House passes measure encouraging public access to fishing streams (Anchorage: buying, compensation)

[Glitch]

House passes measure encouraging public access to fishing streams

The Alaska House of Representatives passed House Bill 144, sponsored by Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, which would require the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to submit an annual report on its efforts to maintain and enhance public access to fishing streams. The bill is designed to improve access to fishing spots within the state.

“We’re trying to be proactive. Once access is lost, it’s too expensive to buy back,” said Gara. “In places like Wyoming and Montana, the state hasn’t tried buying back fishing access until it’s too late, and then the access is damaged or the costs are too high.”

Source: House passes measure encouraging public access to fishing streams | Juneau Empire - Alaska's Capital City Online Newspaper

I think this is a good idea. There are a lot of state lands that are surrounded by private property owners. If a property owner is not available to give their permission, getting access to those state lands can be a problem. By providing a public easement on properties that have not yet been developed to those state lands and fishing resources, it will cost the State a great deal less than it would to purchase the same easements after the property has been developed.

There are also property owners who will voluntarily provide the State with a public easement to state lands and fishing resources. Particularly sub-division developers, because it would increase the value of the land.

[Metlakatla]

I have no problem with this...though our land isn't affected. But I'm unclear on something. I would not support this if it meant that tourists could go traipsing across people's land in order to sports fish. Is this for resident subsistence use only?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

I have no problem with this...though our land isn't affected. But I'm unclear on something. I would not support this if it meant that tourists could go traipsing across people's land in order to sports fish. Is this for resident subsistence use only?

It is an easement for the public, so that would include tourists. Not just fishermen, but hunters, hikers, backpackers, etc. Essentially, anyone who wanted access. From what I understand of the bill, it will first focus on property owners voluntarily giving the State an easement to State lands. Then focus on purchasing easements from undeveloped land in order to save the State money (which is always a good thing). Buying easements from developed properties is suppose to be, and should be, the very last resort.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Glitch

It is an easement for the public, so that would include tourists. Not just fishermen, but hunters, hikers, backpackers, etc. Essentially, anyone who wanted access. From what I understand of the bill, it will first focus on property owners voluntarily giving the State an easement to State lands. Then focus on purchasing easements from undeveloped land in order to save the State money (which is always a good thing). Buying easements from developed properties is suppose to be, and should be, the very last resort.

I have some undeveloped land in the interior and wouldn't really care if someone walked over it to get to a fishing area. Never there so I wouldn't know anyway. Developed land...well, I'd rather that be done as a voluntary thing.

I have to allow the public here (though of course I can and have thrown people off) and most of the public are pretty well behaved but towards the end of salmon season last year when we'd all been working 18 hour days and were about 3/4 dead on our feet, idjit pulled up in and out of her car came two dogs, which she proceeded to allow to do their business.

We just sat here and watched and didn't want the hassle of getting into it with her ---were too tired, really---and what the hell, the dogs have to go somewhere, and we do have a sign stating that the public is welcome.

Idjit should have cleaned up after her dogs, though.

Part of the deal with being a business I guess but I wouldn't want the government telling me I had to allow the public on my private residence, so yeah, the purchasing easement thing needs to be a last resort and I would hate to see it actually forced on anyone.

[Glitch]

It would also depend on the size of the easement. Roads typically come with a 10 foot easement, or a 15-20 foot easement if it is around a utility. If the easements are for foot traffic, then I would not consider a 10 foot easement unreasonable. I really think it should be up to the owner of the property, rather than the State, to determine whether motorized traffic (ATVs, motorcycles, etc.) should be allowed. I can see a valid State constitutional argument being made to provide access to State fish and game resources, but no where does the State constitution say that the access must be motorized.

[DannyL]

This may seem like a great thing..yada..yada..yada...

But why is it I smell a bit of "imminent domain" at work here.

If I own 40 acres and some people want to pass over it to fish a stream, what's next? Handicapt access?
I'm responsible for their trash?

BTW..I don't own 40 acres in Alaska, but down south all you had to do to cross private property to fish was to ask, and establish a relationship (get to know each other thing) with the landowner.

