Originally Posted by
MudderChuck
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.
There are NO exemptions for anyone in wilderness areas, including state and Federal employees just like I stated. If you can find any legalese like you say you read, please post it up as IMHO you are just fishing for a way out of Dodge and we're talking about hunting!
Do you know what legally accessible means? You must not because what I stated would be needed to get into that canyon another way if the canyon mouth is blocked by private property. If there are other legally accessible ways into that canyon property, then the owner of the private land at the mouth would have no say in the lands past his as you have now stated.
FYI most all designated wilderness areas are under control of the USFS, not the BLM, and no mining or anything else is allowed other than hiking, hunting, and fishing with access on foot or by horse/mule. The BLM is an entirely different situation in that there is a lot of grazing, mining, oil & gas exploration allowed under tightly controlled permits on those lands. The same holds true of USFS lands that aren't designated wilderness areas.
We are not talking about a lease between an individual and a landowner. Your concept regarding a lease in Texas is a far cry from what flags and I are describing in this thread and if you're wrong you're wrong, whether you want to try to get out of it by saying it's just semantics, rather than anything of substance. It seems as if I've heard that same excuse on other threads when you're proven wrong and come up with that line, LOL!