House passes measure encouraging public access to fishing streams

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by Glitch

You can put a four-lane highway through a 100 foot wide corridor.

I think that is exactly the point.

[blueflames50]

I wonder how this bill/law fits into the push to open up more protected lands for exploration of oil and such??? nice way to steal land and have a major roadway put through for oil rigs and such! yes an I am fully aware of the rights for mineral/oil exploration of anyones land...it does not however define access or the type of access wherein this bill/law would give major roadway rights an to steal the "right-a-way" portion of a persons land without paying for it!
Edit: the old saying: what goes around comes around....it would appear, government stole land from the natives, never truly compensating them and white man went along with it, now the government is going to steal from the white man!

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

You are outright lying.

Why didn't you read what was said there? It does not say what you did!

"I've heard of a Native Corporation charging thousands of dollars up there for permits to cross their land to access public land for hunting"

That is what you claimed. But you now cite a web forum that discusses permits for hunting on private property owned by AHTNA Corporation. The permit has nothing to do with access to public land.

AHTNA merely decided that anyone who pays the State of Alaska big bucks to shoot a brown bear owned by the State can also pay AHTNA big bucks if the brown bear is standing on their land. Seems reasonable on the part of the State of Alaska, and equally so on the part of AHTNA.

No, I know I read on that forum where a person wanted to cross to public land after being drawn for some hunt, and had to pay some native corp a serious amount of money just to access the place. When I find it I'll post it. In the meantime, here's another incident for you to chew on:

Chuit River is NOT closed!

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Not my problem it's a State problem. Maybe if they were better organized these problems wouldn't happen.



Not my problem, if there is an easement and the person wants access via that easement, then they should do their homework and figure it out before running with gay abandon over someone else's property. It's not an unreasonable thought process to come to the conclusion that given a public use area is surrounded by private property there should be, in a rational world, an easement, or public use trail. So you try to find it.



Ah yes eminent domain... Which is basically you have no rights to what you own, if "we" think there's something "we" need on your property.

The rest is not my problem as a landowner, the state screwed up if they entirely landlocked a public use area with private land sales for instance the lake/stream/coastline is public, but all of the surrounding waterfront for a considerable distance is private and without easement for public access. That's the State screwing up, either accidentally or deliberately because land with a public access easement across it will almost certainly reduce the value of that land.

With fee simple title, there is no true, absolute ownership. It originated in feudalism, and the lord has merely been replaced with the state. Allodial title is absolute ownership, but only texas has any of that these days (and only in some limited, isolated areas at that). of course this is a topic all its own but it plays a part here, because as the property owner does not have allodial title, the state can take whatever it wants for public use, even a wide enough piece of land to build an 8 lane highway to that little creek or lake in the middle of nowhere.

The land has been checkerboarded by Native Corps, and the state has messed up here and there with some subdivisions, landlocking public land. I don't think it unreasonable to create access easements when we're talking entire townships worth of land. And unless a person is a surveyor, it may be virtually impossible to be sure they're on an unmarked, easement (although on unposted land it shouldn't be an issue unless they're damaging property, etc.). The state should be putting some work into marking these easements so people aren't wandering all over lost on private lands.

Who said anything about high voltage? Regardless a 20' high chain link fence would keep out people and is entirely legal as long as it doesn't impede any traditional use trails, or easements.

Meanwhile the civil/criminal penalties depend upon posted notices, if a person ignores them then depending on your state law, the landowner may not be liable for any injuries caused. Hey I have big honking signs at regular intervals saying "LIVE FIRING RANGE ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK" if someone walks across that range while I'm shooting and is hurt then I can hardly be held accountable (it's not like they couldn't hear the gunfire) any more than if I'm buzzing down a trail on my property on a snow machine or 4 wheeler, come round a bend and run someone over who had no right to be there, it's not an unreasonable assumption that your private property is... well... private.

On LEO access, well sure they have "open fields" searchability, however they have no right to damage or destroy any security devices that are on the property (unless they DO have a warrant), so in my example of 20' chain link fencing, they would have to come to the prescribed access point and have the gate opened, unless there was a way to gain access without damaging that fence. However while the property owner would not have a legal basis to refuse any land search they would have a legal basis to refuse search of any that exist on the property (even a tarp supported on 4 poles). Which of course would be the same principle as an overflight by a police helicopter or spotter plane.

Guess I read that into it (high voltage). I'd still be careful doing much other than posting and putting up cameras or such to determine if someone is trespassing (then I could confront them if needed). I do know, the law here is such that a person who does not post their land, can have less liability (actually, no liability) than someone who does and then gives permission to use the land for any reason.

That 20 foot high fence would probably do the trick but might get a bit pricey.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

No, I know I read on that forum where a person wanted to cross to public land after being drawn for some hunt, and had to pay some native corp a serious amount of money just to access the place. When I find it I'll post it.

That is not what the permit is for though, and just because you think some other idiot posted to a web forum doesn't make it true. The facts were well explained, and the AHTNA web site is also very clear about what the permit allows.

The "place" being accessed is private property. Nothing in that discussion related to access to public property.

In the meantime, here's another incident for you to chew on:

Chuit River is NOT closed!

Another case of you aren't reading what you are citing. Clearly the discussion and the facts are that there are public easements available for access to the public land. A local private land owner is objecting to trespass, which seems to be a very reasonable and legally valid view for them to take!

The articles in no way support your singling out Native corporations as being at fault.