Public lands access clashes with private property rights as Wilkses lock up land

[@briangagne6085]

These roads are gazetted roads and therefore cannot be turned into private roads

[@brt5273]

Not in the U.S. That's the angle the County would like to have recognized but if it wasn't registered then there is no real claim. If it was registered then the County would already be up there dismantling the gates and citing the owners for blocking access.

[@albert214]

If the road is NOT part of their property, they cannot block it. If it is part of their property the county and state need to provide other access options.

[@spatton7875]

If there was no easement agreement at the time of purchase then the road likely is their property regardless of who paid to install and maintain it in the past. If there was an easement agreement then yes they are violating the law by blocking it.

[@larryjanson4011]

and the tax payers reimbursed for all the tax moneys spent maintaining it over the decades.

[@michaelr.1709]

When I was looking for a house, I was shown properties that were accessed by a private road. When I asked who owned the road and was told it was someone else but, “It’s OK, they let all the property owners use it”, I passed. There is no way I was paying for a house without a legal right to access it. This situation stinks, but they are the owners. The government should have purchased the road or legal access rights from the previous owners, if they wanted perpetual access. If the government really did pay to build or maintain the road, they should have insisted on that as a condition. Hold your government accountable.

[@Keaton0801]

Actually, if it's the only way to access your house, then you have an easement to use that road by law. If they block it so you can't get in, that's a crime, and you can call the police.

[@photios4779]

@@Keaton0801 That may not be the law in all 50 states (or in other countries for that matter). Also, if someone is granted special permission by the owner to cross their land to access their property, that doesn't necessarily create a "prescriptive easement" that cannot be revoked later. The owner of this private road could create trouble for their neighbors using it by suddenly withdrawing permission or deciding to charge a substantial "usage" or "maintenance" fee (say $50,000 / year). Even if the property owner who can only access their land via this road is legally in the right, going to court to prove their rights would be a huge hassle. I would have passed on those properties too.

[@alexandercallahan9736]

This story forgot to mention this is actually a public road. It was paid for by tax payers and is also a fire evacuation route. Making blocking this road illegal.

[@hillbilly4christ638]

Ingress and egress must be stipulated in the deed otherwise the ground is dead. If someone insists on limiting access to deeded land that does or does not have legal access they are asking for trouble by the government. Hanging onto your land involved in a legal battle with a corrupt government will either bankrupt you or make you wish you had not taken that path. Be careful who you cross.

[@dottypitchell208]

@Keaton0801 I totally agree with you

[@39toothbrush39]

The previous owner allowed the public access to some parts of this land that does not make it public property. Its private property period end he could do what he wants with it also keeping the public off of his land avoids lawsuits

[@HarrisonCountyStudio]

Until an overzealous politician invokes an emanate domain suit for the government.

[@zachdancy5828]

You must need some studying on Public Roads!! Public money built and maintained it, NOT Private money.

[@HarrisonCountyStudio]

Zach Dancy is it indeed a ‘public road’, built with public funds? State laws will differ to some extent. For an example (that may not be relevant at all), If the state or county built and maintained the roads, then yes they are public. But at some point in time, the county/state may have abandoned them. In another example, if the owner gave permission for the county (or state) to stone the road so people may use it, then they may have formed a temporary agreement.... or a permanent one. I didn’t get that sense from the video, but I may not know all the facts around this particular issue.

[@HarrisonCountyStudio]

...I’m not saying I agree with what’s happened either, with respect to the access to state and federal lands. The state should have secured those right of way accesses before a hostile ownership took place.

[@leeeng478]

@@HarrisonCountyStudio You sound like a Texas lawyer.

[@brandondunnegan3890]

Well when you legally sell the land. You legally give the land owners the right to use the land as they see fit. Or to limit access to the land as they see fit

[@Subangelis]

Not the road.

[@brt5273]

@@Subangelis If the Government had a genuine legal claim to the road, either as an easement or as a legally designated public road, they would already be up there dismantling the gates and citing the owners.

[@madmartigan4948]

They're just not willing to take the risk of being responsible for other people on their property

[@spaceracer23]

Dont build public roads on private property without compensation. This is 100% on the county.

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

Funny how you argue that without knowing the full story. The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@coypatton3160]

Senator Huey Long willing admit that I do not know the local situation, but I dare say it is no where near as cut and dry as you indicated! If it was that clear cut, the counties involved, the state and federal governments would have taken them (new landowners) to court and forced the removal of the gates! Since this has not happened! you appear to be oversimplifying the situation. As your title in front of your name would imply, you have a vested interest in your unsupported by the facts position!

