[CNP]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

That reminds me of the leaseholder that told me I had to hire the Outfitter if I wanted to access the grazing lease to hunt elk....

I guess they were only selling a service, not making me pay for access.


CLAS's recreational access model has not been determined to be legal.

When asked by CLAS, the government gave no opinion as to whether the recreational access part of their business was legal or illegal. The gov did decided to not charge them and test the case in court, at the time.

This could very well change. I've discussed this with the gov, CLAS and lawyers. Other legal opinions suggest that the model is illegal.

The law states that NO ONE may be compensated for providing recreational access. CLAS is acting as an agent for the land/leaseowner, receiving a valuable service from CALS. CLAS receives financial compensation from the recreational access user. In other words and IMO, both CLAS and the land/leaseowner are recieving compensation for providing recreational access, which is illegal.


I've stated here before that the owners of CLAS have class and have developed a model that could be a great benefit to Landowners, recreational users and the government. I am not against the concept in general, just against the current financial scheme.

What happens if/when fees increase to join CLAS or another similar company? Or when the fee is charged per access request?
This property is $1000 to access, that one is $50.
With groups like ACA using CLAS, what if in the future ALL lands require paying for this "service"?

What if? There is never an end to what if's...I don't see the what if's you are concerned about being a possibility. Either they would be illegal or they would price themselves out of business.

Not being against the concept, how you be against the "financial scheme"? There is never a charge to access property, there is a charge to be a member of the system that administrates a website that manages who, what, when where and why. Surely there has to be a charge for the administration of this process. Who is going to do this for free? You're going to have to wean yourself off of the "scheme" that spirals a fee for access. There is no fee for access because that would not be legal. That's how I view it. If it is not legal, then I would support shutting it down.