BLM land

1

172andyou

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,449
Display Name
Display name:
172 Guy
Is there a canonical resource for determining the rules for landing on BLM land? The Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness is my specific curiosity today.
 
Its a "wilderness area". So, motorized vehicles are not allowed. Permits are required for some special uses. You have to call their regional office and ask.
 
Generally, you can land on BLM lands, but this being a "wilderness area," it appears off-limits to motorized vehicles and mechanical forms of transportation. The canonical resource for rules in any particular BLM area should be sought out from the Field Manager for said area, which you can locate on the BLM website. Information for the area you're interested in is here: https://www.blm.gov/visit/bisti-de-na-zin-wilderness
 
172andyou said:
Is there a canonical resource for determining the rules for landing on BLM land?
Click to expand...
Each area is separately managed. There is no single reference. The best method is to directly contact the managing office of the specific area you want to visit.
 
Wilderness areas are the most restrictive of all Federal "natural" lands. Forest service personal and trail crews are not even allowed to use chainsaws to do trail work inside a Wilderness, so no motors at all on the ground. Without declaring an emergency and having a good reason if caught, I can't see it ever being allowed. I would find another BLM land unit, there are plenty that allow everything from heavy mining to ranching.
 
The only exception to this that I know of is Schaefer Meadows in the Bob Marshal Wilderness Area.
There may be more...
 
What about national forest? I do a lot of hunting in the Carson national forest and while some areas are regulated to on road only, other areas state you can go off road so long as no damage is done.
 
Racerx said:
What about national forest? I do a lot of hunting in the Carson national forest and while some areas are regulated to on road only, other areas state you can go off road so long as no damage is done.
Click to expand...
Copied from Backcountry Pilot
Aircraft use is authorized on Forest Service land by the following regulations:
36 CFR 212.51 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/julqtr/pdf/36cfr212.51.pdf
36 CFR 261.13 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2011/julqtr/pdf/36cfr261.15.pdf

Print this out, and put it in your airplane. I've challenged a couple of FS employee acquaintances to find a regulation that prohibits me from landing in a National Forest, and no one has yet been able to find such a regulation.

State law, however, might prohibit you from landing on a road, even if it's a National Forest road.
And of course that also doesn't include designated Wilderness, and forest supervisor orders that are authorized elsewhere in the regulations.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Rogers said:
that prohibits me from landing in a National Forest, and no one has yet been able to find such a regulation.
Click to expand...
FYI: there are other violations you can run into other than just landing in a defined wilderness area. There was a previous thread on PoA where more info was posted on a similar topic.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: there are other violations you can run into other than just landing in a defined wilderness area. There was a previous thread on PoA where more info was posted on a similar topic.
Click to expand...
I actually copied this post from another source, it is edited to show that now.
 
Thanks everyone. I had been so focused on BLM that I had completely missed that "wilderness" was in the title.
 
Ah yessss....."wilderness area". Public land that .gov doesn't want you on. We (the people) own it, but we (the government) know better.
 
libertas said:
Ah yessss....."wilderness area". Public land that .gov doesn't want you on. We (the people) own it, but we (the government) know better.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, wilderness areas are places that everyone is allowed. Just not corporations to extract minerals, developers to build roads or sell concessions, or motors to make noise. Every citizen of the country is actively encouraged to grab a backpack and walk out into the wilderness areas.

Think about other BLM land. Do you think that the oil companies will allow me to walk through their active gas drilling sites? Or how about the Forest Service or BLM lands that are being actively logged or mined for minerals? Even the millions of acres of ranch land leased to farmers - is that still public land that "we" get to use freely? Or it is .gov giving those public lands to corporations for their private benefit? What would the reception be if I showed up and "demanded" access to those public lands? Probably taken away in handcuffs by the local sheriff.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
On the contrary, wilderness areas are places that everyone is allowed. Just not corporations to extract minerals, developers to build roads or sell concessions, or motors to make noise. Every citizen of the country is actively encouraged to grab a backpack and walk out into the wilderness areas.

Think about other BLM land. Do you think that the oil companies will allow me to walk through their active gas drilling sites? Or how about the Forest Service or BLM lands that are being actively logged or mined for minerals? Even the millions of acres of ranch land leased to farmers - is that still public land that "we" get to use freely? Or it is .gov giving those public lands to corporations for their private benefit? What would the reception be if I showed up and "demanded" access to those public lands? Probably taken away in handcuffs by the local sheriff.
Click to expand...
Those lands are leased. Kind of like an apartment, you don't own it, but as a lessee you can allow and disallow whomever you want, within lease restrictions. Oil companies and ranchers won't allow you in for a myriad of reasons. Liability is a big one, interference of their private businesses is another. Those leases are beneficial to the public as they generate food, fiber, and energy (100LL for example) that the economy demands. Also, those oil and gas sites are restricted to the smallest footprint possible.

Wilderness areas generally provide only recreation, which also is a benefit to the public. However, the terms of use that .gov dictates are usually prohibitive enough to discourage those who are not avid enthusiasts.

Kind of an apples and oranges comparison.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
On the contrary, wilderness areas are places that everyone is allowed. Just not corporations to extract minerals, developers to build roads or sell concessions, or motors to make noise. Every citizen of the country is actively encouraged to grab a backpack and walk out into the wilderness areas.

Think about other BLM land. Do you think that the oil companies will allow me to walk through their active gas drilling sites? Or how about the Forest Service or BLM lands that are being actively logged or mined for minerals? Even the millions of acres of ranch land leased to farmers - is that still public land that "we" get to use freely? Or it is .gov giving those public lands to corporations for their private benefit? What would the reception be if I showed up and "demanded" access to those public lands? Probably taken away in handcuffs by the local sheriff.
Click to expand...

