An interesting read ... and some hypocrisy? ... from Colorado
I love to read out-of-state newspapers, and came across this interesting read about land access in The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Here's my favorite quote:
- High Lonesome Ranch ... "said the road case is an important one 'for anyone who cares about conserving public and private lands in the West. The district court’s decision raises the troubling prospect that thousands of private service and access roads, four-wheel drive trails and other unimproved dirt tracks across both public and private lands could be declared public highways.'"
Maybe it's nuance, but locking roads that provide access to public lands which are used for hunting (aka conservation?) seems opposite of caring about the preservation of public lands. To me, this statement is gobbledygook, but maybe there's something lost in the translation.
You can find other out-of-state and world newspapers here:
That's quite a strange comment coming from a rancher. RS2477 Only applies to the unclaimed land of the united states, not private property. Settlers were only allowed to build roads on land that wasn't claimed by anyone. So rs2477 didn't require easements or grant access over private land to the public. His interpretation of RS 2477 is completely wrong.
I am standing up for what I believe is right.