getting permission on rural land

[suburbanite]

I don't trespass on people's land, but I'm reading a lot of you have had problems with trespassers.

There is a lot of ranchland that is quite beautiful near where I live but is private land, so I never go on it. But I'd like to.

Is there a commonly accepted way of asking for permission to walk on someone's land, solely for the purpose of, say, getting on top of a hill to enjoy the vista, or taking photos of spring wildflowers?

What kinds of precautions would need to be taken to prevent the landowner from fearing liability issues if you fall down or step on a rattlesnake or something?

[bob clark]

unfortunatly in the sue happy climent that we live in today you will not find many land owners that will give permittion

[Siryet]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I don't trespass on people's land, but I'm reading a lot of you have had problems with trespassers.

There is a lot of ranchland that is quite beautiful near where I live but is private land, so I never go on it. But I'd like to.

Is there a commonly accepted way of asking for permission to walk on someone's land, solely for the purpose of, say, getting on top of a hill to enjoy the vista, or taking photos of spring wildflowers?

What kinds of precautions would need to be taken to prevent the landowner from fearing liability issues if you fall down or step on a rattlesnake or something?

I would find the owner and explain my wishes and just ask. All they can do is say no.

[nodak3]

Also, make sure the land you asking permission to be on is owned by the rancher. In our part of the west, most likely it is blm land or forest service land, and you already have the right to be there. Doesn't stop the grazing rights holder from trying to bluff you off, however.

[Lynne]

What WIHH said. Plus if you are granted permission and want to use the property on a regular basis ask the land owner for a letter granting you permission. This way if you meet someone else on the property you have proof to show you are allowed to be there.

[caballoviejo]

Over the years I've allowed several people on my land. One is my neighbor and two others that I've stuck with are a deer hunter and a marksman.

What I like is that none leave any evidence of having been on the land. No trash, no road marks, nothing. I'm surprised when they tell me they had been there. Others, however, really are clueless when the make work for you.

They don't bring others on the land either except a wife once and a boy once (O.K. with me). They neighbor helps keep anyone off that I haven't given my permission to. So does the deer hunter. The deer hunter once shot some beaver out of the lake for me at my request.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by nodak3

Also, make sure the land you asking permission to be on is owned by the rancher. In our part of the west, most likely it is blm land or forest service land, and you already have the right to be there. Doesn't stop the grazing rights holder from trying to bluff you off, however.

What? Are you under some mistaken impression ranchers don't own land, that all the land they use belongs to BLM or The Forest Service?

[tsdave]

I would not give permission. Besides there being cattle there, I dont have a whole lot, so it really wouldnt be worth their effort to 'walk' it.

Your best bet is to find local trails or parks. There are lots here, they look just like my land, but more wild.

Streams are usually fair to walk in, although the owners of the land nearby wont be happy.

A few have followed up creeks to here, where they start, and have to be told the creek ended , or begain , however you see it, but it aint creek no more ! :-)

[kasilofhome]

I was asked a few times and each time I said yes. I asked about the details and an agreement was made. In asking respect was shown and obsticals were removed. I could explain that the first hunters allowed on the land would have to hunt for the disabled or food bank. That only one hunting party at a time.

Last year my husband who is diabled was able to hunt for a moose with our son only because someone who asked was willing to agree. One piece of meat for us and the rest for the hunter who just so happened to really need the meat.

I want to be fair with the resources that we have the moose are wanted by many for the antlers but I firmly believe in the harvesting of the meat.

So ask and if yes find out any rules and try to return the fave. in some way.

[suburbanite]

Kasilof, I've relatives in Alaska and I've had moose meat. Maybe you can convince the antler-hunting fools to give all the meat to you and they keep the head. That's like them buying a birthday cake so they can eat the candles and throw out the cake.

Anyone who hasn't had moose meat and has the opportunity, should most *definitely* take it.

[suburbanite]

Around here we have several eroded volcanic basalt domes flecked with multicolored lichens and twisted trees poking out from the rocks. Most of them are on private land. I'd like to take pictures of them up close (without actually climbing any) and get some non-road-bound vistas that include them.

[PyroDon]

In this area SE Ks most land is being leased for hunting or fishing .
I have always allow those who ask to hunt fish or bird watch to do so .
Those that dont ask are not welcome and will have the dogs turned on them.
Im not above chaining and padlocking a vehical to a tree to prevent a tresspasser from leaving before the sheriff gets here.

