Unlocking Inaccessible Public Lands Doesn’t Require Landowners to Give Up Their Property Rights
When it comes to improving access to landlocked public lands, we should work with—not against—private landowners
Since we first started our work with onX on the issue of landlocked public lands, we’ve heard many variations on the same question—from the comments section of our blogs to discussions with partners and decision-makers. The answer will not only set minds at ease, but it will also help lessen any harsh divide between the sportsmen and women who need better public lands access and the Americans fortunate enough to own land that borders public land.
Q: Would unlocking these inaccessible public lands require private landowners to give up their property?
A: The simple answer is no.
There are a wide variety of strategies for opening up landlocked lands that rely on the cooperation of willing landowners and pose no threat to the property rights of others. But because this is a sensitive subject, and there’s potential for misunderstanding, let’s dive a bit deeper into these solutions.
Our work on the landlocked issue has always been guided by two fundamental premises. First, we know that the future of hunting and fishing, conservation funding, and our $887-billion outdoor recreation economy depends on there being suitable public land access. At the same time, we know that private property rights—some of our nation’s most fundamental—are sacred, and landowners have always been some of the strongest allies for not only sportsmen and women but also fish and wildlife.
In bringing attention to the scope of the landlocked public lands challenge across the West, we have never suggested that solutions for public-land users should conflict with the rights of landowners. In fact, the best-available tools with which land trusts, conservation groups, and state and federal agencies can tackle this challenge depend on engaging with private property owners who are willing to work towards a solution.
After all, many Western landowners are hunters themselves and care about the future of our outdoor heritage. Many western landowners have also played important roles in opening public lands through creative voluntary efforts, including access easements, enrolling their lands into block management programs or similar access programs administered by the states, or simply saying “yes” if someone asks to access his or her property.
Though many landlocked public lands could be accessed with permission from surrounding landowners, we don’t believe that this should be all on them. Property owners shouldn’t be expected to provide access, though many generously do.
Even though the vast majority of sportsmen are ethical and conscientious, it’s important to recognize that allowing the public to hunt on or cross one’s land can result—because of the actions of an irresponsible minority—in property damage, disruptions to farm or ranch operations, and all sorts of complicated and time-consuming situations. That’s why, when we unveiled our first landlocked report at the 2018 TRCP Western Media Summit, we invited a local rancher and landowner from southwest Montana to speak about their experiences and give attendees a window into the reality of these challenges.
On the other hand, strategic land acquisitions from willing sellers, mutually beneficial land exchanges, easements of various types, walk-in access programs, and other incentive-based initiatives led by fish and wildlife agencies—all solutions featured in our state and federal landlocked report—either eliminate these challenges or help landowners manage access in a way that works best for them, without trammeling on their rights or diminishing the value of their property.
At the end of the day, even those landowners who are not themselves sportsmen and women share many of our values: clean air, clean water, healthy land, abundant fish and wildlife and the importance of getting the next generation outside. So, while it can be tempting when presented with a difficult challenge to lay blame or point fingers, we would insist that all champions of public land focus on collaborative, cooperative solutions that respect private property rights.
Photo: Nicholas Putz
12 Responses to “Unlocking Inaccessible Public Lands Doesn’t Require Landowners to Give Up Their Property Rights”
Paul Young
One thing to keep in mind is that many of the same private landowners also use public land for grazing that is owned by all of us. So in my opinion anyone that uses public land should have to automatically provide access across their property where applicable. That said I wholeheartedly agree that we ALWAYS need to respectful of any landowners that give us access.
Dear trcp, we the people don’t want to hurt landowners in any way, but the state of Louisiana has a very serious water access problem when it comes to us anglers that do nothing but respect what god gave us, because as being also good stewards of mother earth, there are that some landowners do illegally, plain and simple.
Some landlocked public lands are restricted by only a very small strip of land that is blocking that access. If we want to keep sportsmen and women involved in outdoor activities (we are currently losing numbers in some areas which will impact our future) those access points need to expanded at least to the point of allowing access. If we don’t we will continue to hear the familiar story of land that should be available to all but is being blocked by being surrounded by land that is inaccessible and we will continue to lose the men and women who care about our outdoors.
