Texas billionaire Wilks brothers install gates, no trespassing signs on Forest Service road in Idaho 

the question is, was that road maybe before the land was sold? is a access road to the property and therefore attached to the property?

If that were the case it would be reflected on the title/deed. if the road is part of the deed there should be some kind of easement indicated. if going through the property is the ONLY way to get to another property then the state can force an easement. if there are alternative means to get to another property then people will and should use that.

@angry bushnell you are sure this roadway go to somewhere beyond their privat land?

jutwerner yes they clearly state the road is the access point for public land. Becouse it is a forestry service access road, it belongs to the federal government and is legally open to the public.

Who maintains the road? The forest service?

@Joey Barreras front doors are not a fire hazzard.

A front door is very different than a gate. When fighting fires, a front door restricts airflow to the fire. This causes the fire to not spread as fast. That is why fire fighters need to check doors for heat before they open them. A gate does not restrict air, it restricts access. The fire will blow right past a gate. Firefighters and rescue vehicles need roads for access. Depending on the gate and the location and installation, going around or through it may net be possible. Since these guys are from texas i would assume they know how to build a gate..

@Joey Barreras ok, there is no difference between gas and diesel then, both make your car run, so, go fill your car with diesel. See what your semantics lands you.

Ryan Smith they never said they are land locked there might be another road in from somewhere els said the previous owner let them doesn’t mean the next owner has to !!! Unless it’s put in the sale agreement !!!

Dont worry...we bust through them if there is a wildfire.

Funny story this guy bought private land on a mountian in the wind river indian reservation (he was a rich guy from back east). The previous owners were really cool and let natives hunt or go through their land. But he decided to put nails on the cattle guard so no one was able to drive onto his land. There were a couple people that got flat tires from it. A couple guys i know just cut his barbed wire fence with bolt cutters and kept on going. They were never caught and the guy has yet to fix the fence.

Yeah but they lost

thequack1968 they’re still mostly alive and well across North and South America.

Not really native Americans had sovereignty denial and lack of enforcement Wich is a common issue when encounters take place along extreme cultural and economic differences. It would be like settling you on Mars without representative or local sovereignty but enforcing sovereignty outside means and capability of Earth. Your rebellion would be imminent. Earth would not be able to directly challenge your sovereignty. At least in any immediate way. Native Americans politically chose the economic super powers and ceded sovereignty over their direct enemies this intiated war between the economic super power in the defense of their new territory and or citizens. It's not a collective generalization that all native Americans had issues with land control. You can look at northern plains native Americans and see how that sovereignty imposed on lesser tribes was quite brutal far beyond the necessity. Especially in comparison to Western doctrines and culture. So no most native Americans did not have the same complaint long ago. Your applying politics and moral understanding of today's post world war lens to people who would never comprehend a world war. As the civil war was the closest thing since and before that the Crimean war. As far as the Indian wars and sovereignty go it was trade deals and raids Which folowed with retaliation and regurgitated revenge killings and property seizures. All with the use of force. These were then settled by military raids and campaigns these actions brought about generalization and labels in Wich to dehumanize and bring battle and for some revenge style justice. Wich fed to the idea of the expanding the sovereignty west bound as most find death and war to be of great profit. The issue here is more akin to the English nobility and the treatment of the commoners and peasants on their land and how the people were denied human rights based on the circumstances of ownership of the land. Like a road to the chapel being blocked or fenced for the cattle or sheep to the detriment of would be religious peasants but this not their land so what rightfully could they do. The chapel being a source of their lives where meal share and learning may take place on what is a public good Towards a money hungry exploitive bureaucrat Noble. At least from the bias of this recorded piece.

Right. It didn't matter then, it doesn't matter now

checks and balances

Joey Barreras That’s public land.

Big Bend park - is that not “public” ? Its enormous - many sections of land - not sure what you meant

@@billmeriwether605 You wanna live there?

alwaysopen live in a public park? - Have you ever been there? - I have - its gorgeous - there are a lot of visitors and an incredible golf course

And this is a problem? 😑

Only police or fire department can do this. They don’t need a warrant. Just bolt cutters (or a free surplus tank)

They could actually just get rid of the road altogether, it’s their road now. They put build a mansion right in the middle of the street where the gate is even

@@thomasa4239 Or some thermite.