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

@Danny Bowen you really must be cracked out. They BOUGHT THE LAND in the 1940s to establish an EASEMENT, therefore they OWN IT.

[@photios4779]

@@coypatton3160 As an outside observer, I can agree the situation may not be so cut and dry because multiple roads are involved and some may be public, some may be private and some of the latter may have established public easements or right-of-ways associated with them. Each road needs to be considered separately, but I still do think there are valid concerns involving at least some of the now blocked-off roads. Remember that news reports happen much faster than lawsuits. The fact this story didn't mention any lawsuit doesn't mean that one wasn't filed after it was aired, or some kind of settlement was later reached that required DFD to remove the gates and No Trespassing signs. Moreover, filing lawsuits costs a lot of money for a cash-strapped county and they may have more important priorities at the moment, even if they are legally in the right. By the way, I found a follow-up news video aired eleven days later titled "Documents show Wilks brothers' gates on Forest Service road are illegal." That makes sense, because I cannot see how a *Forest Service* road created with taxpayer dollars could be regarded as a private road, even if the land on both sides of it is privately owned.

[@coypatton3160]

@@photios4779 lots of undocumented speculation going on in your comments. Easements are not and have never been free public access routes, although they often get treated as such by self righteous trespassers. I have vehicles impounded for being on property that I (and the bank) owned.

[@kharnthebetrayer1575]

If it’s a Forest service road as she said . The new owners have no rights to stop people from using the road , since the road would belong to the US Forest Service .

[@jamesborck5908]

They bought the land and are selling the roads back to the county lol

[@samuelcantley5500]

Your government killed children and mothers old man that hurt no one and kill the Indian for there land

[@genli5603]

@@samuelcantley5500 Indians also killed Indians with a degree of ferocity that is entirely unmatched even by the bloodiest of European actions.

[@coypatton3160]

Gen Li just how would react if a foreign group came with great force and forced you from your homes?

[@samuelcantley5500]

Allways someone is trying to cover up the truth about what the government workers did to the Indian people and there land so you can have freedom

[@user-nh3gu1ge3d]

Then the county shouldn't have built the roads on land they didn't own or sold the land in the first place. I don't see a problem with it.

[@ephanhymerable]

Maybe if ppl weren't idiots that trashed every land they walk on, the Wilks wouldn't have to take such measures

[@genli5603]

If they'd just maintain it and clean up, there wouldn't be these problems.

[@backwoods7678]

Feel the circle of life .. you are feeling the power of abuse and what natives lived ..

[@soillife1]

Way to many private land owners have been sued by these city folks. Fall off the utv , get hurt. Lawsuit filed against land owner. Stay off private land. Unless you sign a release and get permission.

[@alanmcentee3035]

Nope. A landowner would have to be at fault before they are responsible for your accident. The same applies at your local shopping mall. If you have an accident, it is between you and the other driver, not the mall. These are unimproved roads and used at the driver's own risk. It is pretty funny when the Trump School of Law grads come out.

[@leeeng478]

For driving on a publicly maintained road?

[@Yuckyuck1870]

Shut up

[@Yuckyuck1870]

@@alanmcentee3035they’re everywhere dog. They think cuz their god can get away things so they can they

[@eugenewall6620]

Easy to fix, buy private land along the roads leading to their property, then close the roads there and don't allow them access across your property to get to theirs. When they claim you can't block access to their land, tell them you're protecting the public land beyond which belongs to you as a taxpayer. Same argument they are using.

[@brendonrookes1151]

you dont own that land

[@RiskyVentureMinerals]

This shows a lack of understanding of how easements work and grandfather clauses.

[@rulontrost3529]

Also they own the land along the roads, so I doubt they would sale it. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being dumb.

[@dudzinski324]

What part of private don’t these people understand?

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

Funny how you argue that without knowing the full story. The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@photios4779]

What part of "private" applies to a *Forest Service* road created and paid for with taxpayer dollars?

[@photios4779]

@sports Are you sure about that? KTVB did a follow up news report a few days later which you can find here on KZbin titled, "Documents show Wilks brothers' gates on Forest Service road are illegal."

[@badbob666]

At least it's owned by Americans and not the Chinese or some other foreign entity..

