Bill to Charge a fee for entering the public Lands

[Clay Diggins]

H.R.289 - Allows surface management agencies the right to charge individuals to recreate on the public lands.

We got the fees for using forest lands removed years ago but people continue to pay for the illegal Adventure Pass. Now those same agencies will have a legal right to charge anyone for even being on public land if they get their way with this bill.

In California people continued to line up to pay for parking or picnicking even after several laws and court orders declaring the fees illegal. In the rest of the west we have ignored the "pay here" signs. Now if this bill passes it could become legal for any land manager to charge anyone any fee they want for any use of public land. I see toll booths and goon squad enforcers in the future if this bill passes.

Heavy Pans

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[goldenIrishman]

I wonder if there are really any truly public lands available to use at no cost? I think not.

Trust me when I say that there are lots of them in Arizona. My county alone is close to 50% BLM lands and we've only got 2 BLM FIELD agents that I know of. Kind of hard for them to patrol a county that is larger than many of the New England states. It's not uncommon for us to see equestrian types out riding, dirt bikers of all types, OHV activities etc etc etc in areas that we're prospecting in.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

I wonder if there are really any truly public lands available to use at no cost? I think not.

There are millions and millions of acres of open public lands in the West.

There are no public lands in Texas and never have been so maybe that has mislead you?

Land Status

Heavy Pans

 

[rodoconnor]

The BLM is trying to seize some private land in Tx. Semi complicated land grab. The Red River has shifted course and the Feds are right there with their Attns.

 

[arizau]

The BLM is trying to seize some private land in Tx. Semi complicated land grab. The Red River has shifted course and the Feds are right there with their Attns.

I know the story you refer to and it does not seem fair to the ranch family.

This has nothing to do with your post though it seems to be relevant. To my recollection...The Texas-U.S./Mexico border in El Paso was changed with land ceded to Mexico back in the early or mid 60's because the border had always been the Rio Grande River and it had shifted over time. I think it was turned into a park with the Feds maintaining it but it belongs to Mexico.

 

[Clay Diggins]

The BLM is trying to seize some private land in Tx. Semi complicated land grab. The Red River has shifted course and the Feds are right there with their Attns.

This is off topic and a very inaccurate portrayal. If Texans want to blame someone they need to start with Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Treaty approved by Congress in 1803. They could move on to the Supreme Court upholding that treaty in 1923. Finally they could blame George Bush and Congress for approving the compact in 1999.

The BLM is just doing their job. This isn't the first time the river (and boundary) has moved and it won't be the last time. Every landowner along that river was put on notice of these facts when they bought the property. It's in their deeds and their failure to read the deed or their protesting about the terms of their ownership won't change the Louisiana Purchase, the Supreme Court ruling or the compact negotiated and signed by George Bush.

Here's a history of what's happening straight from the court:

In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase established the southern bank of the Red River as the boundary between the United States and Spain, with the United States acquiring ownership of the riverbed and the lands north of the Red River. Spain's subsequent 1819 treaty with the United States (hereinafter the "Adams-Onís Treaty") established the border of the two nations as the "south cut bank" of the Red River. In 1838, after the Republic of Texas gained independence from Mexico, the Republic of Texas and the United States entered into a treaty upholding the border. Under both treaties, the Republic of Texas and the United States each maintained the ability to access and navigate the river, but the United States owned the riverbed.

In 1922, Oklahoma sued Texas claiming that Oklahoma owned the entirety of the Red River riverbed. The United States intervened, also claiming title to the entirety of the riverbed, and insisting that Oklahoma could not claim title because the Red River was not navigable in the disputed stretch. In 1923, the Supreme Court reaffirmed, in relevant part, that the south cut bank, or the southern gradient boundary, marked the northern border of Texas.

The Supreme Court defined the south cut bank as the "bank at the mean level of the water, when it washes the bank without overflowing it . . . subject to the right application of the doctrines of erosion and accretion and of avulsion to any intervening changes." In accordance with its 1923 ruling, the Supreme Court commissioned a survey to determine the gradient boundary along the Red River. The survey, certified by the Supreme Court in 1925, did not establish a permanent boundary along the entire 116-mile stretch relevant to this dispute, but instead identified parts of the gradient boundary at that point in time. Furthermore, the survey does not presently represent the south bank's gradient boundary due to the Red River's erosion and accretion over the past 90 years.

In 1999, Texas and Oklahoma entered into an interstate compact (hereinafter the "Compact"), ratified by Congress in 2000. Prior to the Compact, jurisdictional uncertainty among Oklahoma, Texas, and the United States along the Red River rendered each sovereign unable to prosecute for crimes or collect taxes. For instance, such uncertainty resulted in large portions of the northern border of Texas being left as a "no man's land" where drug distribution, prostitution, illegal gambling, and dog and cockfighting regularly occurred without means of redress. Through the Compact, Texas and Oklahoma established the permanent boundary between the states as the vegetation line along the south cut bank of the Red River, a line visibly identifiable and close to the boundary established by Oklahoma. The Compact explicitly granted Texas sovereignty over all lands south of the southern vegetation line. Furthermore, the Compact did not change the title or rights of any person or entity, whether public or private, to any of the lands adjacent to the Red River, and it did not change the boundaries of those lands.

I've studied the 1923 Supreme court decision and the Louisiana treaty in depth. Land and water law in the west can be very complicated. When the two subjects are put together there are invariably fireworks. That's not the case here. The Treaty and the Supreme Court decision made this simple: when the river moves so do the rights to the land. All the landowners along the river know that if they read their deeds. If they didn't read the deed then they bought a pig in a poke through no fault but their own.

The BLM does a lot of stupid mean things but this isn't one of them. Rivers change course all over the world and some people lose property because of it and some people gain property because of that movement. The land owners in Oklahoma gained property this time - you might notice they aren't complaining?

Heavy Pans

 

[fmrUSMC_0844]

Did you forget about National Forests and BLM lands? I'm pretty sure most if not all are free for entry or use except for maybe maintained campgrounds. National Parks.....Yep you have to pay in some or most cases.

There are some areas of the National Forest here in Utah you have to pay to access. And that is because of the restrooms and picnic areas. But if you are going past all that you dont have to pay. I have the disabled veteran pass which is nice. I dont have to oay for National Parks or National Forests.

 

[Jeff95531]

We shouldn't have to pay at all and laws on the books support this. If the budget for management of the land allows for niceties, so be it. Otherwise, I'll suffer along without the porta-potty.