Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aren't you the anti government guy? But you want government land to define the adjacent land as not quite really private? Wow.
You did single out Native Corporations. And made up an absurd fabrication to do it too.
Having experienced firsthand how checkerboarding and landlocking by greedy people can make access for hunting and fishing impossible on otherwise open lands, I suppose I'm not exactly in the absolute property rights crowd on this one.
I'm not making up anything. IIRC it was a bison hunt where essentially a Native Corp has a stranglehold on access to one particular hunting area. Some mention of it in this thread: Ahtna Predator permit
If the only access to public property is via private property, then that is an issue caused by bad planning by the state. Before they sold off that land they should have ensured that the correct easements and/or traditional use trails were in place to prevent that problem. If the owner chooses to negotiate with the state to restore access, then that's between the owner and the state.
However I have EVERY right to prevent ANY person crossing my land for ANY reason even that I'm just being a curmudgeon. It's my property, bought and paid for, under the conditions listed when I purchased it, if I want I can put up a 20' high electrified chain link fence around my property at the limit of any access easements or trails. If I'm not following those conditions, then that can be corrected by usual channels.
As far as you're concerned then you do not respect owners property rights. Or am I misreading what you're saying?
I think the problems have come about because of delays in transferring lands. The Corps. and government agencies made the decisions decades ago and now as things are being transferred and not always as originally planned it's a mess. Some of what I've read also is entire property lines being posted even though there are easements (unmarked), either intentionally or unintentionally giving the impression to most people there is no access. Technically, though, the state could just use eminent domain to provide access to public lands (comes under public use). I might be a bit biased here as I have seen firsthand where public waters have become private fishing holes for one or two people, or a landowner has posted and fenced in their property surrounding public lands, creating, essentially, captive herds of animals (which are a public resource).
FWIW, high voltage electric fences, if they actually kill a trespasser, can open up the property owner to civil or criminal penalties. Just as setting traps for human trespassers is generally illegal (or so restricted as to be illegal for all practical purposes). Most courts don't support any lethal force for mere trespass of land (homes are different). The courts have already allowed LEO's to trespass and search private land without warrant.
IIRC it was a bison hunt where essentially a Native Corp has a stranglehold on access to one particular hunting area. Some mention of it in this thread: Ahtna Predator permit
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.
I guess my concern would be with any precedents this bill might set concerning private property.
I agree with Glitch in principle, and there's some significant Constitutional teeth here also.
However...if the state wants to allow people to have access to my land, I think the state should pay for the maintenance involved and accept any liability in the event that some idjit gets injured.
I think there's always room for caution with any legislation that has potential to dictate to property owners that they must allow access to all manner of idjits....
I used to live in a place that had imminent domain access and most of the time it was all right, but it was way back in the woods and there were times I wasn't comfortable with the people going back there. A few times my stuff was messed with, including one of my dogs.
If the only access to public property is via private property, then that is an issue caused by bad planning by the state. Before they sold off that land they should have ensured that the correct easements and/or traditional use trails were in place to prevent that problem. If the owner chooses to negotiate with the state to restore access, then that's between the owner and the state.
However I have EVERY right to prevent ANY person crossing my land for ANY reason even that I'm just being a curmudgeon. It's my property, bought and paid for, under the conditions listed when I purchased it, if I want I can put up a 20' high electrified chain link fence around my property at the limit of any access easements or trails. If I'm not following those conditions, then that can be corrected by usual channels.
As far as you're concerned then you do not respect owners property rights. Or am I misreading what you're saying?
I agree with you. Nobody has the right to trespass on private property in order to gain access to public lands and waterways, or for any other reason.
I always attempt to get the property owner's permission before crossing their property. If the property owner is not available, I find somewhere else to cross.
You mentioned bad panning by the state, and I agree. Easements for roads, utilities, and public access should be included in the plat for each sub-division before construction begins. In many cases, however, you have long lines of properties adjoining a road, with state lands just behind those properties and no public access. This is particularly true along Petersville Road and Trapper Creek.
The Department of Natural Resources is being tasked by this bill to ensure those easements are in place, and create them if they are not.
I think the problems have come about because of delays in transferring lands. The Corps. and government agencies made the decisions decades ago and now as things are being transferred and not always as originally planned it's a mess.
Not my problem it's a State problem. Maybe if they were better organized these problems wouldn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Some of what I've read also is entire property lines being posted even though there are easements (unmarked), either intentionally or unintentionally giving the impression to most people there is no access.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Technically, though, the state could just use eminent domain to provide access to public lands (comes under public use). I might be a bit biased here as I have seen firsthand where public waters have become private fishing holes for one or two people, or a landowner has posted and fenced in their property surrounding public lands, creating, essentially, captive herds of animals (which are a public resource).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
FWIW, high voltage electric fences, if they actually kill a trespasser, can open up the property owner to civil or criminal penalties. Just as setting traps for human trespassers is generally illegal (or so restricted as to be illegal for all practical purposes). Most courts don't support any lethal force for mere trespass of land (homes are different). The courts have already allowed LEO's to trespass and search private land without warrant.
