Must BLM land have public access?

[arthos]

There a couple blm patches near me in SoCal that seem to have no publiroad access, surrounded by private property. Is there any law stating there must be any type of easement on the private property to allow public access to fully surrounded public land?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[IMAUDIGGER]

There a couple blm patches near me in SoCal that seem to have no publiroad access, surrounded by private property. Is there any law stating there must be any type of easement on the private property to allow public access to fully surrounded public land?

There are hundreds of thousands of acres of landlocked public land.
The gov. actually gives preference to adjacent land owners in an effort to consolidate odd little pieces.

Every other square mile of land for 10 miles either side of the railroads was given to the railroad companies. I know they reserved easements for existing ditches and canals..obviously roads...but blanket ingress egress into the public ground is not something I’m familiar with.

Maybe someone else will have something concrete for you.

 

[apdp]

There could be an easment. You would have to check with the BLM office that administers the land. They would need Township, Range, Section or subdivision there of.

 

[OregonGold76]

Don’t “ We The People “ own that land ? [emoji848]

 

[dave wiseman]

You have no right to cross private property to get to landlocked BLM ground unless given permission by one of the landowners.Written permission is best,

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

You have no right to cross private property to get to landlocked BLM ground unless given permission by one of the landowners.Written permission is best,

That depends on the historical status of the road and trails. There are public rights along the older roads and trails.
Just because the land ownership changes as you travel along, it doesn’t extinguish the rights. In fact most of the local public roads around here are not even owned in fee. They simply exist and have or are being used.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

”Don’t “ We The People “ own that land ? “

Yup, it’s just that some of our land isn’t very useful to us. Private property rights is a wonderful thing. The good of the people doesn’t overrule individual rights unless they complete condemnation proceedings and provide fair compensation. Pretty unique thing we have going on.

It’s also possible for people to buy private property that is landlocked with no ingress/egress easements.

 

[dave wiseman]

Almost all of the BLM ground in my county in California (Calaveras) is landlocked.Try and jump a gate or fence here and see what happens.The one state fire trail or road through the county was closed as public access many years ago...Ponderosa road.Local law enforcement will always take the land owners side,

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Almost all of the BLM ground in my county in California (Calaveras) is landlocked.Try and jump a gate or fence here and see what happens.The one state fire trail or road through the county was closed as public access many years ago...Ponderosa road.Local law enforcement will always take the land owners side,

There is no requirement that people research and assert their rights. Many times it might result in legal actions, which most people do not want to be involved in.

There is some nice hunting ground around here (public) that only the adjacent land owner enjoys. They can even charge people for access if they wanted.

 

[Goldwasher]

A blm parcel with a road to it is not landlocked.

owners of private parcels blocking Public Land. Do not have to give you access.

 

[Clay Diggins]

There's been some good discussion and information in this thread. IMAUDIGGER really does seem to understand the issues involved. It's good to see that people still respect private lands and have become educated on their rights.

The quote below though is a common misunderstanding:

There is some nice hunting ground around here (public) that only the adjacent land owner enjoys. They can even charge people for access if they wanted.

There are two different issues brought up here. Both are interrelated so I'll try to break these down.

1. The private land owner has exclusive use of the landlocked public land.
2. The landowner can charge to access the public lands.

1. There is a federal law against using your exclusive access to the public lands when your ownership creates the blocking of access to public lands.
Congress passed that law in 1885 just because of this situation. I've included the text to the part about exclusive use but the title links to the whole current law if you would like to learn more

43 USC Ch. 25: UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES OR OCCUPANCY; OBSTRUCTING SETTLEMENT OR TRANSIT

the assertion of a right to the exclusive use and occupancy of any part of the public lands of the United States in any State or any of the Territories of the United States, without claim, color of title, or asserted right as above specified as to inclosure, is likewise declared unlawful, and prohibited.

They are serious about this and do prosecute. You could spend a year in the federal pen for claiming exclusive access.

