Landlocked WMAs

N

nater

Member
Long-time listener, first-time caller. Or whatever people say.

I've noticed that there are a few WMAs in SW Minnesota that are completely landlocked (ie not even a skinny access lane). Most of these have judicial ditches that connect to the property from a public road. Can you walk down the middle of the ditch to access the public? Is there always an "implied easement" somewhere to these parcels?

I suppose I will call the DNR tomorrow to ask, but I was curious if anyone here had experience with that.
 
I don't know the answer but it is really dead around this forum this time of year. Only reason I'm peaking in is I'm really bored today
 
nater,

I don't know either. Lets us know what you find out, please.:thumbsup: I bet it is different from state to state.
 
Keep looking most of the time there is some sort of section road that gets you there. I have driven by places for years wondering how you get to a peace to hunt it. Until one day I drive by and see were someone parked. Also using the mn dnr recreation compas might help. Welcome to the site.
 
The biologist basically said there was no legal access and that I had to ask one of the surrounding landowners for permission. He did give me the name (but not any contact info) for a landlowner that had given the DNR access permission for maintenance purposes last year.

Since last week I found another property somewhat nearby that the Rec Compass says "permission to access this property must be granted by one of the surrounding private landowners."

This throws me for a bit of a loop...MN has a pretty strong legal precedent for condemning an easement to gain legal access to a landlocked parcel. I know of at least 3 WMAs in my area that appear to have no legal access. Why on earth would we have public land without access? Why wouldn't we use the court to gain access to pieces of land such as this? Seems like a waste of sportsman's dollars to have landlocked public land.
 
We have a couple of landlocked wma's connected to our property. These cam about when the mn dnr was first starting the wma system. They wanted land with habitat which at that time most farmers could not farm. The ones we have were donated by my grandfather as abuisness decision as he could not farm it and still was taxed on it. This was done wight he express agreement that it would not cost him anything to donate. Considering that he farmed all the land around these pieces. So by your comment of declaring imminent domain then it would break that agreement. It would also cost him the loss of productivity. The cost to the state in legal fees as well as compensation to the owner with property values as they are would be prohibitive. it also would not play well with the land owners that we as sportsmen need for the future of habitat conservation as well access for our pursuits.
 
I understand what you're saying, and frankly if I was in your position, I would do everything I could to maintain that same exclusive access. That being said, as someone who pays taxes and license fees that go into the maintenance of that property, I want access to hunt it or I don't want my taxes and license fees going to maintain it. Why should I be paying to maintain the private hunting club for the surrounding landowners? If the goal is for it to be a game refuge, then NO ONE should be able to hunt it, not just the adjacent landowners and whoever they give access to.

As far as the legal issues I mentioned, the court cases I've read resulted in the landowner who had to give up an easement for access getting compensated for that taking, and I think that only makes sense. The particular property I asked about already has a perfectly-situated access lane along the ditch, so it would not involve taking land out of production. As far as the state having resources to compensate the adjacent landowner, I would think that would pose no issue since they would only be paying for an additional acre or two of land in return for gaining public access to 70-80 acres worth. That's quite a bargain compared to buying a completely new parcel for hunting.

I do understand the validity of an agreement that was made in exchange for the land donation. Fortunately programs like RIM/WRP/CREP etc. now provide the same tax relief while allowing the owner to retain ownership.
 
Unfortunately the tax situation for set-aside lands has changed in MN. I received this in an email from PF recently.


Dear Conservation Supporter,

We need your help repealing a law very harmful to conservation efforts in Minnesota. In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law that prohibits county assessors from lowering the land value on property enrolled in a conservation easements program. This is a serious blow to restoring our prairie landscapes and protecting our water quality.

The law would, in most cases, remove tax-break incentives for enrolling land in the Reinvest in Minnesota Reserve (RIM) Program, discouraging landowners from participating. Taxing lands based on previous use ? cropland ? instead of as the grasslands and habitat they become once enrolled isn?t right. These easements create wildlife habitat and improve soil and water quality for all Minnesotans, and farmers and landowners want to participate without being penalized.

As a Pheasants Forever supporter, we need you to help us repeal this unnecessary burden on conservation in Minnesota by:

Contacting your Minnesota state legislators and asking them to support the repeal of Mn. Statutes 273.117 Conservation Easement Property Tax Valuation.

Click here to find and contact your state legislators.

http://pf.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0zOTMwMjM5JnA9MSZ1PTEwNDY4ODg0NTImbGk9MjIxNDkzNDM/index.html

Thanks for your support on this important conservation issue and for your continued support of wildlife habitat and Pheasants Forever.

Pheasants Forever is dedicated to the conservation of pheasants, quail and other wildlife through habitat improvements, public awareness, education and land management policies and programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top