[@miguelamigo6030]

Plot twist😬. It's a Chinese American that owns it😁

[@TheFrogInYourClosetWatchingYou]

5:10 community needs or community WANTS? It sounds like the owner is willing to allow access if the city pays for the rights to access it.... Nothing wrong with that

[@ianwilkinson5069]

Its all about the money.

[@brt5273]

@@ianwilkinson5069 Doesn't have to be. There is other free access to the public land. Just enter at a different point.

[@Thehappybirder]

I am very much an outdoors person and most of the people that I encounter in my journeys just trash the outdoor places that they are in.

[@RiskyVentureMinerals]

Amen brother!

[@theconstitutionalist5617]

Well if they bought the land they own it. So to bad no trespassing. If I by a run down home that homeless people used for years doesn’t mean nothing. Just cause the public used to use it doesn’t mean nothing. If the city paid taxes funds for the roads but didn’t own it you sue the county, or sold the property than your tax went back into the funds....

[@voluntarism335]

They do not own that land and who did they buy it from? The US government has never ever owned the land it lays claim too their claim of owning america is 100% bogus, and anyone else laying claim to it before hand is also bogus. Land ownership comes through homesteading not just by putting up sign posts claiming it's your land, those sign posts are just threats, no one has to respect this "property" of theirs. This is unclaimed land peroid, Until they mix their labour with the land they do not own it. Can I point to a planet and claim that is now myn? That is how stupid some private property is.

[@theconstitutionalist5617]

VOLUNTARYIST VEGAN PROLIFE BLACKPILLED Lol 😂 not true bud. If you don’t want people in your house that’s your right as a home owner or land owner. As for the land being stolen who owned it first?

[@voluntarism335]

@@theconstitutionalist5617 You cannot own land that has not been homesteaded, no one owns it the government does not own it and you cannot buy it from the government. I will do whatever I want on land that is not homesteaded I am not asking for your permission and oh I'm armed to protect myself from thugs like you. Never said that they stole the land but what I am saying is that their claim to the land is illegitimate and no one is obligated to respect bogus claims.

[@brendonrookes1151]

@@voluntarism335 ok so leave your backyard open to the public if you have a pool dont you dare complain when randoms decide to take a dip

[@voluntarism335]

@@brendonrookes1151 Lookup the word 'homesteading' because my backyard is clearly owned, since it will look like a mowed lawn and not a forest

[@joejohnson4183]

So who gets sued if someone gets injured or killed on these roads ? The city , the county or the owners of the property ? What part of private property do these people not understand ?

[@joshkrause2977]

Pretty simple limit amount of land that one can buy. Same with corporations, no one needs more than 10,000 acres. That amount of land is 16 square miles.

[@baltsosser]

NO public land access has been denied to anyone...they just can't trespass to go there via private property.

[@tasteslikeawesome]

Their land, their rules. The public lands aren’t landlocked, you just have to go another way.

[@wintertech7723]

@J If you buy the houses, no because that land the road is built on is owned by the government. The land these roads are build on are private property and regardless of who built them or maintained them they are private and the owners can do as they please with their property.

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

Funny how you argue that without knowing the full story. The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@coypatton3160]

Senator Huey Long if your claims were as factual as you make out, then it would all be a non-issue. The documentation would be presented by all government agencies involved and a court order for the removal of the gates would be in place. Where is this court order?

[@Monkeywrench542]

fine, then have the road torn up that the public paid for.

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

@@Monkeywrench542 No. The public owns the road. Tear down the gate.

[@Walkingkarma64]

If you buy property that's land locked this happens. You can't cut threw someone's property unless there's a right of way.

[@scottrussell6717]

Here in ky it's illegal to sell land locked property unless it has an access to get to it

[@Walkingkarma64]

@@scottrussell6717 that's good, I live in Washington state.

[@dundonrl]

If the previous owners for decades let people use the roads, it's going to be pretty hard for a new owner to say nope were blocking it now, and lawsuits will show that.

[@Gonzo614]

IMO, if it is a public road should non registered unlicensed vehicles be allowed on it? I don't know Idaho road use laws. If you can't ride it down Main St. It shouldn't be allowed on these roads either.

[@jasoncoomer1226]

Can I drive through your backyard anytime I feel the need just because the previous home owner didnt mind? If not then case closed, buy your own road/land. The law is clear in this case.