I totally agree with the first comment regarding these ranchers that use public land for grazing. A local sheriff even complained about the ranchers always calling the sheriff for people crossing there land to access public lands, but they always want to use the public lands for their cattle. They also cut many illegal trails all over the place with their quads to check their cattle. Unit 45 in Idaho is really bad for all of this. One ranch in particular casa del Norte seems to own half of the unit! They strategically buy little pieces of land to block access to the public lands. This definitely discourages new hunters and makes them not even want to bother and gives people the impression that it is a pastime only to be enjoyed by rich snobs. I understand there are many good land owners. For example hammet creek cattle company is awesome and participates in access yes! They still have their pristine land to themselves and do block access to quite a bit of ground but it’s better than nothing I suppose! I really just wish these land barons would realize the struggle of the less fortunate and at least just have an easement to let us cross your land on the borders at least or on existing roads. Very discouraging for everyone including myself.
While hunting Antelope in Wyoming (Area 23) I located an Antelope Buck on a piece of State Land that was surrounded (land locked) by private land. It was not difficult to locate the rancher that owned this land. I approached the rancher and respectfully requested permission to cross his private land to access this piece of Public Land and attempt to harvest this buck. The rancher informed me that he had leased out his land to a Hunting Outfitter and could not allow us on his property unless we were hunting with the Outfitter. I told the rancher I understood the issue and assured him I would not harvest the Buck unless the Buck was on that specific block of Public Land. The rancher simply replied again that he could not allow me to cross his land. I thanked the rancher for his time and left. This type of situation is unbelievable. The rancher has a right to lease out his property to a Hunting Outfitter but he should not have a right to turn a piece of Public Land into his own personal “for profit” private game reserve. This Public Land belongs to the public. In situations of this nature (leasing out private land that land locks Public Land to a Hunting Outfitter), the rancher should be required to allow hunters to cross their land to access the land locked Public Land.
I am absolutely appalled with the fact that stingy landowners can surround state land and not allow hunters to come across their property to hunt on the State land but yet they can for-profit bring Hunters into the ranch that they own and then utilize the same state property to earn more money my guiding elk and deer hunters! This is the most fraudulent misuse of this public land by the higher than the almighty, rancher! They move their livestock out of the state land just in time for hunting season after using it to graze and then turn around and greedily guide hunters for money on that “State” and bar regular hunters from enjoying the same opportunities!
That is mismanagement! If they have too much livestock they need to cut the size of their herds and manage (budget) their lands like the rest of us peons!
It’s just plain and simple greed. its ridiculous to not force them to give the little person an access road or trail to lands we pay for. But I dont expect anything less from these people and that’s why we dont get help from out elected officials either cause they are in bed with these rich snobs. Hell they probably get a free guided hunt on a different ranch every year, why would they ever help the middle class….they want one thing from us….work, pay our taxes, and die.
In wisconsin the dnr allows land owners key’s to their gates to drive threw public lands to access their land locked properties. Then just down the road you have landlocked public land that the surrounding land owners only let their friends and family hunt. It’s such a joke in western wisconsin on landlocked lands
Corner crossing access needs to be addressed. This is an issue I cannot even begin to understand. Literally the arguement comes down to violating air space, or touching 2 inches of land if you step right on the corner. If a valid proposal could be made or if .005 acres could be purchase or given easement at each corner tons of land would be opened up! Even if it requires stair cases build up over corner posts, people would trip over themselves to donate time and money to make it happen.
I am absolutely disgusted with landlocks in New Mexico. People will literally own 20 acres of property which blocks access to 20000 acres of public land. Than a rare few may enter into the states access program where they are paid to allow travel to the public land with caveats. They can literally set a time of year it is open, what activities you can do, what species you can hunt. All because they own a quarter mile of road that turns into 20 miles of road through public land. This in every sense makes the private land owners the de facto owners of our public land. This is theft. In the meantime there is nowhere I can go on BLM or Forest Service land without having to contend with the same peoples freaking cattle. If it was really about raising beef they would raise them on the grasslands in all that cheap land of Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, or Missouri. But it is about selling hunting access and exploiting the welfare ranching systems through public subsidies. These people cost the American tax payer, sportsmen and outdoor rec drives the economy throughout the west. It is time our public officials get their priority straight.
