| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster
Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Posts: 364 | TRs | Pics
Location: Wa |
Maybe it has been discussed, but how does everyone feel that the forest service leases land? And what stipulations should there be on these leases?
In Washington it seems like most land is not leased, but in North Dakota much of the USFS land in the Badlands is leased to oil pumping or cattle ranchers. I have no issue with the activities, but I think that a cattle rancher has no business posting leased land no trespassing, and oil companies made what used to be public access roads private roads. Most people don't hike in ND but the Badlands has a particular beauty, and it also makes access difficult for hunters.
To me it just does not make sense to not allow the public on public owned land. Same concept as government shutdown closings down access.
I'm really not looking for a fight but I'm sure it will probably happen, just wondering if anyone knows how this is ok.
Also does anyone know if the money collected from the leases goes to the USFS?
Thanks
I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Naches Hiker
Member
Joined: 01 Jun 2014
Posts: 239 | TRs | Pics
Location: Living among the Liberals |
It is against the law for lease holders to post no trespassing signs on public land. I've told on people before and 1 got a citation (cabin owner did).
Have I offended you today?
Have I offended you today?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11276 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here |
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
|
 Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:28 am |
|
|
Perhaps you were not on Forest Service Land. Range allotments are not posted. They do put up fences and please close the gate if it is closed when you go through. I do not know about oil stuff, or mine stuff--except mines are a different ball game and are posted.
How do I "feel" about leases? I have appreciated finding a well packed easy to walk on cattle made trail on a steep side hill. I have not appreciated the flies that seem heavier where cows congregate. I appreciate having more eyes--ranchers, in the woods. I find gates a pain to have to open and close, and fences sometimes hard to navigate without the rip of doom. I had a family member who ran cows on a federal allotment. He had nothing good to say about the FS, but I'd have liked to have heard the other side of the story.
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:00 am |
|
|
| burck17 wrote: | | . . . how does everyone feel that the forest service leases land? And what stipulations should there be on these leases? |
That's a very broad question that defies a simple answer. There are many kinds of USFS leases containing very different sets of provisions. It's meaningless to compare a simple 99-year cabin lease to a complex downhill ski area lease/SUP. With that qualification, as a general observation, I think the process works pretty well with some exceptions.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster
Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Posts: 364 | TRs | Pics
Location: Wa |
| treeswarper wrote: | | Perhaps you were not on Forest Service Land. Range allotments are not posted. They do put up fences and please close the gate if it is closed when you go through. I do not know about oil stuff, or mine stuff--except mines are a different ball game and are posted. |
That's what I thought when I first visited the area, but I definitely was on the Little Missouri National Grassland after further review. I did make sure to close all gates I went through, and took care to LNT.
I am sure there are a variety of lease types available, and as long as the land is open to the public I have no issues with it. I did see a lot of structures put up by the ranchers like cabins with solar panels, sheds ect.
I know it is a complex question, I guess I just didn't realize how complex it is.
I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinx'sboy
Member
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 929 | TRs | Pics
Location: on a great circle route |
| burck17 wrote: | | but I definitely was on the Little Missouri National Grassland |
Ah....the fact that your were visiting a Nat'l Grassland, rather than a Natl Forest, could be at the root of what you experienced:
Unlike Nat. Forest, which were created, at least in the western US, out of the 'federal estate' and were (mostly) never in private hands, the National Grasslands came about differently.
The Nat. Grasslands are largely a result of lands that went out of the federal estate and into private hands through various Acts like the Homestead acts, Railroad grants, etc. Those Acts and land transfers were in the 1860-1900 period. THEN, during the depression, dust bowl, post-WW1 farm price collapse, these lands either a) reverted back to the Feds because the original homesteaders failed to meet the original standards, or, b) ended up becoming State lands when the Counties "took" them for back taxes, and then were traded in the 1930's to the Feds (look up Taylor Grazing Act) who consolidated them. Congress then 'dumped' those lands on the FS or BLM for management. Also, some of those lands may have been purchased (for pennies, usually) by the Feds and incorporated into the grasslands, as a conservation measure.
Problem: On the Grasslands, SOME parcels remained in private hands, and still do.
I grew up in Eastern Colorado. The Pawnee and Kiowa National Grasslands, administered by the FS, do fit the example of 'patchwork' private and public lands. So fences, signs, etc are to be expected.
To make it even more complicated; when those lands went into private hands 100+ years ago, the Mineral and petroleum rights MAY or may NOT have passed along as well, depending on the specific Act that allowed transfer to the public. And, when the lands came back into the federal arena...mineral and other subsurface rights did or didn't follow.
Clear as mud, right?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster
Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Posts: 364 | TRs | Pics
Location: Wa |
| jinx'sboy wrote: | | burck17 wrote: | | but I definitely was on the Little Missouri National Grassland |
Ah....the fact that your were visiting a Nat'l Grassland, rather than a Natl Forest, could be at the root of what you experienced:
Unlike Nat. Forest, which were created, at least in the western US, out of the 'federal estate' and were (mostly) never in private hands, the National Grasslands came about differently.
The Nat. Grasslands are largely a result of lands that went out of the federal estate and into private hands through various Acts like the Homestead acts, Railroad grants, etc. Those Acts and land transfers were in the 1860-1900 period. THEN, during the depression, dust bowl, post-WW1 farm price collapse, these lands either a) reverted back to the Feds because the original homesteaders failed to meet the original standards, or, b) ended up becoming State lands when the Counties "took" them for back taxes, and then were traded in the 1930's to the Feds (look up Taylor Grazing Act) who consolidated them. Congress then 'dumped' those lands on the FS or BLM for management. Also, some of those lands may have been purchased (for pennies, usually) by the Feds and incorporated into the grasslands, as a conservation measure.
Problem: On the Grasslands, SOME parcels remained in private hands, and still do.
I grew up in Eastern Colorado. The Pawnee and Kiowa National Grasslands, administered by the FS, do fit the example of 'patchwork' private and public lands. So fences, signs, etc are to be expected.
To make it even more complicated; when those lands went into private hands 100+ years ago, the Mineral and petroleum rights MAY or may NOT have passed along as well, depending on the specific Act that allowed transfer to the public. And, when the lands came back into the federal arena...mineral and other subsurface rights did or didn't follow.
Clear as mud, right? |
I'd say. You win the award for most confusing and thorough explanation lol. This is rather helpful though. I still feel it should be treated same as NFs are but what do I know.
I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
