I thought I'd enjoy our public lands today..

[EverCurious]

Ah here's the scoop on the Denali Lottery - Permit Area Facility Details - DENALI NATIONAL PARK - ROAD LOTTERY, AK - Recreation.gov

Three days in 6M acres of unspoiled wild Alaska. You can bring in as many people as legally fit in your vehicle. You can't "sell" you lottery ticket, but you can sell a ride in heh People rent tourist buses and make a few bucks sometimes. Good stuff though, you can go anywhere you want and there is basically no one around once you get past the lodge. I went once, still remember it as one of the most starkly beautiful areas I've ever visited up here.

(I may be a bit off on the location; but I think that is the Denali Lodge last time we went through (Denali was hiding out behind the clouds both days so it's hard to tell; we were headed to Fairbanks for a football game)
View attachment 126534

(This one I know is looking out over the Denali park land, it's right next to my second favorite spot to stop along the 600 mile drive. It even has a potty! Very important on 6hr drives heh Though it is classic Alaskan to pull off along the side of the road and take a snap shot of your son's peeing in the trees hehehe)
View attachment 126535

Bah!

If you've seen one Paradise, you've seen them all!

Pfft. Ain't no where else in the country you can spend the night in a 4 star hotel and spend the next day shitting your pants from a bear or moose scare. Our hotels offer on site washer/driers JS

 

[koshergrl]

View attachment 126506 View attachment 126507 View attachment 126508 You know, the forests and lands the feds are taking money to maintain and hold for public enjoyment..

There's these things called "four-wheelers" Get you some.

How do they grant access where access is denied? The access points are restricted. And the landscape is altered in a way that obstructs access by atvs as well. They blew up the creek where my mom and her family lived thirty years ago, I was camped there when they did it. Today an obscure Audubon group control it, and there are boulders placed to prevent access to the water or the camp spots. What was a nice, open little area with several beautiful spots, an outhouse, low traffic and a pretty rocky beach has turned into a homeless camp, no toilet..a steep embankment down to the creek, giant boulders strewn everywhere. That's not management, that is destruction. Cows are forbidden, so there are no more pretty pastures...but there is a large commercial marijuana grow right on the creek, and a giant drying shed, owned by millionaires out of cali.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our national parks and public lands that are very pretty and worth preserving long into the future.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our national parks and public lands that are very pretty and worth preserving long into the future.

In other news, the price of tea in China is still very high.

 

[Camp]

Access roads are there for a purpose. They cost a lot to build and maintain. The most frequent use of these roads is for firefighters and commercial interest such as timber operations. The are usually just dirt roads and hence, fragile. Four wheelers can quickly make these roads impassable, especially in areas of rainfall. Even when the mud and destruction from the four wheelers become dried out, the damage remains.

Not all public lands are for enjoyment by the public. Much of it, such as rangelands are for the exclusive use of the ranchers who are paying to lease the land for cattle operations. The ranchers are not obligated to allow the public to use the lands they are paying for so that the public can set up camps, RV's, hiking or otherwise using the property for what the land is being used and paid for. The same holds for timber and mining companies.

In the case of the OP and the photos of signs, from what I can see, a closed road is indicated, but there are no Do Not Enter signs. The gate and signs only inform the public that road access to the property is restricted.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Access roads are there for a purpose. They cost a lot to build and maintain. The most frequent use of these roads is for firefighters and commercial interest such as timber operations. The are usually just dirt roads and hence, fragile. Four wheelers can quickly make these roads impassable, especially in areas of rainfall. Even when the mud and destruction from the four wheelers become dried out, the damage remains.

Not all public lands are for enjoyment by the public. Much of it, such as rangelands are for the exclusive use of the ranchers who are paying to lease the land for cattle operations. The ranchers are not obligated to allow the public to use the lands they are paying for so that the public can set up camps, RV's, hiking or otherwise using the property for what the land is being used and paid for. The same holds for timber and mining companies.

In the case of the OP and the photos of signs, from what I can see, a closed road is indicated, but there are no Do Not Enter signs. The gate and signs only inform the public that road access to the property is restricted.

 

[RodISHI]

The point is that I and my ancestors would not have been born here and and have anything at all to say had the European/U.S. governments not seized the land from its original inhabitants.

So what? They seized it in turn from someone else as nations have doen with each other from the beginning of time.

The only difference is that we did not slaughter all of the Amerindians and those that chose to live peacefully with white Americans ( NOT Europeans) are STILL THERE!

Having the seized and in a few instances purchased those lands, the government obtained title to them.

Again, bullshit.

When the territories were turned into states, the state got the vast majority of that land, but after the Civil War, the Feds decided to hold on to all that land and not pass it on to the states so that they could sell railway right of ways, minr\eral rights, etc and make a ton of money under the table.

Look at the huge difference between states east of Texas vrs west of Texas.

View attachment 126537

The Federalis are not playing nice with western states.

Part of the Railroad Act was an exchange for the railroad to build and they were given the land in part of the deal.