@Theory of a StrawMan no they never said that the road was owned by the former owner they said the former owner kept the property open for other t enjoy

Exactly

Sounds like common sense to me

it a road in middle of nowhere.... so yeah they would try to do that...

It's not tho sadly

Its not

If was a public road the law would’ve done something sooner. People are idiots

@Steve Johnson Do you understand how easements work,dumb-dumb?

And there wont be people arouns to see I'm till its to late

If there is a fire, firefighters put civilian right secondary to the fire. It sounds bad but it is actually necessary to ensure public safety. If they need to get to a fire they will one way or another. That’s why it is illegal to block fire hydrants, and if you do, they CAN and WILL smash your windows and run the hose straight through your car.

@@champandhomie Ageed, imo if a vehicle is blocking a hydrant, firemen must go through or (under a high vehicle if access is easier) and the vehicle user has to pay for damages out of their pocket -no insurance claims allowed, and they also have to pay compensation to the fire department for inconveniencing them.

@@olivertaylor4779 Plus a nice costly ticket from the police.

What kind of fire truck doesn't come equipped with bolt cutters?

actually its the property owner makes the rules, as it should be

@David Moore why do you think the government is trying to take guns from law abiding citizens. Big changes are planed. That people will not like.

I thought the Golden Rule was Bros before hoes

The one who put a value on gold in the first place makes the rule!

There's no business like snow business!

we have the same , it's called the constitution of both the federal and state level. Both of which grant citizens of America freedom of movement. As long as I do no damage or cost the land owner no money, their is nothing they can do to me for crossing private property. Also over rules presidents and governors lock down rules/orders. They simply do not have the power to restrict our rights. No one person does

@@johnaustin6673 none of this is true and you've neither read nor understand the constitution

In the UK you have "Travellers rights" which required a huge social movement to make happen. You should tead about it. It is fascinating. We don't have those rights in the US the closest we have is a useage right. Example I've walked across a field to get to work for 10 years. Someone new buys it, puts up a fence and starts building a building that would prevent me from doing so. Per us lae they have to make reasonable accomodation..perhaps moving the building and installing gates I have access too

@@charlesreid9337 I understand it way more than you

@@charlesreid9337 not to mention I have studied it for decades. So it's you that have never read it, nor understand it

BookCade NB Ain’t that the truth!

Not unless they're dead

If billionaires want it, youve already lost it

cut there nuts off

Yep, they own the governemnt

They know , they are bullies .

@larry james the problem is, this brothers have no reason to go there! i don`t know the laws in the us, but in my country every landowner, or the munincipality must give an other landowner a "paths right" or "accsess" to his property by a short and reasonable way from a near public road! if this is an old agreement and is not dokumented, what it usally is, applies after 40 years of using this road, a right too use it automatically. the public is anyway allowed to enter any forest! (but no cars, no motorbikes, no quads. on certain rural roads mountain bikes are ok. of course no open fire, no hunting and dogs..... on the leash!)

You are so dumb

@Matthew Smith Excuse me for interjecting, but the original road was built by the Forest Service in the 1950's to open up the area for logging, fire control and recreation. It shows up on topography maps dating back to 1960. The road has been maintained by the Forest Service from that time.

@Matthew Smith FEDERAL property, not state or county like a great majority of Idaho. Enforcement of such property rights and access is a federal issue.

@Matthew Smith The PRIVATE land was sold, not the federal land. The land holdings in that region were held by lumber companies and miners. Access by road was desired by all parties involved. Often the lumber companies cost shared the building and maintenance of the roads. What needs to be looked into is the original agreements about access through the private lands and how those agreements have been amended. IF the private property owners do get control over those roads, they will also have to take full responsibility for maintaining them. And if a forest fire breaks out on their property, the government can also demand payment for services rendered.

Those millions are meaningless. this land “purchase” is just a feeble attempt at making them have value. But this only exists as long as it is enforced. It’s all a sick delusion

really? do you let people walk through your back yard?

