Originally Posted by
Topgun 3006
We're not in Germany MC and you're making incorrect statements! Animals, unless they are enclosed within a legal game proof high fence here in the states, are not owned by the land owner. If they are low fenced or have no fence and they outfit their private property or lease it to an outfitter, they still have to abide by state and Federal game laws. If they have legally accessible public land within their deeded property they have no right to stop the public from hunting on it and that was the case that I mentioned in my previous post about the outfitter being warned to quit harassing people on that legal BLM land. Flags is talking about a completely different scenario where it's all public land that's controlled by either the USFS or BLM Federal agencies. They fully control those lands and anyone who is going to make a profit from them has to go through the proper channels and apply for and receive the necessary permits before they can outfit on that land. That permit does not give them the right to keep anyone else from hunting DIY, but just like in my scenario a lot of them think they own the land and try to bluff people off of it. With the Modern GPS equipment and now even the fancy phones people have that can load maps into them and have GPS capabilities, there is no reason for a person to trespass on private property unless they do it intentionally. It's a fact that all the GWs in Wyoming for the last few years are equipped with Garmin GPS units with landowner chips and they use them to settle disputes and possibly write trespass tickets based on them because they are accurate within 20' or less. Marking an X on a map nowadays to say you were at such and such a spot would have you laughed right out of court. Furthermore, your comment about wilderness areas is way off base, as not even state or Federal employees are allowed to access those other than on foot or by horseback. They can't even take a chainsaw in them to cut trails open and have to use hand saws and axes. In a designated wilderness area here in the states it's so strict that you can't even take a game cart into them. Your mentioning of a person that owns a tract of land at the mouth of a canyon and thinks it allows them full control of the rest of the property may do just that. If that land beyond the part they own is not legally accessible by any route other than through their property, they don't have to give access to anyone to go through their place to get to it. That, in effect, legally landlocks that property and there are millions of acres of public land like that, mostly in the western states. I won't even get into what is called "corner jumping", since that can go either way depending on what jurisdiction is handling the matter where it might occur.
The last time I read the rules for BLM lands and wilderness areas (about a year ago), There were limited exceptions for motorized travel by ranchers, mining, BLM, Forestry Service and outfitters. It wasn't plain language, but a kind of legalize, I may have misunderstood? I don't think I misunderstood, that is what they said.
If you can find a way into a canyon in BLM land, around the private property, why would they have any say at all? I'm a walker and covering 10 miles a day is doable even now and I'm old as dirt.
I may be off on some points, but most of it is just semantics and not substance. For instance if you control the access to private property, you control the game on it, to the degree the game regulations and law allows. You can contractually sell the access to the game on your property. Your right, they don't own the game and the game does wander. My fifty states knowledge is a little limited, but most times somebody speaks of a lease, they are thinking of the Texas model, at least I am. There isn't much public land in Texas. Lease may mean different things, different places, the contract varies.
For instance, I hunted Boar on Catalina Island (private property). I paid for my state license and then paid a fee for a set number of days. They subcontracted the game management on the island and "leased" the hunting rights to the contractor (Outfitter). Pretty much the same model they use here and many places.
My point was, an outfitter on BLM lands doesn't have or own the hunting rights. In effect I was agreeing with Flags. Your explanation is better, the Outfitter has a licence to run a business on BLM lands, if I'm understanding it correctly? He doesn't contractually own the hunting rights?
I really wish the BLM would publish the regs in plain language.