There is a famous case where a ranch in Colorado that bought every other section (checkerboard) from the railroad. They put a fence around their sections that joined at the corners so nobody to get to the public land sections. They expected that would give them the exclusive right to graze both their land and the public land - 40,000 acres total. They lost the case and had to allow access across the section corners.
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897)

I'm a little bit shy of sharing this case because it seems to read that private landowners can't fence out the public lands. Please don't think that's what myself, the court or the law are saying. Please don't armchair lawyer these links, there are there just so readers can investigate and educate themselves further on this important issue.

2. The thing with the concept of charging to access the public lands should be obviously a no go if you think about it. It's really just a matter of shifting your point of view to understand that it's alright to charge a fee for a temporary easement to cross your private land but you can't charge a fee to access the public lands on the other side of your land. Seems like a petty point until you get slapped with a violation of 43 USC Ch. 25 linked above because of the way your sign was worded.


Heavy Pans

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Clay, thanks for the additional information.

I suppose there is a fine line between violations and simple enjoyment of a particular situation, not created by the current owner.

Clay, here is my simpleton understanding..please let me know if the law you mentioned applies.

1.) The surrounding land owner has their property posted no trespassing. There is no law against them hunting on the landlocked public land. There is also no law requiring them to provide public access across their land for the purpose of getting to the public land. So for all practical purposes they are the only ones that get to enjoy hunting on that land. They don’t have legal exclusive rights.

2.) While they cannot sell exclusive rights to access the landlocked public land, they could charge trespass fees for people to hunt on their land. They could not advertise that the fee includes access to land locked public lands. But for all practical purposes that would be what people are getting. This one could be kind of grey..

I know there are many large land owners that have land locked public lands within their holdings and its common for them to charge trespass fees for hunting purposes.

Are you thinking that these two situations may be in violation of federal law?

 

[beekbuster]

There's been some good discussion and information in this thread. IMAUDIGGER really does seem to understand the issues involved. It's good to see that people still respect private lands and have become educated on their rights.

The quote below though is a common misunderstanding:


There are two different issues brought up here. Both are interrelated so I'll try to break these down.

1. The private land owner has exclusive use of the landlocked public land.
2. The landowner can charge to access the public lands.

1. There is a federal law against using your exclusive access to the public lands when your ownership creates the blocking of access to public lands.
Congress passed that law in 1885 just because of this situation. I've included the text to the part about exclusive use but the title links to the whole current law if you would like to learn more


They are serious about this and do prosecute. You could spend a year in the federal pen for claiming exclusive access.

There is a famous case where a ranch in Colorado that bought every other section (checkerboard) from the railroad. They put a fence around their sections that joined at the corners so nobody to get to the public land sections. They expected that would give them the exclusive right to graze both their land and the public land - 40,000 acres total. They lost the case and had to allow access across the section corners.
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897)

I'm a little bit shy of sharing this case because it seems to read that private landowners can't fence out the public lands. Please don't think that's what myself, the court or the law are saying. Please don't armchair lawyer these links, there are there just so readers can investigate and educate themselves further on this important issue.

2. The thing with the concept of charging to access the public lands should be obviously a no go if you think about it. It's really just a matter of shifting your point of view to understand that it's alright to charge a fee for a temporary easement to cross your private land but you can't charge a fee to access the public lands on the other side of your land. Seems like a petty point until you get slapped with a violation of 43 USC Ch. 25 linked above because of the way your sign was worded.


Heavy Pans

I thought crossing at a corner is not a legal access. am I wrong?

 

[Bejay]

I was told by a GS19 USFS Engineer that: if any public funds went into the road; the private property owner had to allow access to the public land that the road would passes through or to."

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

I was told by a GS19 USFS Engineer that: if any public funds went into the road; the private property owner had to allow access to the public land that the road would passes through or to."

Unfortunately getting the USFS to dig up that information is difficult. They don’t seem to maintain a very good filing system of the older stuff. Additionally, many of their staff typically are on temporary assignment from a different area and they are not familiar with...well - anything.

