Texas billionaire brothers block another Idaho road, prompting criticism over public access

[mooretitan]

Hate dealing with land locked public land but two sides to ever story
I have a few friends with lots of land and the abuse I see the public do it I would not want them to cross my property. I feel to a certain point we have done this to ourselves. To many as* wipes that break fences, jack up roads, leave trash.
I guess the best thing for me would be to allow walk in access only to all public land. Would keep most people that don’t need to be there out

 

[Idaho_Potato]

I think this is pretty funny.
#1 good job forest service not having an easement. You better hope your federal government has it lawyers getting easements drafted up now. It wont take long for others to figure out this trick.
#2 You can't really be mad at someone who played the game by the rules and won.
#3 There is public land all over the western states and 100 year ground leases. What do you propose cutting a road through all these ranches to access 100 acres of public land? The construction cost alone would be astronomical.
#4 so you hunted there and now can't because a land owner worked within the law on their own property?
#5 Its still public land. You just must access through private to get there. And cant trespass.

The land management lawyer for the Wilks brothers is fanning his tears of laughter with wads of Benjamin's right about now....

 

[nodakian]

Honest question; how is a fire/state/BLM road different than a major hwy that runs through someone's land? Certainly ID would not allow them to block a hwy/paved road if it ran through their property.

For highways like you’re probably thinking about, the state or federal government tends to buy the land outright. More primitive roads typically run across private (usually) land in easements.

Sometimes complicated issues arise when counties create roads under their powers but may or may not clearly follow their own rules. Lots of litigation over that stuff.

I hope that helps.

 

[Midwest.Bushlore]

I’m moving to Montana. Is it that difficult to access land. I see all types of public hunting spots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's still doable, just a lot harder than in Idaho. Ted Turner alone owns almost three times more land than the state of Rhode Island.

 

[IdahoHntr]

I too am not familiar with this particular road, but I’ve always wondered if the federal land agency could now shut down the public road that no longer goes anywhere?

Maybe in this case the public road still has value, but I know several circumstances where the public road serves no purpose to the public once a landowner closes it off. Even worse I know of places where the road on the other side of the private property remains open for only private access. Why in the world does a landowner get to have public access that no one else has? If the PUBLIC can’t access it, there shouldn’t be a road on PUBLIC land. Plain and simple.

 

[@fulldraw]

When you can buy a United States Senator your not worried about fighting off a prescribed easement via litigation.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? As one of the previous posts noted--I don't know how this isn't a prescriptive easement under Idaho law. Elements are below:

A claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the subject property is (1) open and notorious, (2) continuous and uninterrupted, (3) adverse and under a claim of right, (4) with the actual or imputed knowledge of the owner of the servient tenement (5) for the statutory period. Idaho Code Ann. § 5-203.

continuous use does not require consistent daily or even monthly use, merely consistent use typical for the type of easement claimed. See, e.g., Beckstead v. Price, 146 Idaho 57, 62, 190 P.3d 876, 881 (2008) (holding that even annual open use of a road was sufficient to satisfy the statutory period)

 

[@fulldraw]

How are these not cases of prescriptive easement?

Completely agreed--would love to hear from an Idaho land use/real estate lawyer on the forum

 

[@fulldraw]

Doesn't this already exist through a private right of action -- i.e., suing them over a prescriptive easement? Obviously, they have much deeper pockets than you (no offense) and me but this seems like the obvious solution unless I'm missing something

 

[Trial153]

Can you clarify what you mean by this? As one of the previous posts noted--I don't know how this isn't a prescriptive easement under Idaho law. Elements are below:

A claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the use of the subject property is (1) open and notorious, (2) continuous and uninterrupted, (3) adverse and under a claim of right, (4) with the actual or imputed knowledge of the owner of the servient tenement (5) for the statutory period. Idaho Code Ann. § 5-203.

continuous use does not require consistent daily or even monthly use, merely consistent use typical for the type of easement claimed. See, e.g., Beckstead v. Price, 146 Idaho 57, 62, 190 P.3d 876, 881 (2008) (holding that even annual open use of a road was sufficient to satisfy the statutory period)

Not sure what's to clarify? Its pretty apparent that they arent concerned about litigation to remove the gate.

 

[wind gypsy]

Many of you are probably familiar with MT Crazy mountains issue.

This thread and links within paint a picture of how good ol boy club can allow these things to happen and how out of state politicians can impact the local forest service's ability to enforce these easements.
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/crazy-mountain-public-access.276406/

 

[Mike 338]

I see more Texas license plates than plates from California these days. Just an observation.

The way I see it, these guys bought a piece of ground and the road goes with it. Just a long driveway if you will. They're within their rights to fence it off, even if it blocks my access to another place. I do wonder who in the heck has been maintaining that road all these years. I suspect it's been me and my tax dollars. Also, when their property goes up in flames, I'm wondering how much I'm going to have to pay to fight the fire. Seems like a real screw deal all the way around but I don't fault them for writing the check and putting in the gate. It's a long long walk of bushwhacking just to get to where you used to be able to drive to though. There might be some trails. Could be time to invest in some stock. Could be just the thing to make the "horse" relevant again.

 

[GregB]

Hopefully when a forest fire reaches their land the FS says sorry boys, private land and walks away.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I see more Texas license plates than plates from California these days. Just an observation.