Being native to California I have also experienced the same difficulties with access to BLM for hunting as mentioned. I have found that in circumstances where a landowner entity denies or does not respond to request for access there is always an interest and use of the land by said landowner. Ive seen so much change in my state concerning access to public land and the lawful use of firearms in my 43 years being a licensed hunter, fisherman, lover of the great outdoors. Being native to California it is depressing. In my opinion the only legally accessible public land here is exhausted by the few hunters left in our state. If your a hunter in California you can have regular success concerning small game, upland game if you put in some real scouting effort. Ive been a licenced hunter since the age of 12 and nwas following my dad around on hunts as long as i can remember before that. As for big game specifically Mule Deer, Blacktail Deer in California my personal experience statewide is this: In all that time Id say Ive seen forty or so wild deer in thier natural habitat. Eight were on public land within the legal season during legal hunting hours while engaged in hunting. Five were does, three were legal bucks. I was fortunate enough to take one of these three at the age of 26 from a distance of 275 yards. If money is not an issue there are beautiful ranches with guided hunts here starting in the low $3k’s with about 60% success rate at best based on what ive read over the years. For me personally I enjoy the experience of freedom on our public lands. Thats what its all about. The freedom, the rewards of personal challenge, effort and self reliance are great. My greatest memories were had on public land. Some while camping, others while out on an exploratory drive or hike through some remote location. I am a new father and I would like my son to be able to enjoy these public spaces in the future as I have.
In washington state large timber companies are charging the public to cross there land. Some of these permit areas are up to 65 percent state lands that the companies are making money from. Essentially washington state tax payers are being charged twice to use our public lands. An these companies are making money off our lands. This is a tragedy for so many hunters an avid outdoorsman that can afford to pay to access our lands.
Landlocked Hotspots: Where Big Access Wins Are Possible in the West
A closer look at areas with high concentrations of inaccessible state and federal parcels that could be unlocked to dramatically improve sportsmen’s opportunities
As much as it helps to have this data—which was not available before our first-of-its-kind collaboration with onX over the past two years—the problem can seem overwhelming until you look at specific examples of these landlocked parcels, how they got this way, and what can be done to unlock them.
If you missed our history lesson on shifting land ownership patterns across the West, get caught up here. But if you’re looking for examples of places where tackling access challenges head-on could make a huge difference for hunters and anglers, read on.
Closed by State Policy in Colorado
Colorado stands apart from other mountain states when it comes to access to its trust lands. State rules currently do not allow the public to use or cross 2.22 million of the state’s 2.78 million acres of trust lands for any activity, including hunting and fishing.
In cooperation with the State Land Board, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has made a commendable effort to improve the access situation by leasing 558,000 acres of state trust lands for sportsmen’s access, and an additional 77,000 acres were just opened last week for the 2019 hunting season.
Colorado has perhaps the single-greatest opportunity to expand public access to outdoor recreation, and in doing so could help fulfill its obligations to generate revenue from trust lands. Colorado could begin by opening the 1.78 million acres of trust lands that are accessible but closed to activities like hunting and fishing and continue this work by establishing new access to the state’s 435,000 acres of landlocked trust lands. In accomplishing this, Colorado would create new possibilities for outstanding outdoor recreation and unleash the full potential of its economy
So Much Potential in Southeast Montana
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Region 7 is a mule deer hunter’s paradise—but it also contains a disproportionately high percentage of landlocked lands. From the shores of Fort Peck Lake to the Tongue and Powder Rivers, more than 898,000 acres of public land within Region 7 are inaccessible without permission from an adjacent private landowner.
Other sub-regions throughout the West, including eastern Wyoming and northern Nevada, contain similarly high concentrations of landlocked lands. Unlocking landlocked parcels in these areas would both expand hunting opportunities and benefit small-town economies.
A potential solution is ready-made in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which must include at least $15 million annually for the purpose of expanding recreational access.