[@Loupgarou21]

Well, actually, depending on the situation, yes, you might be able to legally do that. If your back yard has been used that way for so long it’s become a public right of way, or the city/county/state has an easement for that purpose, someone can drive there without your consent. For example, my property extends to the middle of the road in front of my house. I own the property, but the city has an easement and built a road on part of my property. I can’t just decide to put up a fence and no trespassing signs in the road. Most likely the roads in this video are public right of way roads, so if the average person owned to property they’d be SOL, but in this case it’s owned by billionaires that can keep it tied up in courts indefinitely

[@jasoncoomer1226]

@@Loupgarou21 You are wrong,the law states otherwise.Why is it they are making these videos about it.Its because the OWNER has the right to do what he wants.Its NOT OFFICIALLY public land.He bought it,the title had no restrictions regarding that. Case Closed

[@coypatton3160]

Loupgarou21 tou have crossed your references. Public right of way and easements are 2 very different things. An easement never ever gives general public access to that area! Never ever! As for your private land becoming a private property with public right of way-there are lots and lots of factors that are involved. But for the backyard question, if there is an existing legal public access road near (unfortunately that is a judge’s decision as to what is near and not a defined term) then that ‘R.O.W.’ may not be! Point in case is that my uncle as a drive into a field from the county road. By traveling through his field, you can access a ROW drive for enclosed fields. Another farmer that lives 1county road over, decided without permission that he would use my uncle’s field to get to his field across the county road from my uncle’s property. After some damage by this non owner to the field that he refused to repair or pay for, my uncle removed the culvert, no more access to that county road. The farmer sued my uncle. The farmer ended up with a judgement against him for the documented damages that were documented he created. No ROW!

[@cookingwithcorey3346]

@@coypatton3160 in oklahoma the law states you can't deny access to public land. So if someone owns land that surrounds public land they have to let people cross there property to get to it

[@Xarai]

a road is not a yard. might want to learn definitions

[@lightning9279]

Many private landowners are forced to allow people and gov a right away for a road so they can access property. Looks like those same laws don't apply to the ultra rich who can take advantage of poorly written laws.

[@akivatalansky]

In my area, there's part of a national park that is located at the end of a peninsula behind a private community. There is one public road that runs through to the end. However, there have been some problems with visitors trying to get through to the park.

[@simplylivinglacey7702]

I get that people are upset because those roads are easy access to public areas. And I can understand that that is very frustrating. But honestly I side with the people who own the land. They bought that land it is now rightfully theirs if they don't want people on their property than people should not be allowed on their property end of story.

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@SamSitar]

portable like you i side with the tourists. we have full right to public lands.

[@csyarid]

If roads were put in so that the public can access the land, then the private landowners have no right prohibiting access.

[@brendonrookes1151]

@@SamSitar it isnt public land tho

[@brendonrookes1151]

@@csyarid the road shouldnt of been sold to the new owners then just becouse the county decides to put a road on privert land dosnt mean that chunk of land sudenly dosnt belong to them

[@HowlingWo1f]

These property owners sound very reasonable.

[@LavaLands]

Did I miss something . . . isn't it PRIVATE LAND?

[@Raymail-tj4cf]

Dennis Andersen private land public road like the one in front of your home.

[@LavaLands]

@@Raymail-tj4cf You may want to re-watch and maybe a bit of research - it's not a public road or even an easement, it had only been used in the past by the public with the consent of the previous owner - nothing like the one in front of your home. Tough concept . . . for some I guess.

[@scotticus80]

They dont own public roads that have always been owned and maintained by state tax dollars.

[@photios4779]

@@LavaLands The report calls one of the now closed-off roads a "Forest Service road" at 2:14 - which sounds like a public road to me. The Wilks brothers obviously have the legal right to close off private roads that are not associated with any public easements. But the concern here is that at least some of the roads they claim to own are in fact a public right-of-way, created and paid for with taxpayer dollars. I found an article published in the _Idaho Statesman_ newspaper titled "Video of run-in revives worries caused by Texas billionaires’ Idaho land purchase" in which a government official is quoted as having said that one of the roads at issue here is in fact a public right-of-way.

[@animehuntress9018]

@@photios4779 The forestry road is a concerning one. I know in some state cutting access to those roads is illegal for safety reasons. If you gate it you have to have it open or easy access for forestry.

[@ianevans5869]

Then you fence in your yard, or put the signs up on the property. Just because you bought both sides of the road doesn’t mean you get to block access to the land.

[@cxa340]

So nobody seems to be able to go around? Is it that confusing to just go around to get to the park? I don’t go through my neighbors yard to get to the street or park and nobody should go through my yard.

[@brt5273]

Exactly. The public land's are still accessible, just not where these people are wanting to access it.

