Landlocked BLM land ?

[SierraExplorer]

Originally posted by bayedsolid@Dec 14 2004, 08:24 PM
I'm sure there won't be much interest in a piece of land locked land from an outsider, and the current landowner already has full run of it. I can't think of a person that would be a potential buyer.

The opportunity arose for my dad to purchase 7 acres on the American River about 3 miles north of Pollock Pines from a family friend that bought this piece some 30-40 years ago and never went up there (nor left Oakland for that matter). The price was right- but even though there was an legal easement- from years of non use if you were to drive on and into it you were going to get shot at by the owner of the easement you were using.

After so many years and the easement not used- It becomes forfiture under emmiment domain as the way it seemed to us in further researching. A shame and it was a very prime piece of property that dropped off over 1k' straight down to the river. Game trails everywhere at 4k'

 

[Cahunter]

you could make the land owners buy the land or give access to it. It woiuld not be that hard for land locked blm to be opened up, but if you have basiccly free land then why would you want to by it. I am off to hunt ducks now Good lucky everyone.

 

[BigDog]

Now that this thread has gone back to a calm exchange of opinions and information, I will join in again.

Live2Hunt, you are right that the BLM is run on tax dollars. My statement about money not being spent on these pieces of property was meant to mean that BLM did not buy them.

As for purchasing BLM plots. I have thought about buying the 3 plots that are inside my fences. They were not desirable to the original homesteaders because they were cattle and sheep ranchers and farmers. These plots do not have much grazing or agriculture value. However, the plots do have value as wildlife habitat. So, once I get my property rehabilitated and providing for the wildlife, then I will concentrate on either buying those plots or getting permission to rehabilitate them.

 

[Rick]

The ranchers who own the land surrounding landlocked BLM pieces do often buy the BLM land, since it better to own it, right? They get it for next to nothing, becuase it is worth nothing to anyone else. I know ranchers who have done this - bought land for a few dollars an acre, then sold it (with an easement for access) for a million bucks.

Also, a rancher who has grazing rights to a piece of BLM land can fence it off - to keep his cattle in.

In some states, there is access to public land through private land. Arizona has some laws about it on their books regarding access for hunting.

I would be very surprised to hear that a court would allow an easement to be abandoned and a piece of property landlocked simply because the adjoining owner felt the easement hadn't been used enough. ??? Eminent domain only applies to gevernment entities, for the public good.

 

[Sgohuntn]

Too much reading, How about someone do a new topic

 

[Timjackson]

Rick... The way I understand it, the ranchers would only buy the land to sell the easement rights, correct?? Isnt most of the land pretty worthless for agricultural farming or grazing???

 

[Common Sense]

I know the "landlocked" BLM lands are not accessible to hunters, but does the BLM have the right to cross over private property to inspect their parcels; or do they also have to get tresspass permission?

 

[SierraExplorer]

Common Sense-

I in "Just Thinking"- They have yours and mine tax dollors that we paid to the Gov. and have no control of where/how it is spent.

Yup- They flew in.... No tresspass slip needed

 

[Rick]

TimJackson - the land may or may not be worthless. In the cases I am familiar with, the land was great hunting land and the racnher did run cattle on it. He paid the BLM a small sum to lease the grazing rights, but was able to buy the land for next to nothing since it was landlocked. A few years later, he died (way too young!) and his widow sold the land (25,000 acres) he had bought for millions, together with an easement for access across her remaining 800 acres. The money was made by making the land accessible, which made it now very desirable and usable.

 

[Timjackson]

Rick.. Thanks for clarifying.. It is still really weird that there are places like this.. Thanks again for helping me out...

 

[boarhunter67]

I agree that public land supported by taxpayer money should be open to the public. As for the landowner, haven't they ever heard of easement rights? Many properties I own have easements which allow others to use a dirt road to go through my property. Why doesn't the govt. just do that. It would be much fairer. And as for the BLM land being worthless, hogwash. Much of the land BLM has aquired from private property owners. If it was worthless, BLM wouldn't be able to lease it, which they commonly do for grazing and what not.

 

[Rick]

Easements don't automatically exist. They must be created or granted. In many cases, the private property was homesteaded from the government lands along the roads or next to water. The "less desirable" land away from the road or the water sources was not homesteaded, since you only got 160 acres (or whatever it was) when you homesteaded. So pieces of government land that were not homesteaded got landlocked. In most cases, when you buy a piece of land, there are already easements across it that were granted by previous owners.

An interesting approach would be to require the landowners who lease the BLM (or other government agency) land to provide access to hunters. A nice thought, but I don't see it happening since the landowners would just not use the land, or not pay the BLM for the grazing rights since no one else could use them either!

 

[ooja]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Here is a different tack on the same idea. My hog hunting buddie Jeremy has a friend who inherited land. It is a very small parcel. When He found it was his, he decided to go look at it. He found he could not get to it. All access to the land which he hunted as a kid has been cut off. I have been told all surrounding land was purchased by someone with big bucks, and they ran a fence around their whole area, including the road that accessed this small parcel. Supposedly the land is his, but he has no way to access it. If the road in was not used, and nobody disputed it being fenced in, I guess time made his land...landlocked. I suggested that the solution is to sue, however, I was informed the guy felt he had no chance of winning in court against a someone who had the kind of money needed to buy a large track of land in California.

This kind of stuff happens a lot in Central Cal, but as I said before, I don't have to make a living hunting, I don't want any hassles, so I don't push the issue. Messed up though, isn't it?

 

[Rick]

He would win in court, I'm sure. (I've spent almost 30 years in the title business.)

 

[larrysogla]

Isn't that squatting or landgrabbing to put a fence on land that is not yours?? The biggest hindrance probably is the Attorney's fees that will have to be paid up front before a competent attorney will handle/take up such cases. That is the biggest stumblingblock in these land dispute cases, the upfront attorney's fees which are thousands, not hundreds. Wish the lawyers will take up such cases on a contingency basis like injury/accident cases but they want cash up front. God Bless. larrysogla.

 

[boarhunter67]

That's the problem in California. You can say it's about protecting private property rights of poor homesteaders all you want, but it's all about the money. Fish and Game as well as BLM only listen to people who got it. If you have enough of it, you can do whatever you want. For example, when Doc sold Chimines to Fish and Game, they game him three elk tags that he could fill anytime that year, season or not. I saw the first one he got two weeks before season opened because I know the taxidermist who is doing it. Great Tule elk. Why can someone have more rights because he is rich?