Four Ways States Are Solving the Landlocked Public Lands Problem
Landlocked doesn’t necessarily mean access is lost for good
It would be a mistake to see the results of our latest landlocked study with onX and think that all hope of accessing these lands is lost. In fact, with excellent news coming out of Oregon this week—a strategic land acquisition is helping to open a combined 13,000 acres of public lands to hunters and anglers there—sportsmen and women have a lot to look forward to.
Knowing the full scope of the landlocked problem is one step toward finding the best possible solutions. Here are four ways that Western states are already working to chip away at the 15.8 million landlocked acres that we’ve identified so far.
Land Swaps and Smart Acquisitions
Since they received their original land grants, many states have consolidated their trust lands to make them more manageable and profitable. This has been achieved through both land acquisitions and exchanges, whereby the state trades its own lands to another entity for lands in a more desirable location.
Some state natural resource departments have acquired road access easements simply to make it easier to manage previously landlocked parcels. But as access across private lands has become increasingly difficult for sportsmen and women to obtain, these efforts also offer benefits to the public-land hunter or angler.
Now, states have begun to open landlocked state trust lands to public access not just as an ancillary benefit of more streamlined management, but for the expressed purpose of creating more outdoor recreation opportunities. And this is great news for those of us who need more places to hunt and fish close to home.
Photo by Lindsey Rieck/Washington DNR
Dedicated Staff and Programs
One of the most powerful steps a state can take to open landlocked state lands is to assign dedicated staff and/or establish specific programs to address access challenges.
Montana has been a leader on this front, having taken several steps to increase access to state trust lands. While many states have recently created positions focused on serving and expanding outdoor recreation, Montana took the additional step of creating a new role for a public access specialist tasked with expanding access to public lands—both state and federal. This person’s responsibilities include helping the state prioritize and complete access acquisition projects and collaborating with landowners and agency land managers to find common ground around the access issue.
What’s more, the public access specialist has a number of programs at his or her disposal. One such program is the Montana Public Lands Access Network (MTPLAN), which was created by the legislature in 2017 to “facilitate collaboration” and “enhance public access throughout the state.” Through the MTPLAN, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation awards grants to eligible groups specifically to acquire public access easements across private lands and open up landlocked or difficult-to-access public lands for recreation.
While the MT-PLAN would benefit from more robust funding, it stands as a praiseworthy effort that other states could follow. And Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks has several other programs—including Unlocking Public Lands and the Public Access to Lands Act—that serve to expand access to the state’s 5.2 million acres of trust lands.
Walk-In Access Programs
Walk-in access programs, such as Idaho’s “Access Yes” and New Mexico’s “Open Gate,” have long been popular with sportsmen and women for their ability to expand hunting opportunities on private lands. These programs are administered by individual state fish and wildlife agencies, which generally enter into short-term contracts with individual private landowners to make their lands available to the public, typically for hunting.
Each program is different, and Nevada is the only state in the Mountain West without one.
Traditionally used only for private land access, state walk-in programs have taken on a new importance as a powerful tool for opening pathways to landlocked state and federal lands. Several states, including Wyoming and Arizona, are deliberately using these programs to open access to landlocked public lands—including state trust lands—by securing leases on private lands that encompass or are adjacent to otherwise inaccessible public lands.
This isn’t a permanent solution, because the access agreements require perpetual renewal, but walk-in programs can be especially valuable in opening smaller and more isolated parcels of state and federal lands that would be difficult or impractical to unlock by any other means. These state programs are generally funded through license dollars or the federal Farm Bill’s Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program.
Continued and even increased funding for both sources could be fundamental to supplying more public walk-in access. That means recruiting more license-buying sportsmen and women, supporting R3 efforts, and recognizing the important benefits of VPA-HIP in time for the next farm bill debate.
Photo by Jean-Frederic Fortier on Unsplash.
Using the Land and Water Conservation Fund
We’ve been a bit of a broken record on this one, but can you blame us? According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 40,000 individual grants and $4.1 billion in LWCF funds have been provided to states and localities to acquire and develop outdoor recreation facilities. And LWCF state dollars—a mandated 40 percent of allocated program funding—can be directed toward unlocking state lands for recreational access right now.