The way I see it, these guys bought a piece of ground and the road goes with it. Just a long driveway if you will. They're within their rights to fence it off, even if it blocks my access to another place. I do wonder who in the heck has been maintaining that road all these years. I suspect it's been me and my tax dollars. Also, when their property goes up in flames, I'm wondering how much I'm going to have to pay to fight the fire. Seems like a real screw deal all the way around but I don't fault them for writing the check and putting in the gate. It's a long long walk of bushwhacking just to get to where you used to be able to drive to though. There might be some trails. Could be time to invest in some stock. Could be just the thing to make the "horse" relevant again.

The property owners have, it was well stated, when they initially began cutting access, that they had started canceling their maintenance contracts.

If they get burned out it’s just going to piss the general public off when they drive by and see that all the elk and deer are in the middle of private living large on the new growth.

I don’t agree with cutting access if it’s a country maintained and owned road, in fact I don’t agree with land locked land parcels access restrictions in any state including those by tax payer funded Indian Reservations. I think it BS, but strong Private property rights is a double edge sword, and trickles down to abodes also.

I have a feeling wilks lawyers have done more then thier due diligence on research. You don’t become self made billionaires from being idiots.

That property has been up for sale before.

This thread mentions burning them out, sueing and hatred.... I can’t image why they wouldn’t offer or grant a public easement.

 

[mj23polaris]

Do they go out of their way you think to buy property that they can limit public Access with?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Texans is a football team, I don’t live in Texas
But to humor you re-read my last post. I’m for easements to all property Private or Public through federal/state/reservation, as in mandated by law, but I understand the need from strong property rights because they trickle down to home ownership.

Strong property rights are why I can hunt 365 days a year in TX, I know why Texas has castle doctrine and criminal trespassing laws that actually puts criminals in jail.

Again I find it humorous that no one wants to work with them, instead they want to burn them out. That has nothing todo with Texas just general respect

 

[Trial153]

Do they go out of their way you think to buy property that they can limit public Access with?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

That's listed as an axillary benefit in the prospectus.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Do they go out of their way you think to buy property that they can limit public Access with?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

From my research they own +-702k acres, probably not to many large ranches or reservations that don’t block some public land out west

 

[cuerro viejo]

I know them well enough, from Frac Tech, way before they sold. They are just like anyone else when someone try's to dictate/mandate them to have to do something they don’t have the obligation to do it. Human nature to dig in.

No one on this board has yet to post about a proposal for access the includes any remedies for their reasons for shutting out their property, unfortunately by now it’s probably a no go. Kind of like the state buying the land or an easement before they bought it.

At this point safe to say it will never be donated back to State/Fed’s like a Texan did with Baca Ranch in NM now know as Valles Caldera. Hope I’m wrong

 

[ndbuck09]

"I think this is pretty funny.
#1 good job forest service not having an easement. You better hope your federal government has it lawyers getting easements drafted up now. It wont take long for others to figure out this trick.
#2 You can't really be mad at someone who played the game by the rules and won.
#3 There is public land all over the western states and 100 year ground leases. What do you propose cutting a road through all these ranches to access 100 acres of public land? The construction cost alone would be astronomical.
#4 so you hunted there and now can't because a land owner worked within the law on their own property?
#5 Its still public land. You just must access through private to get there. And cant trespass."

Point #1: I think it was touched on earlier but isn't it a thing that if an access point is proved to be used consistently by the public for access, that it becomes a historical easement? I'm pretty sure this is the deal with the Crazy Mountains, the landowners there put up a gate on a trail and then after a while claimed that the trail wasn't used anymore. It's easy to see this is what these jokers are doing here in Idaho too..

Point #2: You should probably go understand some of the other things besides this that they and their employees have done here in Idaho since they bought the land in 2016 (ie: harassing people on public areas adjecent to their lands, putting up gates that are proved to be illegal with no reprucussions, etc.) So they aren't exactly playing by the rules to win my friend.


Point #3: There is literally no discussion about creating a road here. This is a road that has existed for many many years. This is a strawman point not even related to this discussion.

Point #4: People did hunt there that now can't. It had been Potlatch Timber land and timber land has a history of allowing public access. The attitude of a western timber company and that of rich Texas dudes is very different when it comes to large scale land ownership. The stark contrast on the surface caused a stir here in Idaho but I think most people understand that these guys bought the land and can restrict access to it how they would like. But again, you're redirecting the discussion because the discussion is centered on activities by these jokers in which they go outside of their purchased lands to put up illegal gates on historical public use forest roads just to test the waters and see what sticks.

Point #5 Again, see point #1 pretty sure historical continued use by the public has the ability to grandfather an access point through public land in. If you buy land with a public road, you purchased it with a valuation as such.

 

[ndbuck09]

I hate to say this, and I've tried so hard to give people the benefit of the doubt throughout my life, but I've personally had jobs where I've worked closely with folks straight from Texas and it's been true, I've also been close to another couple from Texas, known others from Texas from afar and in all cases, the attitude of anyone I've known from Texas is exactly that being an AHole/Dick is what it takes to succeed in life. There's an attitude that permeates of an adoration of pushing other people around to prove your power/wealth/etc. The Wilkes brothers prove it over and over yet again...

I'm sorry to the good folks from this particular state, but when people come into a far different state and bring this attitude, you can't expect fairy dust and beds of roses.