[@mike0566]

Simple fix for this issue is to only allow vehicles under a certain weight limit and tire size, when those logs start dropping they will need to get them out guess who will have the upper hand then !!!!!

[@tkralva.6668]

Question was it a public access road, or permissable access? If it is a public access, then public must still be allowed access but the owner can reroute. If permissable then there owner has given permission but are not legally required to, therefore if they decide not to for whatever reason then that is there choice. So it depends on how the access roads (not the land) are designated - private or public?

[@scottmantooth8785]

*make the road a toll road and restrict access to only a very limited number of vehicles per day and no overnight camping*

[@tooge47]

How can it be so confusing? Land ownership should be a cut and dry matter. Who owns the ROAD should be a cut and dry matter.

[@alanmcentee3035]

Not so fast. The road was public financed and used by the public for years. Besides used for recreation, it was a service road for fire services. You can not just retake land you allowed egress to. However when large interests can bribe lawmakers, anything can change.

[@lukogs]

@@alanmcentee3035 But the news says previous owner gave permission to use the road. So, for example, if you give permission to the people living behind your home to walk through your house (even though they have road access in front of their house) & they do that for several years; does that automatically mean that used walk path belongs to public?

[@alanmcentee3035]

@@VOTEREPUBLICANS594 So you have no idea but are still holding out on the stupid. The local government may have put an envelope with a couple of million bucks in it for the new owners on the gates too. They may have given them a pair of breeding unicorns as well. Or they may have kept a service road they maintained in order to battle fires. Since Trump supporters are unfamiliar with the concept of being proactive, you won't understand the idea. A service road is to allow (mostly) fire vehicles to access forest fires in the vast timberland. A lack of access or poor access allows fires to burn out of control. Out of control fires are costly. Being proactive allows fire fighters to keep the fire under control. Thus, it would be extremely doubtful a local government would relinquish any rights to a road they have a legal and moral obligation to keep.

[@nieldcreek2098]

Gokul S actually that is exactly what it means. An implied ROW is legally binding and that ROW can only be rescinded if the benefactor relinquished those rights by not actively using that implied ROW. Usually 5+ years

[@coypatton3160]

Nieldcreek but with the transfer of ownership, that must be revisited! If the deed to the land does not include an easement, then there is no easement! And an easement does not grant public access!

[@Naturallystated]

In a free country when you buy land, you may set access rights to it. No one has the right to drive their quad across your lawn just to take a shortcut. If the county wants these roads to be public, they must buy them with public money, then the public owns the roads.

[@Wyde-awake]

This is what happens when you don't cross your Ts . An easement in the contract would have handled this.

[@richardrivera7317]

Well it is private property. Be glad you were able to use the road.

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

Wrong. The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@MP-hx8fs]

How come people can’t listen. At the beginning of the video the previous owners allowed use of the roads. They were still private. They probably had a deal with the state or county to take care of them. But when they sold the land that deal is no longer valid. Does it suck yes. But the land was never public

[@Stramontin1]

@@MP-hx8fs DNR and Forest Management in Idaho are suing DFD for the closure of the public roads. In another video they explained that certain laws exist where since it was open to public use and was initially funded by the public it is public still. Haven’t seen a video on the results of that suit.

[@glenparks5175]

@@MP-hx8fs ,but the roads were

[@brendonrookes1151]

@@Stramontin1 just becouse the public had acess dosnt mean its public land it belongs to the owner

[@Valerie-bb5hi]

Just because you've been breaking the law and trespassing for 20 years doesn't mean you get to continue to do it when someone finally stands up and says no people seem to want their privacy and their recreation and their rights at the expense of someone else's

[@rich7331]

it's not breaking the law or trespassing if there are no signs or boundaries

[@Valerie-bb5hi]

@@rich7331 give me a break people don't have to have signs to tell you not to go on their property. That is common sense if it's not yours then stay off of it. Very simple

[@rich7331]

@Valerie it's the law... don't like it change it

[@Valerie-bb5hi]

@@rich7331 no trespassing is the law,

[@cabinetmunch]

This is good reporting.

[@OldMotorcycleAdventures]

In some states, you are not allowed to be landlocked, and have the right to access your property through another person's property. I wonder if that applies to public lands if this is one of those states

[@frankyflowers]

its their land.

[@agenttexx]

Not sure what the issue is. New Land owner has the right to restrict access to their land.

