Billionaire Landowners

[togor]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/u...-business.html

I suppose this is one of those issues that where you stand depends on where you sit. Personally, I favor good land management practices that improve biodiversity and the overall carrying capacity of the ecosystem. I also believe that large tracts under management are better than fragmented ones. I also know that public lands in many cases are heavily degraded because government lacks the resources to do it properly--not to mention the red tape associated with multiple conflicting public missions. On the other hand, a society where the rich can exist comfortably and unseen on vast private estates is one that will eventually destabilize.

[lyman]

choking off public land is a bad thing,
seems like the .gov, fed or state, should have had some type of guaranteed access in the deed or what ever you call it, or purchased a finger of land to the nearest public road,

however, if you can afford the land, and buy it, it becomes yours to do as you see fit,

one example in the article states a couple 'thought' a road was public, and 'everyone' used it,
in hindsight they should have looked to see who the neighbors were when they bought the land, public or private etc etc,



here in Va, on a much smaller scale, a handful of farms where I used to hunt were sold to Northern folks (we call then yankee's or come heres)
older farmer passes, the kids see a quick paycheck instead of a working farm, and it gets sold to the highest bidder, (at that time it was often to a NJ or NY city resident escaping high cost of living, sell a house in town for the same price as a few hundred acres of land,, no brainer)

however the locals, who may have had hunting and fishing access to the land when the old farmer was living, are now cut off,,,

bad feelings abound

[clintonhater]

Sounds to me like they're doing a better job than the US Forest Service, controlled for all practical purposes by the logging industry.

[barretcreek]

As Togor says, where you stand depends on where you sit. One of our brawls is over the 'right to float'. If you own land on one side of the river but not the other, the river bottom is public and if someone can legally access it they can float or wade that stretch. If a private party owns both sides, the river bottom is private property and unauthorized use is trespass. The rafters get upset and have invented a 'right' to float. The owner of the bottom however is liable for injuries from snags, rocks as well as other 'acts of god'. So a commercial rafting company whose assets are a couple of thirty year old school buses and depreciated rafts says they have the 'right' to use the holdings of a ranch worth XX million dollars. The whores (D) in the legislature further stirred it up by declaring there is a 'right to float (trespass)' and an unenforceable immunity for landowners. Yeah, take that to the bank. A trespasser suffers a tort on private property some lawyer will take the case.

There are certainly valid access issues when a new landowner decides to close a road or trail which has been in use for years, either through a friendly 'go ahead' or just adverse possession type of use. Then there's the guy who bought a ranch a county road ran through. Put a cable across it and told 'you *^&(*&*hunters' can't go through. Sheriff barely kept the cable from being put to more appropriate use.

[dryheat]

Wow that's something to ponder. I expect there's some basis, but it seems odd that you can own the river bottom and have sway over the water. I've heard of cases where floaters could float but not go ashore. Do they own the air too?

[lyman]

As Togor says, where you stand depends on where you sit. One of our brawls is over the 'right to float'. If you own land on one side of the river but not the other, the river bottom is public and if someone can legally access it they can float or wade that stretch. If a private party owns both sides, the river bottom is private property and unauthorized use is trespass. The rafters get upset and have invented a 'right' to float. The owner of the bottom however is liable for injuries from snags, rocks as well as other 'acts of god'. So a commercial rafting company whose assets are a couple of thirty year old school buses and depreciated rafts says they have the 'right' to use the holdings of a ranch worth XX million dollars. The whores (D) in the legislature further stirred it up by declaring there is a 'right to float (trespass)' and an unenforceable immunity for landowners. Yeah, take that to the bank. A trespasser suffers a tort on private property some lawyer will take the case.

we have a similar thing here in the western part of the state,

usually no big deal until Trout Season, then some streams are private, some the land is private but the stream is 'navigable' so it is ok to fish as long as you are in the water,, etc etc

[Vern Humphrey]

Sounds to me like they're doing a better job than the US Forest Service, controlled for all practical purposes by the logging industry.

No, the Forest Service is controlled by the Green Weenies. When I go elk hunting in Colorado, on Forest Service land, I encounter huge blowdowns -- acres and acres of spruce trees, that were loaded with snow in the winter and blown down. Now these trees are:

1. Property of the United States and owned by the taxpayer. Since they're already down, prudent management would dictate they be cut and sold.

2. Dry fuel -- get a forest fire in there and you have a giant campfire, capable of creating a fire storm.

3. An obstacle that will endanger firefighters who may be trapped against them.

So why aren't they sold? Because the Green Weenies sue, claiming it's all a plot to get the timber companies into the National Forest.

- - - Updated - - -

As Togor says, where you stand depends on where you sit. One of our brawls is over the 'right to float'. If you own land on one side of the river but not the other, the river bottom is public and if someone can legally access it they can float or wade that stretch. If a private party owns both sides, the river bottom is private property and unauthorized use is trespass. The rafters get upset and have invented a 'right' to float. The owner of the bottom however is liable for injuries from snags, rocks as well as other 'acts of god'. So a commercial rafting company whose assets are a couple of thirty year old school buses and depreciated rafts says they have the 'right' to use the holdings of a ranch worth XX million dollars. The whores (D) in the legislature further stirred it up by declaring there is a 'right to float (trespass)' and an unenforceable immunity for landowners. Yeah, take that to the bank. A trespasser suffers a tort on private property some lawyer will take the case.

There are certainly valid access issues when a new landowner decides to close a road or trail which has been in use for years, either through a friendly 'go ahead' or just adverse possession type of use. Then there's the guy who bought a ranch a county road ran through. Put a cable across it and told 'you *^&(*&*hunters' can't go through. Sheriff barely kept the cable from being put to more appropriate use.

If a river or stream has EVER been floated, it is "navigable water of the United States" and is essentially the same thing as a public road. Now if the banks are privately owned, you can't land there, but you can float through.

[barretcreek]

No, the Forest Service is controlled by the Green Weenies. When I go elk hunting in Colorado, on Forest Service land, I encounter huge blowdowns -- acres and acres of spruce trees, that were loaded with snow in the winter and blown down. Now these trees are:

1. Property of the United States and owned by the taxpayer. Since they're already down, prudent management would dictate they be cut and sold.

2. Dry fuel -- get a forest fire in there and you have a giant campfire, capable of creating a fire storm.

3. An obstacle that will endanger firefighters who may be trapped against them.

So why aren't they sold? Because the Green Weenies sue, claiming it's all a plot to get the timber companies into the National Forest.

- - - Updated - - -



If a river or stream has EVER been floated, it is "navigable water of the United States" and is essentially the same thing as a public road. Now if the banks are privately owned, you can't land there, but you can float through.

The courts have ruled 'Navigable' to mean used at some point in regular commerce not just once. Doesn't have to be continuous to the present day, just used regularly at some point and preferably both directions. A good friend was the winning attorney in the case.

Also, many of the rivers here are raging torrents for a while (as in right now) and then wadeable the rest of the year.