I hunt the Carson National Forest. I can hunt on any national forest land or BLM land that I have access to. Ran into a forest ranger and he was looking for his Bull that was grazing where we were hunting. My rancher friend has private against a few sections of BLM. I can hunt there too. Unit 2 in new mexico is dotted with oil rigs. Can't hunt private or the reservation. But any state, forest, or BLM that you can legally access is fair game. Any forest service road is useable, even if it's through private.
 
libertas said:
Those lands are leased. Kind of like an apartment, you don't own it, but as a lessee you can allow and disallow whomever you want, within lease restrictions. Oil companies and ranchers won't allow you in for a myriad of reasons. Liability is a big one, interference of their private businesses is another. Those leases are beneficial to the public as they generate food, fiber, and energy (100LL for example) that the economy demands. Also, those oil and gas sites are restricted to the smallest footprint possible.

Wilderness areas generally provide only recreation, which also is a benefit to the public. However, the terms of use that .gov dictates are usually prohibitive enough to discourage those who are not avid enthusiasts.

Kind of an apples and oranges comparison.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it is apples and oranges at all. Wilderness areas are OPEN to the public. Leased government lands are CLOSED to the public. So you have a huge amount more public access to wilderness areas than the millions of acres of leased lands.

The National Wilderness Preservation System includes 803 wilderness areas protecting 111,368,221 acres (174,012.845 sq mi; 450,691.20 km2) of federal land as of 2019. Most of this is in Alaska - I did not do the exact math, but many more than 50 million acres are in AK.

As of 2017, nearly 26 million acres of federal land were under lease to oil and gas developers in the United States. Those leases prevent people from accessing the sites, regardless of whether they are "in-use" or not. Your argument that the pad sites are small is moot, because the companies can and do restrict access to their entire lease areas, not just the pad sites.

It costs as little as $1.50 per acre to lease the lands. While just about any adult citizen of the United States may qualify to hold an oil and gas lease, the BLM stipulates that any bid you cast “will represent a good-faith intention to acquire an oil and gas lease.” In other words, you acknowledge before bidding that it is a crime under “18 U.S.C. 1001 and 43 U.S.C. 1212 to knowingly and willfully make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations regarding your qualifications or bidder registration and intent to bid…” So no other people or organizations are allowed to bid on the lease areas, even if they have valid public uses. This seems a bit one-sided towards the companies and quite un-public.
 
libertas said:
Wilderness areas generally provide only recreation, which also is a benefit to the public. However, the terms of use that .gov dictates are usually prohibitive enough to discourage those who are not avid enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

As one of the avid enthusiasts, I'm quite happy with the restrictions that exist for Wilderness Areas.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
I don't see how it is apples and oranges at all. Wilderness areas are OPEN to the public. Leased government lands are CLOSED to the public. So you have a huge amount more public access to wilderness areas than the millions of acres of leased lands.

The National Wilderness Preservation System includes 803 wilderness areas protecting 111,368,221 acres (174,012.845 sq mi; 450,691.20 km2) of federal land as of 2019. Most of this is in Alaska - I did not do the exact math, but many more than 50 million acres are in AK.

As of 2017, nearly 26 million acres of federal land were under lease to oil and gas developers in the United States. Those leases prevent people from accessing the sites, regardless of whether they are "in-use" or not. Your argument that the pad sites are small is moot, because the companies can and do restrict access to their entire lease areas, not just the pad sites.

It costs as little as $1.50 per acre to lease the lands. While just about any adult citizen of the United States may qualify to hold an oil and gas lease, the BLM stipulates that any bid you cast “will represent a good-faith intention to acquire an oil and gas lease.” In other words, you acknowledge before bidding that it is a crime under “18 U.S.C. 1001 and 43 U.S.C. 1212 to knowingly and willfully make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations regarding your qualifications or bidder registration and intent to bid…” So no other people or organizations are allowed to bid on the lease areas, even if they have valid public uses. This seems a bit one-sided towards the companies and quite un-public.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that those private companies are developing FEDERAL minerals for the benefit of the public good. It's not all bad. We need fuel to fly airplanes, drive trucks, cars, generate electricity, and run an economy. Federal lands are the one source utilized that actually pay royalties back to the states affected by the development activity. I would rather private industry develop these minerals than the government. I wouldn't trust government to make buttered toast, let alone develop minerals.

I'm not opposed to wilderness areas. I just don't always like some of the restrictions to use "our" land, however.
 
Then come to Lake County Illinois where you can't go on forest preserve property and the ones you can go on have gravel trails, but don't go off trail or you'll get a talking to. Its a joke. They have a dog park, but you have to pay 10 bucks a day to use it. Pretty sure I already paid to use it. Really wish they'd stock it with birds to take the bird dog out. But then I wouldnt need the plane to go out to Iowa or the Dakota's.
 
Racerx said:
Then come to Lake County Illinois where you can't go on forest preserve property and the ones you can go on have gravel trails, but don't go off trail or you'll get a talking to. Its a joke. They have a dog park, but you have to pay 10 bucks a day to use it. Pretty sure I already paid to use it. Really wish they'd stock it with birds to take the bird dog out. But then I wouldnt need the plane to go out to Iowa or the Dakota's.
Click to expand...
Precisely what I'm talking about.
 
libertas said:
Precisely what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
Except wilderness areas are completely free and open to the public 24/7 for people to use the entire area, not just “on trail”. Yet you keep going on that federal lands being leased for $1/acre and restricting access to the public is more “free and accessible” than a wilderness area.
 
Was I the only one that opened this thread thinking it was about flying to Seattle or some other WOKE area of the country?? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top