 

[Bejay]

Unfortunately getting the USFS to dig up that information is difficult. They don’t seem to maintain a very good filing system of the older stuff. Additionally, many of their staff typically are on temporary assignment from a different area and they are not familiar with...well - anything.

It is not too hard to ascertain if the USFS or BLM built roads into a timber sale on Public Lands. I guess the question might be if the USFS or BLM acquired rights of way across private land for a sale...that may create a limitation of the public use. I have gained access across private lands that public money went into the access...at least to the public land and no further. I even have some placer claims that are accessed across private lands but lead to a BLM section. I can use the road up to the public lands but then the landowner has gated the road beyond that. The BLM even gated the road entering the private land access to their section...but I am allowed to pass through the gate if I make the request...and the BLM has often advised the private landowners that my rights of access exist.

One thing is certain....you never know how a USFS or BLM office will respond to such matters. I always tend to write a letter and offer supportive documentation about my rights of access...over the phone dialogue is not sufficient. Providing documentation also lets the agency know you are not merely some fly by night individual.

Bejay

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

I often reference 43 U.S. Code § 1061.Inclosure of or assertion of right to public lands without title

Bejay

 

[winners58]

check for right of ways in the master title survey plat, might get written permission from the land owner.
https://glorecords.blm.gov/

 

[ncclaymaker]

A blm parcel with a road to it is not landlocked.

owners of private parcels blocking Public Land. Do not have to give you access.

Any property that that does not have a recorded and deeded easement that specifically permits public ingress or egress along a certain pathway does not give the public at large, the right to enter upon another persons private property. Any court will stand by the landowner to enforce the right of his/her enjoyment and tranquility of their property. Most locales will no longer permit a piece of land to be sold or leased in a state of being "voluntarily" landlocked without access via an easement for ingress and egress. When buying a claim, carefully perform "Due Diligence". If you are clueless, hire a real estate 'broker in charge' or go the the county recorders office for some advice. Caveate emptor will all land or claim dealings.

Landlocked properties with no public access aren't much of a concern for me. If it has 125 feet or so of pasture or roadway... I'll just land my ultralight PPG trike there without having to worry about the challenges of the surrounding landowners.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

Any property that that does not have a recorded and deeded easement that specifically permits public ingress or egress along a certain pathway does not give the public at large, the right to enter upon another persons private property. Any court will stand by the landowner to enforce the right of his/her enjoyment and tranquility of their property. Most locales will no longer permit a piece of land to be sold or leased in a state of being "voluntarily" landlocked without access via an easement for ingress and egress. When buying a claim, carefully perform "Due Diligence". If you are clueless, hire a real estate 'broker in charge' or go the the county recorders office for some advice. Caveate emptor will all land or claim dealings.

Landlocked properties with no public access aren't much of a concern for me. If it has 125 feet or so of pasture or roadway... I'll just land my ultralight PPG trike there without having to worry about the challenges of the surrounding landowners.

Nearly all of the roads in my area DO NOT benefit from ANY recorded easements or deeds, yet nobody questions the public’s right to cross public and private lands. Thats because the courts have upheld this right.

Most of the roads in the west have roots in the 1866 mining act. Land patented out after roads and trails were established are subject to these public uses which are not memorialized with recorded deeds or easements. MANY patents had existing roads and trails crossing them.

Of course certain benchmarks have to be met in any case and these vary from state to state.

Mining Act of 1866...
"the right-of-way for the construction of highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public purposes is hereby granted."

”The original grant did not require being recorded, meaning it was self-enacting, and in 1866 constructing a road often meant using a trail many times and perhaps filling low places, moving rocks and placing signs.”


If there is no obvious historical access to the BLM land...probably isn’t going to be any. We are probably diving down a rabbit hole here.

Round here, the government has no say on which private property can or can’t be sold. They can control the creation of new parcels of land and the development of land..but never the sale or transfer of land as far as I’m aware of.

Perhaps this is an east coast vs west coast issue?