They’re greedy for not wanting people on something they paid for?

@@handyman7748 does your back yard get maintained through public tax money?

Nothing new under the sun

Public easement

@Max Power it is both. People generally wanted it because it wasn't dangerous but the states found it good for $$$

Wrong bozo it’s the belief people put on money and the illusion the government wants people to keep on believing in money. People make the rules but the illusion of money gets in there way

Well weed isn't bad and neither is not letting people use your property

Also casinos

You should be happy about the legalization of weed the government kept this right from us for too long

Federally mandated road on private property. Yeah that is in the constitution somewhere right? Right next to the section where the bill of rights was just a guideline and not a directive to the government to step off. I get why the road is there. I get why the forestry service wants to have access but there are better ways to do this than pass laws that will undoubtedly be abused. Just make them responsible for fire access. Simple solution. I bet they didn't even originally know it was a forestry road and I bet you that the owners were not even the ones that put in the gate or the lock. They most likely have a property management company doing that.

What part of private property do you not understand, it’s private property. Previous owners were nice enough to let people use it. New owners, new rules. Plain and simple, they don’t have to let anybody use that Road, it’s their property. how would you like it if someone came and told you what to do with your property, to let people drive all over it and litter on it.

@@carsfabio The issue is the road may not actually be private. If it is an access road then it is public property. Sure if it is not an access road then they can do whatever they want but on my land I have a public access road that runs right through a section and I legally can't block it because it is for emergency vehicles, and to access the BLM land my property blocks.

@@brandonandreski1709 So, who originally owned the road? It wasn't the forest circus. Who has the legal right to sell public roads?

@@shaverlocal I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. If the road is a public road that happens to run through private property, they exist, then because it’s a public access road for emergency vehicles the only people who have a right to block it off is the county or state that owns it. Doesn’t matter who originally owned the road it only matters who currently owns the road. If the road is private property he can do whatever he wants with it.

And get arrested for theift

@@paulrasmussen8953 Only if theyre stupid enough to get caught. They seem like resourceful enough people to know how to not get caught.

Screw California if you live in California you should think about escaping

@@desertdogg9773 that's not very brave

@@desertdogg9773 stupid comment.

California always sells out. It a corrupt government

Yeah liberals made enough space for you to live on the street

They declined to comment because its unnecessary. They paid for it so they do what they want with it

There's good & bad people in all income levels. My Grandmother was wealthy but drove around a Volkswagen beetle because she liked it. She never had a bad thing to say to anyone & donated most of her wealth to many charities that deal with animals & mental health.

The don't own the road.

I agree mostly but it’s been known that reporters have reached out in such ways that they can’t be contacted so that they can say that they did not receive a response. I’m not saying that’s the case here but it does happen. So take for example if I sent an email at 3 o’clock in the morning and then I published my report at 6 AM and then I technically could say I reached out for comment but received no response

If you force law abiding citizens to be criminals to get access to public land. It's gonna be bad

Jon Gregg Force? No one forcing them to break the law. The clowns who run the government are selling land and the real question is to who’s benefit? We have the same issues here and it’s ridiculous. I personally want to stop electing individuals and have a vote on everything. We are a digital age. We could once a week sit at our computers, log in, and vote. This nonsense of individuals having this much authority is not working. Especially when we the people have ZERO recourse.

@@wwrite agree!

The Weapon Collection unless there is easements for the road the state did you wrong. My state has done the same things. We the people get the short end while they the politicians gain.

The Weapon Collection you can say the previous owner understood the process, but that may not be the case. The previous owner may not have cared to invest any time or money to do anything other than sit and wait around for someone to offer up money for a lot of undeveloped property. This story doesn’t have the hard facts as to whether the public has legal easement or not. Right/wrong/indifferent, I would imagine that unless something make s the new property owners happy from back room meetings that would make this a non issue, the Billionaires will somehow make this situation very advantageous to their own benefit.

@AI B We The People created that easement by simply using the road. Now that our access has been blocked the good citizens of Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and other states where this is happening will have to go to the courts for relief.

