How to get to blm property surrounded by private property

September 16, 2019

Unlocking Inaccessible Public Lands Doesn’t Require Landowners to Give Up Their Property Rights

When it comes to improving access to landlocked public lands, we should work with—not against—private landowners

Since we first started our work with onX on the issue of landlocked public lands, we’ve heard many variations on the same question—from the comments section of our blogs to discussions with partners and decision-makers. The answer will not only set minds at ease, but it will also help lessen any harsh divide between the sportsmen and women who need better public lands access and the Americans fortunate enough to own land that borders public land.

Q: Would unlocking these inaccessible public lands require private landowners to give up their property?

A: The simple answer is no.

There are a wide variety of strategies for opening up landlocked lands that rely on the cooperation of willing landowners and pose no threat to the property rights of others. But because this is a sensitive subject, and there’s potential for misunderstanding, let’s dive a bit deeper into these solutions.

Our work on the landlocked issue has always been guided by two fundamental premises. First, we know that the future of hunting and fishing, conservation funding, and our $887-billion outdoor recreation economy depends on there being suitable public land access. At the same time, we know that private property rights—some of our nation’s most fundamental—are sacred, and landowners have always been some of the strongest allies for not only sportsmen and women but also fish and wildlife.

In bringing attention to the scope of the landlocked public lands challenge across the West, we have never suggested that solutions for public-land users should conflict with the rights of landowners. In fact, the best-available tools with which land trusts, conservation groups, and state and federal agencies can tackle this challenge depend on engaging with private property owners who are willing to work towards a solution.

After all, many Western landowners are hunters themselves and care about the future of our outdoor heritage. Many western landowners have also played important roles in opening public lands through creative voluntary efforts, including access easements, enrolling their lands into block management programs or similar access programs administered by the states, or simply saying “yes” if someone asks to access his or her property.

Though many landlocked public lands could be accessed with permission from surrounding landowners, we don’t believe that this should be all on them. Property owners shouldn’t be expected to provide access, though many generously do.

Even though the vast majority of sportsmen are ethical and conscientious, it’s important to recognize that allowing the public to hunt on or cross one’s land can result—because of the actions of an irresponsible minority—in property damage, disruptions to farm or ranch operations, and all sorts of complicated and time-consuming situations. That’s why, when we unveiled our first landlocked report at the 2018 TRCP Western Media Summit, we invited a local rancher and landowner from southwest Montana to speak about their experiences and give attendees a window into the reality of these challenges.

On the other hand, strategic land acquisitions from willing sellers, mutually beneficial land exchanges, easements of various types, walk-in access programs, and other incentive-based initiatives led by fish and wildlife agencies—all solutions featured in our state and federal landlocked report—either eliminate these challenges or help landowners manage access in a way that works best for them, without trammeling on their rights or diminishing the value of their property.

At the end of the day, even those landowners who are not themselves sportsmen and women share many of our values: clean air, clean water, healthy land, abundant fish and wildlife and the importance of getting the next generation outside. So, while it can be tempting when presented with a difficult challenge to lay blame or point fingers, we would insist that all champions of public land focus on collaborative, cooperative solutions that respect private property rights.

Photo: Nicholas Putz

12 Responses to “Unlocking Inaccessible Public Lands Doesn’t Require Landowners to Give Up Their Property Rights”

One thing to keep in mind is that many of the same private landowners also use public land for grazing that is owned by all of us. So in my opinion anyone that uses public land should have to automatically provide access across their property where applicable. That said I wholeheartedly agree that we ALWAYS need to respectful of any landowners that give us access.

Dear trcp, we the people don’t want to hurt landowners in any way, but the state of Louisiana has a very serious water access problem when it comes to us anglers that do nothing but respect what god gave us, because as being also good stewards of mother earth, there are that some landowners do illegally, plain and simple.

Some landlocked public lands are restricted by only a very small strip of land that is blocking that access. If we want to keep sportsmen and women involved in outdoor activities (we are currently losing numbers in some areas which will impact our future) those access points need to expanded at least to the point of allowing access. If we don’t we will continue to hear the familiar story of land that should be available to all but is being blocked by being surrounded by land that is inaccessible and we will continue to lose the men and women who care about our outdoors.

I totally agree with the first comment regarding these ranchers that use public land for grazing. A local sheriff even complained about the ranchers always calling the sheriff for people crossing there land to access public lands, but they always want to use the public lands for their cattle. They also cut many illegal trails all over the place with their quads to check their cattle. Unit 45 in Idaho is really bad for all of this. One ranch in particular casa del Norte seems to own half of the unit! They strategically buy little pieces of land to block access to the public lands. This definitely discourages new hunters and makes them not even want to bother and gives people the impression that it is a pastime only to be enjoyed by rich snobs. I understand there are many good land owners. For example hammet creek cattle company is awesome and participates in access yes! They still have their pristine land to themselves and do block access to quite a bit of ground but it’s better than nothing I suppose! I really just wish these land barons would realize the struggle of the less fortunate and at least just have an easement to let us cross your land on the borders at least or on existing roads. Very discouraging for everyone including myself.