The more funding Congress directs to the LWCF, the bigger chunk of the pie is available to the states, and that’s why we’re pushing for the maximum of $900 million to flow into the LWCF coffers annually, without future quibbling about whether that’s the right amount.
Remember: Oil and gas companies are already handing over $900 million a year for this purpose. But in the past 50 years, more than $20 billion in LWCF funds have been diverted elsewhere.
Unlocked! 13K+ Acres of New and Previously Inaccessible Public Land Open in Oregon
Successful use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in Oregon offers a case study in how to open landlocked lands
When we joined forces with onX to dig into the issue of inaccessible federal public lands last year, we identified several places where public agencies, land trusts, and private landowners working together were already on the cusp of opening landlocked public lands using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. With 15.87 million inaccessible state and federal acres, it’s certainly a daunting challenge, but workable solutions can make a meaningful difference for hunters and anglers.
We’re happy to announce that one of those projects, initiated in 2014 by Western Rivers Conservancy, was just completed on Thirty Mile Creek above its confluence with the John Day River in central Oregon.
Map by onX
This marks a huge win for sportsmen and women. On August 20, WRC conveyed two ranches to the Bureau of Land Management, effectively adding 11,148 acres of hunting and fishing grounds to the public trust, unlocking 2,323 acres of entirely landlocked BLM lands, and improving access to an additional 75,000 hard-to-reach public acres.
The John Day and its tributaries offer world-class steelhead and smallmouth bass fishing in a unique high-desert setting. Elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep hunters lucky enough to draw a tag in the area are certain to find a memorable experience in this steep and rugged country. The previous landowners charged a fee to those looking for access to the river, and whoever owned these properties had every right to close that access at their discretion.
Sportsmen and women now have permanent legal access to the John Day River at Thirtymile Creek and new access to a huge expanse of public land above and below the tributary, much of which had previously only been accessible via a multi-day float.
The lands now under BLM management were acquired by WRC from willing, conservation-minded sellers, and an $8-million allocation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund allowed these acres to pass into public hands. These properties include vital habitat for California bighorn sheep and steelhead, offering fish and wildlife managers new opportunities for improvement projects that will safeguard the future of these vulnerable species.
All told, Western Rivers Conservancy’s Thirtymile Creek project stands as a shining example of what can be accomplished now that the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been permanently reauthorized. It should also remind sportsmen and women that our ability to unlock inaccessible public lands will be determined by whether or not Congress fully funds the program in perpetuity by supporting H.B. 3195 in the House and S. 1081 in the Senate.
How So Many Western State and Federal Public Lands Became Landlocked
This access challenge has become apparent thanks to recent advances in GPS technology, but the origin of the landlocked problem goes back to the early days of Western statehood
EDITOR’S NOTE: This post was written in 2019, as we were revealing the results of our second collaboration with onX to identify the full scope of the inaccessible public lands problem. We have since released three additional reports on landlocked public lands east of the Mississippi. This is all relevant in 2021, not only because the access challenge persists, but also because checkerboarded public lands and the legality of corner crossing are back in the news. The call to action at the end of this story has been changed: We no longer need to fight for the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but to use it well, we need a complete digital record of all our public lands, including easements that may unlock inaccessible parcels but are only recorded on paper maps. Read on for how history has shaped public land access and what you can still do to help.
This week, the TRCP and onX revealed the results of our latest collaborative study, which showed that 6.35 million acres of state-owned public lands are completely isolated by private lands and therefore inaccessible to American sportsmen and women. To arrive at this total acreage, onX used leading mapping technology to look at state trust lands, state forests, state parks, and wildlife management areas in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
This report also builds on our findings from last year, when onX helped us to identify more than 9.5 million acres of landlocked and inaccessible federal public lands, including those overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies.
GPS technology, now accessible to any hunter or angler with a smartphone, has made this access challenge more obvious in recent years. Ours is the first detailed analysis of how big the problem really is, but the jigsaw puzzle of land ownership that has created barriers to public lands where we have every right to hunt or fish has its origin in the founding of the Western states.