[@lotuseater92]

@The Nech but the road is public not private

[@lotuseater92]

@The Nech Walmart built the parking lot and maintains it this road was built by the public and maintained by taxs this a public road

[@caderedfield9372]

the wilks HAVE NO LEGEAL RIGHT keeping people off TAX PAYER/ PUBLIC ROADS 🙅 the wilks NEED 2 use some of there millions and put up fences then,,, THE ROAD IS NOT THERE PROPERTY??? !

[@IncredulousIndividual]

Cade Redfield it is their property

[@alanmcentee3035]

@@IncredulousIndividual Their property WITH an easement / right of way that allows the public to use it. There is a history of the public paying for the road for recreation and fire service.

[@KBurd1]

Imagine if you can buy all the land surrounding their land. They would have to sell their land at a bargain price. Two billionaires clashing, that would be a fun game of property wars.

[@Huero805]

They bought the land its theres they have the right to block

[@waywardgeologist2520]

Good for the private property owners. The county should have bought up the property when it came up for sale but didn't.

[@mudejartrainingnaturalscie6938]

Private Border Patrol Checkpoint

[@alexeatonexploresamerica5511]

I grow up muddin in the panhandle of Florida now it's few and far between

[@chuckaustin3836]

Public land is just that public land and MUST be accessible to public yet million of acres are not because they are surrounded by private land owners telling the public "no access". They (the private land owners) say they are the stewards protecting public land... Wrong, but they get away with it.. Our constitution gives the public the RIGHT to access PUBLIC LAND!

[@native_stone_]

Someone should have told the Wilkes brothers No Trespassing signs don't work. Lol.

[@tommyg2966]

There are 2 legal theories in play here; Adverse Possession and Aquiecense .... The problem is a change in ownership hits the reset button .... The issue rests in government incompetence .... Government officials never claimed the road easements under the previous ownership essentially vacating them at the time of sale. The Wilkes brothers are simply taking advantage of government negligence ... It's not right, but it's totally legal

[@tommyg2966]

@Homer Jay I'm a surveyor buddy and most road rights of way are dedicated easements a practice that dates back to Ben Franklins postal roads ... Very rarely is eminent domain used for roads. They are required in the land development approval process ... The legal theories of adverse possession and acquiescence rests in land being put to productive use ... Both require the unauthorized use to be blatant and notorious .... Because they are an uncompensated taking they must be affirmed by court order ... Change ownership and the clock resets .... You know so much that is not so

[@tommyg2966]

@Homer Jay I have to disagree ... Many western states established prescriptive easements 30' to each side of an aliquot line for ingress and egress and utilities ... In Colorado it's known as road rule A passed in 1917 .... It's why most utility infrastructure is located along section lines ... Again in Colorado only the land in private ownership prior to 1917 is exempt .... In the case of this video, prior to the Wilkes acquisition of the property the elements of public easement for purposes of ingress and egress had been met ... The roads were established, the use was blatant and notorious .... The county attorney was asleep at the switch. Boise Cascade failed to protect itself and the right to the road had been established. All the elements of adverse possession or acquiescence had been met; there isn't a judge out there that would have ruled against the claim IF it had been filed .... Then the property was sold to the Wilkes brothers and the clock reset ....They (the Wilkes brothers) are doing what is necessary to protect their interests ... They're going to get a big pay day and the taxpayers are going to get screwed because of a big time failure by government ....

[@mathiasniemeier4359]

WHO PAYS THE TAXES? STAY OFF!

[@georgedeedsnotwords2162]

Another case of not one man one vote . Instead it's one vote per dollar , and they have more . So its done their way .

[@genehasenbuhler2594]

No one person or persons should be allowed to purchase that much land no matter how much money they have! Idaho needs to have their gov heads locked up!

[@michaelbranham5854]

The outside elite investors that John Dutton continously fights. All forest access roads should be public and un gated.

[@GeoFry3]

Nope they bought it. Go around. Get sick of the level of entitlement in this country. If you wanted access maybe you should have bought it first.

[@iliketheanonymity6748]

Sounds like a bunch of entitled people getting butthurt cause they can't use somebody else's property. It was the county's fault for putting in the roads on private property just cause the previous owners allowed them to.

[@joskirin136]

Well...its their land...its their rights. You have all the rights to prevent tresspassers into your private property

[@robg521]

The government has the power to compulsory purchase lads, meaning that they could by the roads without the current owners consents because of the public’s needs to access public lands.