While hunting Antelope in Wyoming (Area 23) I located an Antelope Buck on a piece of State Land that was surrounded (land locked) by private land. It was not difficult to locate the rancher that owned this land. I approached the rancher and respectfully requested permission to cross his private land to access this piece of Public Land and attempt to harvest this buck. The rancher informed me that he had leased out his land to a Hunting Outfitter and could not allow us on his property unless we were hunting with the Outfitter. I told the rancher I understood the issue and assured him I would not harvest the Buck unless the Buck was on that specific block of Public Land. The rancher simply replied again that he could not allow me to cross his land. I thanked the rancher for his time and left. This type of situation is unbelievable. The rancher has a right to lease out his property to a Hunting Outfitter but he should not have a right to turn a piece of Public Land into his own personal “for profit” private game reserve. This Public Land belongs to the public. In situations of this nature (leasing out private land that land locks Public Land to a Hunting Outfitter), the rancher should be required to allow hunters to cross their land to access the land locked Public Land.

I am absolutely appalled with the fact that stingy landowners can surround state land and not allow hunters to come across their property to hunt on the State land but yet they can for-profit bring Hunters into the ranch that they own and then utilize the same state property to earn more money my guiding elk and deer hunters! This is the most fraudulent misuse of this public land by the higher than the almighty, rancher! They move their livestock out of the state land just in time for hunting season after using it to graze and then turn around and greedily guide hunters for money on that “State” and bar regular hunters from enjoying the same opportunities!
That is mismanagement! If they have too much livestock they need to cut the size of their herds and manage (budget) their lands like the rest of us peons!

It’s just plain and simple greed. its ridiculous to not force them to give the little person an access road or trail to lands we pay for. But I dont expect anything less from these people and that’s why we dont get help from out elected officials either cause they are in bed with these rich snobs. Hell they probably get a free guided hunt on a different ranch every year, why would they ever help the middle class….they want one thing from us….work, pay our taxes, and die.

In wisconsin the dnr allows land owners key’s to their gates to drive threw public lands to access their land locked properties. Then just down the road you have landlocked public land that the surrounding land owners only let their friends and family hunt. It’s such a joke in western wisconsin on landlocked lands

Corner crossing access needs to be addressed. This is an issue I cannot even begin to understand. Literally the arguement comes down to violating air space, or touching 2 inches of land if you step right on the corner. If a valid proposal could be made or if .005 acres could be purchase or given easement at each corner tons of land would be opened up! Even if it requires stair cases build up over corner posts, people would trip over themselves to donate time and money to make it happen.

I am absolutely disgusted with landlocks in New Mexico. People will literally own 20 acres of property which blocks access to 20000 acres of public land. Than a rare few may enter into the states access program where they are paid to allow travel to the public land with caveats. They can literally set a time of year it is open, what activities you can do, what species you can hunt. All because they own a quarter mile of road that turns into 20 miles of road through public land. This in every sense makes the private land owners the de facto owners of our public land. This is theft. In the meantime there is nowhere I can go on BLM or Forest Service land without having to contend with the same peoples freaking cattle. If it was really about raising beef they would raise them on the grasslands in all that cheap land of Kansas, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, or Missouri. But it is about selling hunting access and exploiting the welfare ranching systems through public subsidies. These people cost the American tax payer, sportsmen and outdoor rec drives the economy throughout the west. It is time our public officials get their priority straight.

Being native to California I have also experienced the same difficulties with access to BLM for hunting as mentioned. I have found that in circumstances where a landowner entity denies or does not respond to request for access there is always an interest and use of the land by said landowner. Ive seen so much change in my state concerning access to public land and the lawful use of firearms in my 43 years being a licensed hunter, fisherman, lover of the great outdoors. Being native to California it is depressing. In my opinion the only legally accessible public land here is exhausted by the few hunters left in our state. If your a hunter in California you can have regular success concerning small game, upland game if you put in some real scouting effort. Ive been a licenced hunter since the age of 12 and nwas following my dad around on hunts as long as i can remember before that. As for big game specifically Mule Deer, Blacktail Deer in California my personal experience statewide is this: In all that time Id say Ive seen forty or so wild deer in thier natural habitat. Eight were on public land within the legal season during legal hunting hours while engaged in hunting. Five were does, three were legal bucks. I was fortunate enough to take one of these three at the age of 26 from a distance of 275 yards. If money is not an issue there are beautiful ranches with guided hunts here starting in the low $3k’s with about 60% success rate at best based on what ive read over the years. For me personally I enjoy the experience of freedom on our public lands. Thats what its all about. The freedom, the rewards of personal challenge, effort and self reliance are great. My greatest memories were had on public land. Some while camping, others while out on an exploratory drive or hike through some remote location. I am a new father and I would like my son to be able to enjoy these public spaces in the future as I have.

In washington state large timber companies are charging the public to cross there land. Some of these permit areas are up to 65 percent state lands that the companies are making money from. Essentially washington state tax payers are being charged twice to use our public lands. An these companies are making money off our lands. This is a tragedy for so many hunters an avid outdoorsman that can afford to pay to access our lands.