Here’s how we got here.
Photo: Craig Okraska | Maven
State Lands Destined to Be Landlocked
In the 19th century, as Western territories joined the union, each was granted land from the public estate through acts of Congress. These lands were to be used to generate revenue that would support public institutions, most often schools, in the new states.
The Public Lands Survey System was used to plat landscapes into six-by-six-mile squares known as townships, each including 36 individual one-mile–square sections. And the enabling acts that established statehood specified individual sections from each township’s grid that would be withdrawn from the federal estate and granted to each new state.
The size and placement of these allotments varied and became increasingly more generous as new states were admitted to the union. For instance, Congress granted Montana and Idaho sections 16 and 36 of each township, while New Mexico and Arizona received sections 2, 16, 32, and 36. The result was a scattered, arbitrary pattern of trust lands that frequently led to sections of state land surrounded entirely by private holdings.
While land exchanges, sales, and acquisitions have consolidated and altered the ownership pattern of state land holdings over the years, the original patchwork is still evident across much of 11-state region that onX helped us study to identify landlocked state lands where hunting and fishing opportunities are being lost. Now home to 38.8 million acres of trust lands, the states have—we learned—a 6.35-million-acre landlocked problem.
Photo by Rick Hutton
How Federal Public Lands Became Isolated and Checkerboarded
When it comes to the 9.52 million acres of landlocked federal public lands, these parcels are also a product of history, rooted in the federal government’s aggressive land disposal policies of the 19thcentury. For much of America’s past, Western lands served as a source of in-kind revenue for the federal government, used at the will of policymakers to achieve their desired aims.
To facilitate the extension of commerce and settlement across the continent, Congress granted railroad companies ownership of alternating sections of land on either side of the tracks, fracturing the landscape into the public-private checkerboard pattern familiar to any Western hunter. The rationale behind this policy was that development spurred by the railroad would double the value of the remaining public lands, which could eventually be sold—negating the cost of the giveaway by the federal government, while simultaneously driving private enterprise.
Meanwhile, as the public domain was divided up piecemeal through the Homestead Act, public lands that had little economic value went unclaimed, and frequently became closed-in by adjacent private holdings. In other instances, some enterprising Western settlers accumulated so much land that public tracts were entirely surrounded by individual ranches or walled off against natural features, like rivers and impassable terrain.
Later, the abandonment of homesteaded farms and a high-profile railroad land scandal returned millions of acres of generally isolated and disjointed tracts of land to the Department of the Interior. The idea of a permanently maintained system of public lands did not take hold until the turn of the twentieth century, when a dedicated model of conservation was championed by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt. It was not until decades later, in 1976, that the Bureau of Land Management, the nation’s largest land management agency, shifted fully to a policy of land retention.
Now, we know better than ever before that these resources play a vital role in maintaining a vast $887-billion outdoor recreation economy, and Americans value our public lands as a means of escaping crowded cities and schedules. In fact, there is a growing need to open overlooked and off-limits public lands to the general public.
Photo: Calvin Connor
A Quick Word About the Biggest Difference Between State and Federal Lands
It’s important to know that state trust lands differ from federal public lands in how they are managed. By and large, federal lands administered by agencies such as the BLM and U.S. Forest Service are managed for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, energy development, grazing, and timber harvest. The federal agencies are required to balance these uses, and financial profit is not a driver of management.
Under the terms of state land grants, state lands allotted by Congress through the General Land Office were to be managed to produce revenue for designated beneficiaries. This is why, early on, the young states sold off millions of acres of state trust lands for short-term payoffs.
The extent to which states disposed of their lands has varied, with Nevada selling off virtually all of its original land grant and Arizona selling very little. While land sales still do occur with greater frequency at the state level than the federal level, state land boards have moved management direction towards the longer-term approach of leasing them to private interests for grazing, mineral development, and timber extraction. However, to this day, state land boards and management agencies remain obligated to produce revenue for designated beneficiaries, balancing maximum immediate return with the sustainability of revenue and natural resources over time.