Anyway, i think I can see thru the political fog here and understand why this is all happening. Especially for the southeast if a certain piece of legislation manages to get passed.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by DannyL

This may seem like a great thing..yada..yada..yada...

But why is it I smell a bit of "imminent domain" at work here.

If I own 40 acres and some people want to pass over it to fish a stream, what's next? Handicapt access?
I'm responsible for their trash?

BTW..I don't own 40 acres in Alaska, but down south all you had to do to cross private property to fish was to ask, and establish a relationship (get to know each other thing) with the landowner.

Anyway, i think I can see thru the political fog here and understand why this is all happening. Especially for the southeast if a certain piece of legislation manages to get passed.

I think the bill made it pretty clear that it was the Department of Natural Resources responsibility for maintaining and enhancing public easements.

This bill also prevents eminent domain, which the sponsor of the bill wants to avoid (from the article): "He [Rep. Les Gara] asserts that taking someone’s private land is not acceptable..." By asking for voluntary easements first, purchasing undeveloped property second, and purchasing developed property third, it does everything (in the right order), to prevent eminent domain. Eminent domain is still a possibility, but only after the other three different means to obtain the easement have failed.

[blueflames50]

Personally I don't agree with this and would not give access through my property regardless of which state the land is in....if a neighbor wanted to fish off my property in AK then ask, allow 4 wheelers and such no
....here in MA each year we see what people from the city or out of town come an do with 4 wheelers in the summer and snowmachines in the winter.....they do not stay on designated MARKED access areas...they tear up peoples land, abuse property, steal things and leave their damn trash....when a land owner tries to speak to them they are flipped off, sworn at and damage is done to the property....law enforcement or clubs trying to control any of this??? yeah right by the time the phone call is made the perps are long gone...
we have had people "picnic" in our back yard woods! leave their trash, relieve themselves an leave toilet paper on the ground...funny when we took the license plate, found out who they were and where they lived and went to their front yard in CT for a "picnic" the police were called! we have had cut, split wood stolen...I could go on about what people do and think they can do on someone elses land...all this law is going to do is "entitle" them to do it legally.
sadly this will end up being a land "appropriation stealing" when people don't give up what some honcho wants access to.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by blueflames50

Personally I don't agree with this and would not give access through my property regardless of which state the land is in....if a neighbor wanted to fish off my property in AK then ask, allow 4 wheelers and such no
....here in MA each year we see what people from the city or out of town come an do with 4 wheelers in the summer and snowmachines in the winter.....they do not stay on designated MARKED access areas...they tear up peoples land, abuse property, steal things and leave their damn trash....when a land owner tries to speak to them they are flipped off, sworn at and damage is done to the property....law enforcement or clubs trying to control any of this??? yeah right by the time the phone call is made the perps are long gone...
we have had people "picnic" in our back yard woods! leave their trash, relieve themselves an leave toilet paper on the ground...funny when we took the license plate, found out who they were and where they lived and went to their front yard in CT for a "picnic" the police were called! we have had cut, split wood stolen...I could go on about what people do and think they can do on someone elses land...all this law is going to do is "entitle" them to do it legally.

Under Alaska's State Constitution, Article 8, all state lands and waterways are to be made available to the public. If there are state lands that are only accessible through your property, and you refuse to give anyone voluntary access, or if you refuse to sell access to the state, they can simply take the land under eminent domain.

Proceedings in eminent domain may be undertaken for private ways of necessity to permit essential access for extraction or utilization of resources. Just compensation shall be made for property taken or for resultant damages to other property rights.

Source: Article 8, Section 18 of the Alaska State Constitution

This bill attempts other means of obtaining a public easement before employing eminent domain.

[blueflames50]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Under Alaska's State Constitution, Article 8, all state lands and waterways are to be made available to the public. If there are state lands that are only accessible through your property, and you refuse to give anyone voluntary access, or if you refuse to sell access to the state, they can simply take the land under eminent domain.



This bill attempts other means of obtaining a public easement before employing eminent domain.

so this law is just a preliminary legal jargon that sets precedence for appropriate refuse rights of the land owner so that the law of eminent domain taking to be legal and non contested...