I am. I'm standing up for my right to own property and do what I please with it. Nobody can tell you what to do with property you paid for

i spoke with a guy in 2018 who was bear hunting in that area. i made a comment about the new gates. he told me he did not care he had been hunting that area for over 20 years and was going to keep doing so. bless him!

What you’re “standing up” for is a lie.

Or a Stihl chop saw.

A good torch is a good tool. Claim your right to access your public lands.

No need to get drastic. Most padlocks are poorly designed and can be easily picked. Just identify the padlock they use, go to the Lockpicking Lawyer's or Bosnian Bill's channels and find out how to pop it open. Some locks don't even require a lockpick, and can be opened with a soda can tab or even just a simple pin.

Well said!

Wrong, and pretty dumb.

@@oldbatwit5102 yuh

And nothing ever happens about it.

@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 not usually.

I'm in Oregon. I always love it when their fresh new gates get pulled down every weekend.

As they should

And get arrested

If there is a threat to life or property a chain and padlock will never even slow down a firefighter.

@@navydoc8695 they have no authority to step foot on the property.

@HIS Footprints OnWater yes...you DO make a point...what the county or state has to do is to buy a portion of the land that will allow access to the center. And, if no one is willing, then, the state/feds can access, but, not be used for "public use." someone in the state gov't screwed up, if that state/county/fed land is locked inside private property, but, then, again, this kind of thing is commonplace in places like MI, but, it is the REVERSE situation- USUALLY, government land owns the circumfrence and, surrounds private land, not vice-versa... it is actually an odd situation in a way...

@HIS Footprints OnWater me too.

Someone did.

Ammon and Cliven Bundy warned everyone. Obama was land grabbing threw the bureau of land management. The billionaires clubs were buying. BLM has bee pulling this stunt for awhile. U.S. Fish and wildlife are in on it.

They are buying private land..not public land.

Well apparently they can dummy

not that simple. it sounds crazy, but there are non-national forest lands within the boundaries of the national forest. the west half of the boise national forest is pretty chopped up.

The government? You mean that swamp thing most Republicans hate? Good luck with that. The Wilks pay for their reelection campaigns.

@freEvo8 its too late they already sold it to them. They can do what they want with it now

Agenda 21 in action.

No. It's their land their rights

There is private land tracts within national forest and outside the borders of national forest.

They sold it so now its private property. Do you not get how this works?

Its called bolt cutters. 20 bucks at home depot. Just check for a trail cam first

Unless it is plainly stated on the deed/title documents, there is no 'easement' or free access to privet property.

They destroy everything. Everywhere. They believe in nothing.

They do the same thing to people here in Texas. It isn't custom here so much as what money is allowed to get away with.

PolSmokesPot { ولد الوجيهي } no they don’t, it’s inside a private property who the previous owners allowed people use it now they sold it and the new owner want it closedown. So no is not own by Idaho people.

The road is public and was maintained by taxpayers. The land is private.

That’s like buying all the houses on a street and then blocking off the road.

@@winecraft5009 no because I dont own the street but they do own the road totally different

@@jordanlittle5391 2:20 "It's been maintained by taxpayer dollars for decades."

You can't go around cause it depends what land is owned. Example if the own land 10 miles either direction of road than that's the go around point.

I know that in the case of the one in san mateo county the DA said that they will not prosecute anyone who climbs over the gate. So its basically still open

That’s the thing the road isn’t theirs..........

i live 30 minutes from that gate. used to go hiking there in the summer, snowshoeing there in the winter, what a shame.

The roadway is not theirs to lock. They can gate their driveway.

@@HandymanKurt yes it is theirs

lol

No, they can't. They *think* they can!

At least someone gets it😂😂

Actually....it very well could be a national forest access road or legal easement across private property to get to national forest or bom ground. And no.... no fencing is required to delineate the easement. But the issue is that the public has always been allowed access. There are all kinds of access roads where only firefighting and construction equipment have access. Just because federal employees can use a road to access federal lands dies not make it a publicly accessible easement.

george symons I guess that’s option 3 then. Shared by everyone. This court is adjourned......and I never went to college 😂