This became a hot talking point at the height of the public land transfer debate in 2016, when an extremistminority suggested that the nation’s public lands might be better off in state hands. While this idea still exists, sportsmen and women united to make it known that large-scale transfer or disposal of public lands is extremely unpopular and an irresponsible management strategy. Now, our fight has become more about solving access and management challenges on these lands.
Photo: Nick Venture of Become1
A Solution with Bipartisan Support
One key to unlocking both state and federally owned landlocked lands is ensuring that decision-makers and the American public have a complete digital record of federal land holdings. This includes easements that often unlock inaccessible parcels, but you won’t find them on your smartphone or GPS because the maps have never been digitized. The Modernizing Access to Public Land, or MAPLand, Act would require federal public land management agencies to make all public land access data, including maps and regulations, available in an online format, giving you confidence that you are using legal access and following the rules.
Theodore Roosevelt’s experiences hunting and fishing certainly fueled his passion for conservation, but it seems that a passion for coffee may have powered his mornings. In fact, Roosevelt’s son once said that his father’s coffee cup was “more in the nature of a bathtub.” TRCP has partnered with Afuera Coffee Co. to bring together his two loves: a strong morning brew and a dedication to conservation. With your purchase, you’ll not only enjoy waking up to the rich aroma of this bolder roast—you’ll be supporting the important work of preserving hunting and fishing opportunities for all.
One thing to keep in mind is that many of the same private landowners also use public land for grazing that is owned by all of us. So in my opinion anyone that uses public land should have to automatically provide access across their property where applicable. That said I wholeheartedly agree that we ALWAYS need to respectful of any landowners that give us access.
Dear trcp, we the people don’t want to hurt landowners in any way, but the state of Louisiana has a very serious water access problem when it comes to us anglers that do nothing but respect what god gave us, because as being also good stewards of mother earth, there are that some landowners do illegally, plain and simple.
Some landlocked public lands are restricted by only a very small strip of land that is blocking that access. If we want to keep sportsmen and women involved in outdoor activities (we are currently losing numbers in some areas which will impact our future) those access points need to expanded at least to the point of allowing access. If we don’t we will continue to hear the familiar story of land that should be available to all but is being blocked by being surrounded by land that is inaccessible and we will continue to lose the men and women who care about our outdoors.
I totally agree with the first comment regarding these ranchers that use public land for grazing. A local sheriff even complained about the ranchers always calling the sheriff for people crossing there land to access public lands, but they always want to use the public lands for their cattle. They also cut many illegal trails all over the place with their quads to check their cattle. Unit 45 in Idaho is really bad for all of this. One ranch in particular casa del Norte seems to own half of the unit! They strategically buy little pieces of land to block access to the public lands. This definitely discourages new hunters and makes them not even want to bother and gives people the impression that it is a pastime only to be enjoyed by rich snobs. I understand there are many good land owners. For example hammet creek cattle company is awesome and participates in access yes! They still have their pristine land to themselves and do block access to quite a bit of ground but it’s better than nothing I suppose! I really just wish these land barons would realize the struggle of the less fortunate and at least just have an easement to let us cross your land on the borders at least or on existing roads. Very discouraging for everyone including myself.
While hunting Antelope in Wyoming (Area 23) I located an Antelope Buck on a piece of State Land that was surrounded (land locked) by private land. It was not difficult to locate the rancher that owned this land. I approached the rancher and respectfully requested permission to cross his private land to access this piece of Public Land and attempt to harvest this buck. The rancher informed me that he had leased out his land to a Hunting Outfitter and could not allow us on his property unless we were hunting with the Outfitter. I told the rancher I understood the issue and assured him I would not harvest the Buck unless the Buck was on that specific block of Public Land. The rancher simply replied again that he could not allow me to cross his land. I thanked the rancher for his time and left. This type of situation is unbelievable. The rancher has a right to lease out his property to a Hunting Outfitter but he should not have a right to turn a piece of Public Land into his own personal “for profit” private game reserve. This Public Land belongs to the public. In situations of this nature (leasing out private land that land locks Public Land to a Hunting Outfitter), the rancher should be required to allow hunters to cross their land to access the land locked Public Land.