[@HarrisonCountyStudio]

Eminent domain is the term for adversary government acquisition

[@jasoncoomer1226]

Rob G Actually no, if it where legal they wouldnt feel the need to make propaganda videos to massage public opinion/consent to "break" the law for their benefit.

[@mctigger1]

The problem with that is the county probably does not have the money to purchase the land or the court fight it would entail to get that far. They still have to pay for the land in eminent domain, it is not like they get it for free.Depending on how many people actually use the roads on the property the county may not see a cost benefit in going down that road.

[@jasoncoomer1226]

@Homer Jay I see someone doesnt have a valid argument and really has nothing to say.Thanks for the input.

[@jasoncoomer1226]

@Homer Jay If i paid for it,then it is mine,if you think thats wrong then it is you that needs more books.

[@skeetersaurus6249]

This was PURELY a case of Boise Paper and the rest of the previous owners, giving a finger to Idaho state for whatever reason, and NOT adding an easement for 'state access' on these roads. An easement, upon conveyance to the new owners, would have forced them to accept 'public use of roads'. Idaho 'trying to address it now', is like selling your house, then suing someone because they won't let you use the garage anymore...I guess you should have thought of that.

[@MadsWorld34]

down here where i live someone bought a lot of land that had trails for miles on it including part of the river. and they posted it. and trying to even take the river. and not allow anyone to fish it. not even in a boat. and where we at we keep it clean. there has been times i saw people walk out into the woods and bring trash out that they didn't take in.

[@AChrivia]

There is such thing known as a public easement to access public land if a previous road owned by public lies on now private land to be able to access the land in many states. However, if there are now trespassing laws there then they screwed the public out of being able to access the public land that their tax dollars paid for.

[@dougdavey9782]

Did you listen. It sounded to me like the Wilkes brother bought the land and the county commissioners

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@dottypitchell208]

Was not public land. Was owned by a paper company. Road was not public but private, also owned by the paper company. They just let the public use and abuse it. It the state wants access to the public lands beyond, well they need to BUY land for a road and maintain it. And not put public $$$ into private property! If they have easements, they need to bring the documents to prove it.

[@brendonrookes1151]

previous road owned by public lies on now private land so you are admiting its privert road ?

[@brendonrookes1151]

@@dottypitchell208 exactly

[@Robert_Keel]

Boo Hoo Hoo. Do you understand private property? Can I come take your property?

[@lestercarter1391]

Exactly. My property is my private property,and no one is going to infringe on that. That I can promise you!

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

Wrong. The roads were built by the CCC in the 1940s and the government owns easements on these roads to this day. DFD was legally in the wrong and had no right to close off access to publicly owned lands on roads the public owned.

[@Robert_Keel]

@@GeneralBurkhalter1 If that is truly the case, I would agree. Is that what is on the deed? It seems odd, however, that this is the first mention of it that I know of. It would seem that if it were true, this would have been taken care of locally, quickly and quietly, without all the hurrah, hate and discontent.

[@GeneralBurkhalter1]

@@Robert_Keel A lawsuit was filed in 2018/2019. During that time, the state and county officials found paperwork proving the easement had existed on or around the time the CCC (which hasn't existed since the 1940s....) built the roads. The county is still suing DFD (they've allegedly violated local laws many other times besides this case) but, as far as I can tell, has removed the gates blocking access.

[@scottmantooth8785]

*cities and states do it all the time...it's called Eminent domain...underhanded practice and a huge crock of post digestive matter for the most part if they see property they want and the owner is unwilling to sell it to them as they only pay the land owner "fair market value" for the property...then rezone it to be far more valuable when sold again or redeveloped...should not be legal but unfortunately not much is done to prevent it*

[@IncredulousIndividual]

So it’s not a one sided issue...

[@Seven_Leaf]

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

[@havenbastion]

And that was decades ago.

[@donnadovico8619]

When you buy land you need to make sure that you have road access when you by property you can have this checked at the court houses or with your realtor. It is the buyer's place to do research on peices of property befpr you buy. If you need an access source need to make sure their is an legal segment. You need to make sure you have a copy of it

[@larryjanson4011]

public roads must not be gated off. there land on both sides of the rd should be posted and fenced off. but areas that the public has been using for over a decade should remain open to the public at large.

[@eleanormattice3598]

During the initial land sale from Southern Pine to the rich brothers the Idaho government should have gauranteed access to the public lands. People need to NOT litter, leave trees along and respect the environment so land owners don't mind recreators using their land. I don't mind people walking on my land as long as they are respectful.