[boonieman]

Each case is different because you don't know what the landowner has experienced with trespassers o reven folks who had permission. Like if you gave somebody permission and they left trash all over the place for example. If I were you, here's how I'd approach it. First off, ask face to face the first time, not a phone call. If somebody I dont know simply calls me for permission, the answer will be no. Second, when you ask permission to take photos, tell them how beautiful their property is and that you'd be glad to share copies of the photos with them. Most folks are proud of their property, but just may not have the time to have ever taken pictures of the place. Third, have in your hand or pocket a written statement releasing the landowner from any liability issues. To say you'll sign a release and not have it already to go requires effort on the part of the landowner to think of what to write, then write it. Why should they go to that effort? Way easier to just say no. If you have it ahead of time and things are looking iffy, you can whip that puppy out and say you will be glad to sign a release. That can tip the scales in your favor. Good luck!

[Windy in Kansas]

If I really wanted permission to be on this land I would take a written statement along with me when going to ask permission.

The written statement would state my purpose for being on the land, photos, nature hike, etc. and would also include a statement stating that in any event of my getting injured that I would not sue under any circumstances, and in the event of my death the statement would direct my heirs not to litigate for any reason. There would be a fill in the blank space for the owner's name and property location, and I'd sign the statement in the owner's presence IF he allowed me access and then give it to him for safe keeping. It should include whether blanket permission, or a one time permission as others have stated.

Just my opinion. Two weeks ago I asked permission to metal detect on some land previously owned by relatives of mine. The land owner quickly agreed to let me, but requested that he be allowed to go along so that he could learn where the dug-out home sites are that I wanted to search. I'll do so and expect I will also get permission to search his other land holdings. I'd like to search his grandparents old place as the were late immigrants to our area and may have buried money, etc. instead of using banks.

[nodak3]

Barb--no, I am not under any mistaken impressions. I live in an area where most of the ranchers own a section or two of deeded land. They may have grazing leases on much more than that, and frequently post "no trespassing" signs on the LEASED land, where they have no legal right to do so. They frequently drive the forest service roads and tell people to leave "their ranch" even though folks are on the roadbed, driving nicely, and quite legally there. Unfortunately, in some parts of the west, ranchers have not learned that open range laws and customs of the 1880's have been superceded by modern laws. My bro worked for blm for 20 something years, and it was unbe-danged-lievable the garbage a few ranchers would try--such as sitting at the cattle guard on a public road entering land they held only a grazing permit on, and trying to charge an entry fee to hunters. Truth was, the hunters (and the rest of the general public) had as much legal right to be there as the ranchers. Now they are trying to keep oil and gas employees off some of the same land. Rancher holds a grazing lease, petroleum people hold an oil and gas lease, coal company holds a mineral lease, and the citizens of the USA own the land. There are clear laws stating who can be on the land, doing what, when, why, etc. Unfortunately, these few bad apple ranchers think the law applies to everyone but them. I know not all ranchers are like that. But some are.

[Barb]

But, Nodak , it still doesn't mean that it's " most likely" that the ranch land you see doesn't belong to the ranch itself. And it implies that ranches are mostly on public land.

Perhaps it is so in your area but it isn't all over. No one stops you here from using the Grasslands as long as you abide by the Forest Service rules. And the National Grasslands are clearly marked.

"Bad Apples" are everywhere in everything. AND there are two sides to every issue.

[Ed Norman]

Originally Posted by Barb

But, Nodak , it still doesn't mean that it's " most likely" that the ranch land you see doesn't belong to the ranch itself. And it implies that ranches are mostly on public land.

Perhaps it is so in your area but it isn't all over. No one stops you here from using the Grasslands as long as you abide by the Forest Service rules. And the National Grasslands are clearly marked.

"Bad Apples" are everywhere in everything. AND there are two sides to every issue.

Idaho is over 60% public lands, Nevada is over 80%. So chances are, in fact, that the land is public. Around here it is fairly easy to tell, the deeded ground is usually irrigated and the public land is dry. Not always, of course. There might be a BLM sign along the highway when you enter a different district, and the Forest Circus usually puts up a sign on a main dirt road when you hit their boundary, but most of the land is unmarked. I haven't run into any ranchers acting like Nodak said, thank goodness.

[Barb]

Ed, wow! really suprised how much land is public land in Idaho & Nevada. Did a quick search and Idaho according to the BLM is 22% (not 60%) but Nevada is 89% (Yikes).

Never-the- less you should not assume in any state that a ranch is public land. I'm not, so keep your tippy toes off.

[big rockpile]

I've only had one Family ask if they could come on my place,to have a picnic by my waterfall.I went ahead and let them.

big rockpile

[marvella]

in this neck of the woods, you might run across a crop of something illegal. it really pays to ask, and if they have some excuse, stay off.