I am absolutely appalled with the fact that stingy landowners can surround state land and not allow hunters to come across their property to hunt on the State land but yet they can for-profit bring Hunters into the ranch that they own and then utilize the same state property to earn more money my guiding elk and deer hunters! This is the most fraudulent misuse of this public land by the higher than the almighty, rancher! They move their livestock out of the state land just in time for hunting season after using it to graze and then turn around and greedily guide hunters for money on that “State” and bar regular hunters from enjoying the same opportunities!
That is mismanagement! If they have too much livestock they need to cut the size of their herds and manage (budget) their lands like the rest of us peons!
It’s just plain and simple greed. its ridiculous to not force them to give the little person an access road or trail to lands we pay for. But I dont expect anything less from these people and that’s why we dont get help from out elected officials either cause they are in bed with these rich snobs. Hell they probably get a free guided hunt on a different ranch every year, why would they ever help the middle class….they want one thing from us….work, pay our taxes, and die.
In wisconsin the dnr allows land owners key’s to their gates to drive threw public lands to access their land locked properties. Then just down the road you have landlocked public land that the surrounding land owners only let their friends and family hunt. It’s such a joke in western wisconsin on landlocked lands
Corner crossing access needs to be addressed. This is an issue I cannot even begin to understand. Literally the arguement comes down to violating air space, or touching 2 inches of land if you step right on the corner. If a valid proposal could be made or if .005 acres could be purchase or given easement at each corner tons of land would be opened up! Even if it requires stair cases build up over corner posts, people would trip over themselves to donate time and money to make it happen.
I am absolutely disgusted with landlocks in New Mexico. People will literally own 20 acres of property which blocks access to 20000 acres of public land. Than a rare few may enter into the states access program where they are paid to allow travel to the public land with caveats. They can literally set a time of year it is open, what activities you can do, what species you can hunt. All because they own a quarter mile of road that turns into 20 miles of road through public land. This in every sense makes the private land owners the de facto owners of our public land. This is theft. In the meantime there is nowhere I can go on BLM or Forest Service land without having to contend with the same peoples freaking cattle. If it was really about raising beef they would raise them on the grasslands in all that cheap land of Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, or Missouri. But it is about selling hunting access and exploiting the welfare ranching systems through public subsidies. These people cost the American tax payer, sportsmen and outdoor rec drives the economy throughout the west. It is time our public officials get their priority straight.
Being native to California I have also experienced the same difficulties with access to BLM for hunting as mentioned. I have found that in circumstances where a landowner entity denies or does not respond to request for access there is always an interest and use of the land by said landowner. Ive seen so much change in my state concerning access to public land and the lawful use of firearms in my 43 years being a licensed hunter, fisherman, lover of the great outdoors. Being native to California it is depressing. In my opinion the only legally accessible public land here is exhausted by the few hunters left in our state. If your a hunter in California you can have regular success concerning small game, upland game if you put in some real scouting effort. Ive been a licenced hunter since the age of 12 and nwas following my dad around on hunts as long as i can remember before that. As for big game specifically Mule Deer, Blacktail Deer in California my personal experience statewide is this: In all that time Id say Ive seen forty or so wild deer in thier natural habitat. Eight were on public land within the legal season during legal hunting hours while engaged in hunting. Five were does, three were legal bucks. I was fortunate enough to take one of these three at the age of 26 from a distance of 275 yards. If money is not an issue there are beautiful ranches with guided hunts here starting in the low $3k’s with about 60% success rate at best based on what ive read over the years. For me personally I enjoy the experience of freedom on our public lands. Thats what its all about. The freedom, the rewards of personal challenge, effort and self reliance are great. My greatest memories were had on public land. Some while camping, others while out on an exploratory drive or hike through some remote location. I am a new father and I would like my son to be able to enjoy these public spaces in the future as I have.
In washington state large timber companies are charging the public to cross there land. Some of these permit areas are up to 65 percent state lands that the companies are making money from. Essentially washington state tax payers are being charged twice to use our public lands. An these companies are making money off our lands. This is a tragedy for so many hunters an avid outdoorsman that can afford to pay to access our lands.