They in turn sold portions of it to settlers. This grant called for a ten mile stretch on each side of the rail. There were also US land patents granted. By 1872 the railroads were given 170 million acres and a 1/2 billion dollars.

 

[RodISHI]

In 1970 one could still file for a mining claim and gain forty acres of land under the same conditions in some of the areas in the Mountains where we lived in California.

 

[koshergrl]

Our national parks and public lands that are very pretty and worth preserving long into the future.

Then we need to oust the feds.

 

[koshergrl]

Access roads are there for a purpose. They cost a lot to build and maintain. The most frequent use of these roads is for firefighters and commercial interest such as timber operations. The are usually just dirt roads and hence, fragile. Four wheelers can quickly make these roads impassable, especially in areas of rainfall. Even when the mud and destruction from the four wheelers become dried out, the damage remains.

Not all public lands are for enjoyment by the public. Much of it, such as rangelands are for the exclusive use of the ranchers who are paying to lease the land for cattle operations. The ranchers are not obligated to allow the public to use the lands they are paying for so that the public can set up camps, RV's, hiking or otherwise using the property for what the land is being used and paid for. The same holds for timber and mining companies.

In the case of the OP and the photos of signs, from what I can see, a closed road is indicated, but there are no Do Not Enter signs. The gate and signs only inform the public that road access to the property is restricted.

Nope. There are multiple signs that say no access past this point. All that crappy looking orange shit that almost entirely encircled the.parking lot and road at Siltcoos is total blackout. At other beaches, you aren't allowed to access dry sand on the beaches. And there are also private property signs in areas that aren't private property. As well as a no camping sign on the blm land at the beach....completely illegal and new.

 

[grainbely]

View attachment 126506 View attachment 126507 View attachment 126508 You know, the forests and lands the feds are taking money to maintain and hold for public enjoyment..

Are you mental? Have you been to a park before? You can't just off-road all over the place and drive down to the beach and park in the water. Try harder.

 

[Syriusly]

run 15 miles, 3 times a week.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or what it has to do with the fact that the feds have seized our lands and resources.

'seized our lands and resources'?

LOL

Either the Fed holds them for 'us'- or you have no claim to them at all.

Poor little snowflake- not able to drive onto every single road on every single Federal property in the U.S.

 

[Syriusly]

The woods were there. You and your dog were there. Why didn't you just walk your sorry ass into the woods with the dog and enjoy the public land? It doesn't appear parking and congestion was a potential impediment to your doing so.

Here's my guess as to why: because you'd rather complain about not being able "enjoy the public lands" in exactly the way you wanted to do it.

irrelevant. The point is, I can't get to where I want to go because the access is blocked. Illegally,.

Not 'illegally'.

Get your poor little lazy snowflake ass out of the car, and you can walk right in.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Beaches and dunes closed, march through September. Snowy fucking plover.

Fucking lazy ass snowflake.

 

[koshergrl]

View attachment 126506 View attachment 126507 View attachment 126508 You know, the forests and lands the feds are taking money to maintain and hold for public enjoyment..

Are you mental? Have you been to a park before? You can't just off-road all over the place and drive down to the beach and park in the water. Try harder.

These are national forest land, and blm. And my point is that they don't have the right or authority to restrict our access to public lands and resources.

 

[RodISHI]

Settlers were sometimes confused by the railroad lands and a few unscrupulous railroad agents managed scams to take their money promising them land but in fact they were not really getting anything. This contention led to some legislative battles some legislators were in favor of protecting the innocent people and so deeds were issued to them. The railroads had taken routes too through areas that were favorable and conducive to their commerce. That is why you can still drive through portions of Idaho and see miles of land that was fully stripped bare of all of the trees (the Grangeville area is a prime example of this). The RR's also sought to find the best areas with the highest mineral content too. Railroads also used their land grants as collateral to obtain loans, bonds and government sponsored mortgages. Since the railroads had violated their contracts the legislators took action and that action was finalized in 1903. From the historical notes I read it concerning the land the state owned for road purposes "it was never the intention of the states for the railroads to own all of the land". The railroads were creating companies with company' stores and house and apartment rentals. Company Towns that were basically enslaving people.

Now the states were also granted land to use for developing railroad purposes back in 1850. About 3.2 million acres were involved in that transaction. Veterans of the war of 1812 were also given land in 1850, (most of those were posthumous grants). Some of their descendants collected on those grants and some did not. Plus large tracts of land were designated swamp lands that were given to the states so they could be drained and put into agricultural service. That act was called the Swamp Act of 1850. Lands were also appropriated by various states for School Fund Acts in the 1850's so schools could be maintained. Some of states created loan programs which helped pay for school systems. Some of the western states were not as populated so they did not take as much land during these periods.


Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 Main article: Donation Land Claim Act, The Donation Land Claim Act allowed settlers to claim land in the Oregon Territory, then including the modern states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of Wyoming. Settlers were able to claim 320 or 640 acres of land for free between 1850 and 1854, and then at a cost of $1.25 per acres until the law expired in 1855. Oregon apparently used there Land in the Donation Act to grant; from this Oregon's act granted two square miles of land per township to fund schools in 1854. Oregon Blue Book: Oregon History: Territorial Government

The Homestead Act of 1862 was open to any adult who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government. Women and immigrants who had applied for citizenship were also eligible.

The Southern Homestead 1866 Act explicitly included black Americans and encouraged them to participate.The Timber Culture Act of 1873 granted land to a claimant who was required to plant trees. These tracts could be added to an existing homestead claim and had no residency requirement. The timber act was to encourage the settlers in prairie land areas to plant trees in areas of prairie grasslands.

 

[RodISHI]

run 15 miles, 3 times a week.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or what it has to do with the fact that the feds have seized our lands and resources.

'seized our lands and resources'?

LOL

Either the Fed holds them for 'us'- or you have no claim to them at all.

Poor little snowflake- not able to drive onto every single road on every single Federal property in the U.S.

Do you live in Oregon?

 

[koshergrl]

The woods were there. You and your dog were there. Why didn't you just walk your sorry ass into the woods with the dog and enjoy the public land? It doesn't appear parking and congestion was a potential impediment to your doing so.

Here's my guess as to why: because you'd rather complain about not being able "enjoy the public lands" in exactly the way you wanted to do it.

irrelevant. The point is, I can't get to where I want to go because the access is blocked. Illegally,.

Not 'illegally'.

Get your poor little lazy snowflake ass out of the car, and you can walk right in.

Yes, illegally. The places I want to access aren't within walking distance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Did you even look at the photo you took? I guess you need reminding that grass does grow over a road in the space of a few weeks. That road has been closed for quite some time.

oh they put the gates up as soon as they gain control of land. But you are wrong about the grass. This is the Oregon coast. The grass is everywhere and it is always green. These are all access roads that were being used when I was young.

oh they put the gates up as soon as they gain control of land.

See post 21. The government hasn't, for as long as there has been a state of Oregon, not had control of and/or authority over that particular piece of land.

Wrong again. Some of this property was owned by private citizens during my lifetime. Shut the fuck up and sit down, maybe you'll learn something.. Though I don't hold out much hope.

The relevant question, then, given the temporal range of "your lifetime," is who owns it now.

The people of Oregon own it. And have a right to the resources from it....and the right to use their own land as they please as well.

The people of Oregon own it.

Look. I implicitly asked you who owns the property. Either you know who owns the property or you do not. I know there is no deed indicating "the people of Oregon" as the title holder to the property.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In the State and federal parks near us, there are lots of entrances, like that with gates shut, but they are for maintenance travel only, like those coming in to mow the grassy edges of the drives or meadow areas, or for the crew that comes in and cuts up dead trees... btw, you can haul off that wood in the pile if you need some fire wood....that's why they try to leave stacks of it near the edge where you can drag it to a truck...

Eventually there will be one gate, larger and wider for two way traffic, that will be opened for cars

In most places in the west if you even pick up a stick outside and some inside of a camp area you are breaking their rules. Common sense would say let someone use the deadwood.

You're wrong about that, too. Most, if not all, of these are no access roads. You don't get to bypass the gates on foot.

This is where you and xelor could come to some sort of moment.

The point is that I and my ancestors would not have been born here and and have anything at all to say had the European/U.S. governments not seized the land from its original inhabitants. Having the seized and in a few instances purchased those lands, the government obtained title to them.

I got your point its just not a good one in your justification of totally denying the public (the American citizen) access. Since you did bring it up though we could maybe consider why all of the sudden this land is totally off limits to the public. Do you think the government has the right to deny citizens access totally to public lands? If so why?

I got your point its just not a good one in your justification of totally denying the public (the American citizen) access.

While Koshergirl claims that one cannot enter the wooded area she pictured -- she hasn't even specifically identified the parcel -- and I'm in no position to speak to that specific piece of land, as goes public lands in general, the government does not "totally deny" public access.

The specious point is the one Koshergirl made about seizure, not my refutation of that point.

If a gate is in place and it says no public entry beyond this point you can be charged with trespassing and there are those places all over in the west now. You said just walk in. Even on foot the sign is forbidding to go beyond that point so why would you break the law by not following the orders they laid out with a sign?

If a gate is in place and it says no public entry beyond this point you can be charged with trespassing and there are those places all over in the west now. You said just walk in. Even on foot the sign is forbidding to go beyond that point so why would you break the law by not following the orders they laid out with a sign?

And just what is written the sign affixed to the automotive traffic barrier? Does it say "no public entry beyond this point?"

So, while you are correct about a variety of other properties, the OP-er has shared with us no indication that the depicted property is among them.

Perhaps, however, she posted a photo of a property she didn't drive to and didn't want to enjoy. I wouldn't put it past her, to tell you the truth.