Land use issue references, from the Pirate4x4 forum Options

[Denise]

Here is a link to Pirate4x4 Forums "Land Use Issues" topic.
There are some great website links listed here, and some websites from the dark side.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14359

[59er]

Redpaw, the problem is not with the statute itself but with a re-interpretation that is being used by people who are trying to use it to confiscate private roads for public use. Most roads that cross old mineral patents are not public right of ways, and in fact they were constructed with private money by the miners or mining companies across their own private property to get from one part of their land to another. Some of the roads went from the mines to millsites without ever crossing any public land at all. In our case, the original mining company went to great expense to blast a road on the land they owned, and I don't see any good reason why the public should have the right to use it. RS 2477 is about construction of roads across public land not reserved for public uses. It doesn't apply to private property.

My family has owned mines and mining land for generations and we own and operate a small mining company. We allowed some use of our roads by the public but when mining equipment and land started getting vandalized we closed them off. I just don't feel that city kids with big jeeps and ATVs have the right to use my roads that I maintain and have never been maintained by the government to get to the back parts of my property so they can party and leave a pile of trash for me to pick up. Now that there's a gate, there's less vandalism.

There are two sides of the coin when it comes to people who buy mining land to develop or build homes on . They must recognize that they are on mining land and not complain if their neighbors are still using it for that purpose. If a county has obtained a RS 2477 right of way they can't close it because its a county road. In some cases it is very hard to prove taht a road is an RS 2477 but if the county can't prove it then it is presumed to be private and can be closed at the pleasure of the owner. There is no law that says a private landonwer must provide access and in fact the reason some land is so expensive and exclusive is because landowners can easily get to public land that is not easy for the public to get to (I'm thinking of some of the new subdivisions around Durango and Pagosa Springs). Maybe it seems greedy but the law in this country have always favored the private landowner who pays property taxes and most landowners don't want to share what they bought or inherited. The law has always been this way and if it was changed to force landowners to provide access it would reduce the value of their land and that would be an illegal takings.

I guess my opinion is that people who want to use their land to make a living should have priority over people that want to use their land for recreation.