[@american236]

This is a nationwide issue.

[@mudejartrainingnaturalscie6938]

Rich people fighting because they are now doing to each other what they have been doing to the poor for two centuries.

[@jamesharrison6201]

If it is a municipal maintained road,it can't be blocked. County needs to enforce a fire code statute

[@Day-dreamer488]

the absolute state of america...

[@Peterbilt359]

If that road has been used for many years by public to get to public land it may have to stay open or could be claimed by county for public domain. County's in Utah also have passed laws on higher property tax rates for out of state ownership because we still provide services and have no income tax from owners they show up once a year. Triple there property taxes and put no build order on there property because you can't get services there ambulance, fire, police. Then see if they negotiate.

[@Freedom17762]

Public land must have public access, period!

[@duckwacker8720]

I'd rip down every single public access point.

[@leeeng478]

This is your local law enforcement they are getting cut a fat check and looking the other way when the Texas boys close public roads.

[@75Mooses]

Privet landowners can not block people to be able to go on to public land

[@erniem1731]

This is how you get entitled people by allowing them to break the law with trespassing and let it go without penalty for breaking the law. People probably didn't check the road to see who it belonged to before traveling on it.

[@yeshaomarui3520]

I consider this to be right of way public land belongs to everyone and nobody can block you off from property that belongs to the public

[@sittingindetroit9204]

Isn't ironic that government blocks roads to public land all the time.....usually to charge a fee to use public property....

[@susie205]

I'm so sick of ultra rich people

[@jdc8352]

Selling large property to out of state/country foreigners.....bad move.

[@williamroche3539]

So what happened to easements to public lands?

[@terryrickman2975]

I wouldn't want people driving through tearing up my land or camping and leaving trash everywhere. And I highly doubt the city was maintaining private property either. Maybe the road leading up to the property line but not private land. I would of done more than gate it off I would of already dismantle the path. Obviously there selling to start building houses and more private property on that land. Which means the road would be only for people who live there.

[@Limosethe]

How would you enjoy the land if you trashed the path

[@terryrickman2975]

@@Limosethe because after destroying path and taking it away for awhile people would reroute away from that area and never think of it again. Since its your property you can access it in many ways. Id make sure general public had zero access to it for sure.

[@cattigereyes1]

You are only as free as your government will let you be!

[@sonnyh9774]

Private ownership rights trump the desires of the public. The government should sell the land and offer land grants to the buyers.

[@thomasstone5707]

As this story started I thought people have been trashing the place....pick your s$*T UP have respect.

[@nolimitarcade2865]

I'm guessing that if they are going to be logging in that area, they will be using those roads for that purpose. That's something the County should have foreseen before they spent public funds on private property improvements. WHO made the capitol gains for that work, a politician?

[@brt5273]

Exactly. I'm sure what happened is that the paper company has owned that land for decades and no one took into consideration they might sell some day. Surprise! They did. The Gov. should have settled an easement that would convey upon sale or they could have gone through the process of acquiring the road to designate as public before. Now they want those benefits for what they failed to do previously because the land value has skyrocketted and they don't want to have to pay for it now.

[@thatguy8005]

Liability… yes, I would keep them out too.

[@berserkerpatriotstore9025]

Good for these guys

[@jacobishii6121]

State should force an easement

[@kicker6274]

Well this is easy. Just close the forest roads 5ft in front of the gates and don't give access to the owners either...They can block access through their land and so can the forest service. Their land would then be landlocked.

[@kennethmcdonald5278]

It 's blocked because of money, money, money!

[@dottypitchell208]

So the land and road that is disputed is private and SURROUNDED by the Boise National Forest. That means the state of Idaho can make their own road into state and federal lands. There is no need to go through private land, because the forest is not landlocked. The private property is!

[@ericwolfe6673]

The state sold the property blocking access from ipublic access but now it's the buyers fault.. riight

[@TheJimJonesKC5DOVChannel]

We own property too - NO TRESPASSING! It's our land now so stay off - it's our choice now to allow you or not allow you despite what's been done in the past.

[@kingofmexico6290]

That's what you get when you sell all the land without preserving any for the future to visit.

[@michaelbandeko3519]

Tax them into bankruptcy!!

[@Limosethe]

For a free country, surprisingly little freedom of movement

[@havenbastion]

Everyone has a natural right to wander the Earth freely and enclosure is a crime against humanity.

[@moonmunster]

Eminent Domain. That will fix this.