Free Republic

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Thenks for the info. Looks like this is a case where their wa s actually proof of prior use. I'm hoping you aren't claimng that ranchers have to prove that there was never prior use. That would certainly turn the Constitution upside down.

sorry for the extra posts. I don't know how to work this thing.

" Acquiring property does not give you the power to unreasonably deny access to a long established right of way."

But most of the disputed cases don't involve established right of ways. They involve allegations that haven't been proven. That's why the courts have consistently put the burden of proof on the trespasser.

" Acquiring property does not give you the power to unreasonably deny access to a long established right of way."

But most of the disputed cases don't involve established right of ways. They involve allegations that haven't been proven. That's why the courts have consistently put the burden of proof on the trespasser.

A pack train trail is not a highway no matter how you stretch your imagination. My research has shown that many mining roads in Colorado were built by private mining companies with their own money and labor, on their own property. RS 2477 of course does not apply to such roads but the ATV lobby is trying to get access to private land.

The anti-landowner lobby would have you believe that RS 2477 is a good thing because it means no rancher or homeonwer can ever prosecute a trespasser. All the trespasser has to do is to say that he was on a RS 2477 right of way, and then the landowner has to prove that it's not. That's why RS 2477 is so popular with trespassers and ATV riders.

A pack train trail is not a highway no matter how you stretch your imagination. My research has shown that many mining roads in Colorado were built by private mining companies with their own money and labor, on their own property. RS 2477 of course does not apply to such roads but the ATV lobby is trying to get access to private land.

The anti-landowner lobby would have you believe that RS 2477 is a good thing because it means no rancher or homeonwer can ever prosecute a trespasser. All the trespasser has to do is to say that he was on a RS 2477 right of way, and then the landowner has to prove that it's not. That's why RS 2477 is so popular with trespassers and ATV riders.

There's a group called ORC that has been lobbying hard (and using RS 2477) in an attempt to weaken private property rights. Now thay are expressing interest in the Kelo decision as a means of confiscating private property from rural owners to create commercial off-road vehicle parks. One of their leaders is Brad Ullrich of Aztec, NM, who has written a number of scathing anti-landowner articles. They have a website that is dedicated to bashing landowners. Pirate4x4.com and private property

Good points, except that who do you believe when one guy says there was a road 150 years ago and another guy says there wasn't? And everybody who was alive to be a witness is dead, and there weren't satellites or aerial photos in the 1860's, and maps were crappy and not very accurate or didn't even show roads.

I think that's why the burden of proof is on the person claiming a right of way to prove the road was there. If they can't prove it was there, then no easement. Otherwise anybody could go anywhere and just say "there was road here 150 years ago".

This is one issue on which ranchers, miners, real-estate developers, traditional sportsmen, and conservationists all seem to agree. RS 2477 is a bad law that needs to be repealed!