocked by the property in question."

Nope. Maybe in Kansas or Texas, but not in western CO.

"Or it could be that the wannabe 'land barron' wants to gain control of access so he can sell suddenly valuable hunting rights to those weekend hunters."

My right. Land ownership carries certain rights, and that happens to be one if them. If that was what I wanted, I'd do it, but I don't care to have green city folks with guns on my land.

" Bull. - I'll match my historical roots with yours anyday."

Adam and Eve. Can you beat that? Or are you a monkey man?

"Try to tell me you can forbid access to owners of landlocked adjacent sections."

I'd never say that. Everyone has the right of access to their own property. That don't make it a public access thoguh.

"I'm promoting access to public lands for the publics use. You want to use private land to deny access to public lands. You don't have that power, and never had it"

Nope, I don't have that power. I can keep you from taking a short cut through my pasture or up one of my creeks, but I can't stop you from getting there on a public road by driving AROUND my property.

[musanon]

You need to listen to your peers. You cannot lawfully block our long established rights of way to access public lands. When you bought your land you did not buy that power.

--- the key to your mistake is the fact that my ranch was homesteaded by the first folks who came to the area. There weren't any long established right of ways across it, because nobody had been there to make them.

So you claim. Do you really believe no one ever crossed that land before it was homesteaded?

Don't know, but some trapper or Indian going somewhere doesn't make an established right of way.

Not true. Trails can be established rights of way. Your ownership of land doesn't empower you to block access.

-- But in any case, -- are you aware that homesteads were laid out so that the section lines were access easements?

You must be from the flatlands. Wouldn't work on the western slope of Colorado.

The section line principle applied everywhere. It worked.

It is an arguable fact that anyone can use a section line easement to gain access to sections landlocked by the property in question.

Nope. Maybe in Kansas or Texas, but not in western CO.

You contradict your own words: "-- Everyone has the right of access to their own property. That don't make it a public access thoguh. -- "

Any road was made by the owner. Now that city folks want to drive ATVs and weekend hunters want to take a short cut, it suddenly becomes a "long established right of way".

Or it could be that the wannabe 'land barron' wants to gain control of access so he can sell suddenly valuable hunting rights to those weekend hunters..

My right. Land ownership carries certain rights, and that happens to be one if them. If that was what I wanted, I'd do it, but I don't care to have green city folks with guns on my land.

Dream on that you have a right to control access to public land in order to sell valuable hunting rights to weekend hunters.. Many who probably know more about hunting than a big hat stockman.

Only someone with no sense of history, and no western roots would make such a claim.

Bull. - I'll match my historical roots with yours anyday.

Adam and Eve. Can you beat that? Or are you a monkey man?

Weird comment, one that confirms the fact that you're incapable of rational debate.

In fact, if you knew your history you'd know that the vast majority of so-called "established roads" that cross private ranchland were made by ranchers for their own use.

I'd suggest you look up your rights to section lines. Try to tell me you can forbid access to owners of landlocked adjacent sections.

I'd never say that. Everyone has the right of access to their own property. That don't make it a public access thoguh.

We all own public lands, and we all have access to them.

That's why "government confiscation" is the correct term for what you are promoting.

I'm promoting access to public lands for the publics use. You want to use private land to deny access to public lands. You don't have that power, and never had it.

Nope, I don't have that power. I can keep you from taking a short cut through my pasture or up one of my creeks, but I can't stop you from getting there on a public road by driving AROUND my property.

And you can't deny me reasonable access on long established trails. -- And, - as you well know, the public lands in question have no public roads leading to them.

[stop_rs2477]

"The section line principle applied everywhere. It worked."

Apparently youve never been to the mountain states. I'd like to see you drive a section line in San Miguel County.


"You contradict your own words: "-- Everyone has the right of access to their own property. That don't make it a public access thoguh. -- ""

Ever hear of a private easement?


"Dream on that you have a right to control access to public land in order to sell valuable hunting rights to weekend hunters.. Many who probably know more about hunting than a big hat stockman."

I never claimed to be a hunter. Beef is better than the gamey stuff that you he-man hunters take bake to the suburbs anyways.


"Weird comment, one that confirms the fact that you're incapable of rational debate."

You're the one that brought up ancestry in a debate about private proeprty rights.


"We all own public lands, and we all have access to them."

Not across my pasture you don't. Just try cutting my fences like the kiddies from Denver and you'll see what happens, bud.


That's why "government confiscation" is the correct term for what you are promoting.

"And you can't deny me reasonable access on long established trails. -- And, - as you well know, the public lands in question have no public roads leading to them."

Course they do. They just don't go through my ranch, they go around it.

Still haven't seen the part of the Constitution that trumps the 5th amendment.

You must be a big fan of the Kelo decsion though.

[musanon]

-- You're the one that brought up ancestry in a debate about private proeprty rights.

Nope, you first made the wisecrack about " western roots" at #30.

We all own public lands, and we all have access to them.

Not across my pasture you don't. Just try cutting my fences like the kiddies from Denver and you'll see what happens, bud.

I'm not your 'bud'. And I'm starting to understand why people cut your fences. Big hat macho men get the attention they deserve.

Still haven't seen the part of the Constitution that trumps the 5th amendment.

You've never had property rights over established trails that cross your homestead. The people have always reserved a 'right of way'.

You must be a big fan of the Kelo decsion though.

You must enjoy imagining things. The 'takings' in Kelo have no comparison to your 'taking' of a public right of way.

[stop_rs2477]

"I'm not your 'bud'. And I'm starting to understand why people cut your fences. Big hat macho men get the attention they deserve."

So you admit that your a tresspasser and a vandal. Do something like that on my property and you will find yoruself in jail or worse.


"You've never had property rights over established trails that cross your homestead. The people have always reserved a 'right of way'."

Well then sue me if thats what you think. I ain't afraid of no tough talking smart mouthed city kid. You don't know the first thing about property rights. Push your liberal goverment roads somewhere else.


"You must enjoy imagining things. The 'takings' in Kelo have no comparison to your 'taking' of a public right of way."

Didn't take anything. Bought it. This country is about owning property.

[musanon]

Didn't take anything. Bought it. This country is about owning property.

You can't buy the power to deny access to public lands. - But feel free to imagine you have it. And feel free to take your last irrelevant personal shot. I'm done with you.

[stop_rs2477]

Good. Stay of my property or I'll have you arrested. Don't try to justify you're tresspassing ways. Go around. And eat beef.