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.
I guess my concern would be with any precedents this bill might set concerning private property.
I agree with Glitch in principle, and there's some significant Constitutional teeth here also.
However...if the state wants to allow people to have access to my land, I think the state should pay for the maintenance involved and accept any liability in the event that some idjit gets injured.
I agree with this (and not much else you've said on this topic). I also disagree with Moose Whisperer about the significance of it being sponsored by Les Gara. Gara is of course a Democrat, which certainly indicates a far more credible intent than might be if he were a Republican. :-)
The primary point though is something my daughter said to me 20 years or so ago. The Alaska Legislature is made up of two kinds of folks, those who have gone to Law School and those who haven't got a clue what is going on in the Legislature. (Or, she said words to that effect.)
Les Gara graduated from Harvard Law School, and that is exactly the background needed to carefully write a law dealing with obtaining public easement through private property. Gara also has one other distinction that carries a huge amount of weight with me: he clerked for Jay Rabinowitz.
All of which is to say that Met's concerns and Glitch's "in principle" are probably in better hands with Les Gara than any of us (non lawyers) can probably begin to understand.
This issue has to do with who owns the land under the stream beds. The state owns that land. Of course, that stream bed is accessible by boat. I'm not sure how I feel about this particular bill. It seems to me to be a taking of private property which I am against.
Another topic has been brought up and that is access to land locked parcels. I have a little bit of experience with private land locked parcels but not publically land locked parcels. Basically, if a private parcel is truly land locked without any access, the owner of the parcel can petition a judge in court to grant him access. The judge can determine the most reasonable access and grant him that access across someone else's land. This is rarely done, but is a remedy for the situation if nothing else is available.
Regarding the access to public lands across private lands...that is why the state is pursuing the rs2477 trail systems. Anywhere the state can identify an old trail that accesses state land, (and remember, any land under a navigable body of water is state land), they will claim an easement on that trail. usually these are 100 foot wide easements. We all know that trails cris-cross the state so buyer beware on these trail easements. The title companies will not insure against the possibility of an rs2477 trail.
I agree with you. Nobody has the right to trespass on private property in order to gain access to public lands and waterways, or for any other reason.
I always attempt to get the property owner's permission before crossing their property. If the property owner is not available, I find somewhere else to cross.
You mentioned bad panning by the state, and I agree. Easements for roads, utilities, and public access should be included in the plat for each sub-division before construction begins. In many cases, however, you have long lines of properties adjoining a road, with state lands just behind those properties and no public access. This is particularly true along Petersville Road and Trapper Creek.
The Department of Natural Resources is being tasked by this bill to ensure those easements are in place, and create them if they are not.
I agree with everything you said, and as long as the DNR keeps eminent domain out of the picture, then I have absolutely no problem with it. In fact as long as the property owners don't get screwed by this it's a great idea, if the property owners don't then screw the DNR, then it's a phenomenal idea. As long as everyone is a willing participant I'm all for it.
I do take issue with people ignoring others property rights. Which was my primary reason for replying to AH.
This issue has to do with who owns the land under the stream beds. The state owns that land. Of course, that stream bed is accessible by boat. I'm not sure how I feel about this particular bill. It seems to me to be a taking of private property which I am against.
I am against the taking of private property as a first, second, or even third resort. It should only be done when it is absolutely necessary, no other recourse is possible, and always for the benefit of public use with "just compensation."
That is why I like this bill. It lays out a step-by-step process for obtaining those easements, beginning with ensuring that future sub-divisions will include all the various easements necessary. For existing properties, the Department of Natural Resources would be tasked to first seek voluntary easements made by the property owner. If no voluntary easements are made, they will seek to purchase the easement from undeveloped property first. If a sub-division has already been completely developed, they will attempt to purchase the easement from developed properties. If none of that succeeds, then and only then will eminent domain be necessary.
Without this kind of direction from the legislature, it would be left in the hands of the same bureaucrats who failed to plan for public access to state lands in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest
Another topic has been brought up and that is access to land locked parcels. I have a little bit of experience with private land locked parcels but not publically land locked parcels. Basically, if a private parcel is truly land locked without any access, the owner of the parcel can petition a judge in court to grant him access. The judge can determine the most reasonable access and grant him that access across someone else's land. This is rarely done, but is a remedy for the situation if nothing else is available.
Regarding the access to public lands across private lands...that is why the state is pursuing the rs2477 trail systems. Anywhere the state can identify an old trail that accesses state land, (and remember, any land under a navigable body of water is state land), they will claim an easement on that trail. usually these are 100 foot wide easements. We all know that trails cris-cross the state so buyer beware on these trail easements. The title companies will not insure against the possibility of an rs2477 trail.
One hundred foot wide easements seems to be a bit excessive, in my opinion. You can put a four-lane highway through a 100 foot wide corridor.
The State Constitution provides access to public lands, but there is nothing in the document that says it has to be motorized. The various greenbelts in Anchorage is more of what I had in mind. Wide enough to allow for foot-traffic. As far as motorized vehicles are concerned, that should be left up to the discretion of the adjoining property owner(s).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
